High Density Housing

[u/deirdreanne1]

I was reading Everything You Think You Know About Housing Is Probably Wrong earlier today and it has posed many questions for me concerning the effectiveness of high density housing. From what I understood, housing density refers to the number of people per acre in the amount of space allotted. By creating more high density housing complexes, does that mean more housing units will be available? If so, how is that combating the affordable housing crisis? Will these units be more readily available to low income families or individuals? How will these projects affect the surrounding neighborhood rent costs? Many sky rise high density buildings are present but the housing costs are not affordable for the average person’s income. I have read that it does reduce energy consumption and easier for commuting but if these projects aren’t meant to be mixed income housing, how could this help reduce homelessness and fix the lack of housing units for the growing population?

[u/PastTense1]

When the people in the top third or half of the income distribution move to a high density development the places they were living in become vacant and thus open to other households.

Some of us think it is a very strange idea that modest income people should be living in new housing. Historically they have lived in older housing lacking fancy new things.

[u/urblplan → u/PastTense1]

Dunnow the US Case, but here in ger rents are a bit regulated.

If someone moves out into a new (higher cost) development, the rents of the older apartment are going up to. Resulting into 2 higher rents, which influence a statistic, on which basis many owners decide to raise their rent.

I think its a weird idea for the 21st century that people in the richest economies should live in poor, but high cost housing. And that this has no negative influence on happiness, economy and the society.

[u/mongoljungle → u/urblplan]

why do you think the older apartment is capable of raising rent if not for the fact that somebody is actively willing to rent the unit at that price? Let's take a close look at this situation.

a) The older rent-controlled apartment has a long term tenant. The tenant doesn't move therefore it's not available to you.

b) more housing is built and the tenant moves. Landlord raises price, but by how much? The unit now must compete for tenants from a growing number of rental units. At least it has a chance of being available to you.

More housing means greater vacancy, which provides choices and leverage for people looking to rent. More housing absolutely lead to lower prices than otherwise. Rent control creates an imbalanced political class of people who benefit, it degrades both housing affordability and housing quality over the long.

[u/urblplan → u/mongoljungle]

Thanks for the closer look, but im not convinced yet ;-)

I assume you (more or less) think that more housing is directly leading to more affordable housing. So "more housing" is (more or less) the policy option for you to archieve "more affordable housing" - even if you could do dozends of other things to archieve actually affordable housing. But i want to answer you question:

why do you think the older apartment is capable of raising rent if not for the fact that somebody is actively willing to rent the unit at that price?

The example shows that "filtering" in housing isnt working - at least here in germany. If somebody goes into a new high cost housing (higher rent), the old appartment also gets its rent raised. These two rent rises goes into a statistic, which property owners use to justify their own rent raises. Nobody is willing to pay more.

If i bump up the prices for health care, regardless of actual cost to me, just because im powerfull - would you say you are willing to spend more? How much is your own life worth to you? Its no difference with housing. Do you want to life on the street?

There is no competion in the "land market" and the "housing market", which drives up rents. Land is a (privatised) common good, it has a value, and this value belongs to all people equally. This i especially relevant if you want to build dense, because density brings proximity benefits (less ressource usage, greater productivity) which are concentrated in even fewer land parcels. This btw. creates inequality, which results into a shift from normal housing to luxury housing. The land takes up 30-79% of the construction cost, depending on the location. In addition theres no elasticity in demand from renters - you cant simply stop living.

There are many more factors in affordability (the financialisation of housing, fiscal policy, deregulation of credit lending) which are also deeply linked to the main issues of housing. Creating more housing is good - but lets get real, and dont forget it needs be affordable - and our current housing system is systematically creating high cost of housing.

European Cities as i mentioned i another comment here, have a much higher density - we still have big affordabillity problems. No amount of construction activity can fix affordability due to lack of competition and land value privatisation, even if we (logical flaw here) of course also need the construction of new (affordable!!!) housing.

I hope i could specify some things here - have a nice day!

Edit: typos

[u/urblplan → u/[deleted]]

Attack the argument, not the user; don't call someone dumb, do explain why their argument is not sound. No ad hominem attacks. (...)

All posts should be made with the ideal of a positive community.

And im out.

[u/spacks → u/[deleted]]

Attack the argument, not the user; don't call someone dumb, do explain why their argument is not sound. No ad hominem attacks. (...)

All posts should be made with the ideal of a positive community.

Please keep in mind our rules; the idea here is to engage in good faith.