I hear living with roommates isn’t so bad.
Hell the only reason I made enough money to graduate university is because of subletting. Living in a 1000sqft house with four other people isn’t exactly fun, but it is cheap.
So the answer isn’t the mass murder of the condo owners, it’s the mass murder of competing homebuyers or renters who are driving up prices through increased demand. It’s so simple…
I agree, I think it’s funny that people seem able to complain both that ‘well-off people flee the inner city for the suburbs, how awful’ and ‘well-off people are buying houses in the city, how awful!’. Which one is the bad one, leaving the city when you have money or moving to the city when you have money?
Is this supposed to be insightful? This does not apply to the neighborhoods I’m talking about, and no, they are not better places to live.
I have little idea which neighborhoods YOU are referencing. But in general, when a developer comes into a neighborhood and either renovates or replaces older housing with rehabbed or new housing, they invest significant money. They improve the streets and sidewalks and increase the tax base, allowing the local government to provide more services. Nearby homeowners and landlords feel justified in renovating, as do commercial developers who attract stores, restaurants and service businesses that most people appreciate. Perhaps you don’t think that makes for a better place to live, but many do.
Perhaps you have more insight into how neighborhood economic cycles work than I do, but I’ve been working with commercial real estate in several locations for many years.
Pssst- notice my user name? Think maybe, just MAYBE I know what’s happening in Astoria and Long Island City?
Burning down housing stock is not going to help the problem, is it.
And higher prices do not directly drive out tenants. Landlords who make their life miserable by not doing repairs do. Or who raise rents to unreasonable levels.
House prices have skyrocketed in my neighborhood, to the point where most of us could no longer afford to buy or houses. But we don’t have landlords, so it is okay.
Ah, so you are one of the gentrifiers… I’ve got my eye on you… :dubious:
I like where your head is at.
This kind of highlights the reason why affordable housing is never addressed; those in a position to do anything about it tend to see rising housing prices as a *good thing, because they own the housing. They benefit, while anyone who isn’t already a homeowner suffers.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
BTW, you think rich people are evil for gentrifying formerly affordable neighborhoods? How about rich people devoting whole bedrooms or entire condos to their pets, as described in this article from The New York Times?
I’m not… but I know quite a few. I just find the whole idea that “fixing up properties is evil” to be bewildering. In my world, renovating and developing are not bad words.
Yes, better streets, more light, less crime, better services…
NY is pretty unusual though in having extensive rent control*. I’m trying to think which working class neighborhoods specifically you’re thinking of where a lot of tenants aren’t rent stabilized. It could be some, since it doesn’t apply to building with less than 6 units, which are the main thing in some outer borough neighborhoods. But where ‘gentrification’ has been hottest, places in Brooklyn where it has been say, most units are RS and landlords have to pay RS tenants to leave. Unless the whole building is being torn down but that’s not as common.
Just saying, it’s somewhat different than other cities. Not saying RS is a cure-all, or even that it’s a good policy overall. It encourages owners to let units deteriorate. It encourages tenants who need a small one bedroom to stay in their big 2 bd because the 2 bd is $700 RS and the one bd at market is $2500. It encourages misuse of scarce resources IOW. And the going rate for non RS wouldn’t be $2500 if you dumped all the RS units on the market, it would be in between current RS and current market. But RS does mean rents in whole neighborhoods (of 6+ family buildings) don’t go up overnight.
*technically ‘Rent Stabilization’. In NY ‘Rent Control’ refers to an older system that now affects few units whereas Rent Stabilization applies to over 1 mil units.
Pssst. Your location, in the upper right of every one of your posts, says Austin, TX.
You live in a place where smoking pot is legal. Maybe you should look on the bright side.
While I do support it being legalized, sadly that’s something I don’t benefit from. I’m one of the rare people who has a bad reaction to it; only takes a few hits for me to go from dead sober to a state somewhat similar to falling-over drunk just before blacking out.
I tried a particularly concentrated bit of dab at a poker game after which I had temporary amnesia for an hour or two; no idea who I was, where I was, or what I was doing. Decided never to touch the stuff again after that.
Two different things; the original “white flight” was more of a conjunction of segregation laws/practices (like redlining and blockbusting) and a strong difference of socioeconomic status between whites and ethnic minorities. In other words, the laws and practices favored the white people moving to the suburbs where the blacks were restricted from moving, leaving the inner cities with decaying infrastructure, low property values, and the like.
Fast forward a little more than half a century, and you have the white people(the grandchildren of the original white flyers most likely) returning from the suburbs with money and taking advantage of the areas with very desirable locations, but low property values by buying the houses and renovating, or tearing down and building new. As a consequence of having a relatively wealthy population, the area is then populated with more upscale businesses and services which charge prices appropriate to the newly arrived residents, not to the remaining “original” inhabitants.
Either one more or less gives the shaft to the poor, either by leaving them behind and fostering low income areas, or by essentially transforming a part of town that’s affordable to low income people to an area that’s not. In many cases, this causes the low income residents to have to move further out and also often incur higher transportation costs.
The flip side is that from the city’s point of view, it’s hard to argue with. You essentially raise the property values in the inner city and simultaneously either drive the low income residents and all their problems to an already lower property value area, or if you’re lucky, you drive them to another suburban city entirely and realize a net gain on the deal.
Single family home /= home.
If many people want to live in a metropolitan area, you’ll need to either spread it out to the point that traffic is a major problem (e.g.: LA) or increase the density. Increasing the density will at some point mean that most people won’t live in single-family homes.
That’s the process which is happening. Most people are being priced out of low-density dwellings as they should be. If they don’t want that, they can go to areas where few people want to live. I hear Detroit has cheap single-family homes. Thousands of small towns have dirt-cheap housing.
All the way back to Uruk, cities have been wonderful for their return-increasing network effects; Everytime you add a node to the network, that network becomes more useful and attractive which then attracts more nodes. Their inhabitants benefit from having so many other people nearby. The cost is that there are so many people nearby.
Forgive my Canadian naiveté but I’m at a loss as to why most Americans seem to think a single-family home with lawn and backyard is owed to them or even all that important.
Gentrification is sort of the flip side of dying coal mining towns. The changes do suck for the residents, but it’s not something that can really be stopped, and unfortunately the affected people often have terrible ideas about what should be done to stop the world from changing around them. They do stuff like join NIMBY groups that agitate to keep the big bad new buildings out of their area, which just raises housing prices even more, etc.