The problem with housing is not the cost of the house itself, is the zoning laws that limits the amount of housing that can be built close to workplaces and where people wants to live. Just let construction companies built residential buildings, duplexes and other denser housing that single family detached houses and prices are going to go down.
No, the problem with housing is that it is a financialized commodity that is engineered to go up in price faster than wages because it’s an investment. Not just for individuals, but for real estate companies and banks that gamble with the loans. Zoning laws are a symptom of this, but even if you basically get rid of them (as happens in various places in Texas), the same trend applies.
Those construction companies (really, real estate companies) all get big loans to build those apartments and they do so with an expectation of per-unit profits, often with unrealistic targets unless property values increase even more, and often targeting richer people. When they fail to rent enough at that price point, rather than decreasing rents (which would spook their lenders), they just leave units vacant until they can hit that price point. There are half-empty “luxury apartment” buildings dotting every major city due to this.
The most anyone can point to for the impact of zoning is that prices to rent tend to go up slightly slower.
Your local government is also likely funded by property taxes that are pegged to property values, which is why they never do anything sufficient to handle this issue.
People generally want that suburban ideal, of a four bedroom house, two car garage, a front and backyard… Zoning would be needed to require housing to be denser, rather than allowing sprawl.
Private contractors also prefer building single family homes because they get paid way more to do 50 individual houses than put up an apartment that houses 50.
We aren’t here because people are stupid. We are here because this is where all the incentives align.
Sure, absolutely. That’s also why you see “luxury” developments popping up everywhere; they can make cosmetically nicer houses that have a higher profit margin, while not spending significantly more than a more modest house.
But, again, this is why you need zoning to restrict sprawl.
The problem with housing is not the cost of the house itself, is the zoning laws that limits the amount of housing that can be built close to workplaces and where people wants to live. Just let construction companies built residential buildings, duplexes and other denser housing that single family detached houses and prices are going to go down.
We tried no zoning except parking minimums. The result was Houston.
Found yer problem
I think the real problem with Houston is the fact that it’s in Texas.
No, the problem with housing is that it is a financialized commodity that is engineered to go up in price faster than wages because it’s an investment. Not just for individuals, but for real estate companies and banks that gamble with the loans. Zoning laws are a symptom of this, but even if you basically get rid of them (as happens in various places in Texas), the same trend applies.
Those construction companies (really, real estate companies) all get big loans to build those apartments and they do so with an expectation of per-unit profits, often with unrealistic targets unless property values increase even more, and often targeting richer people. When they fail to rent enough at that price point, rather than decreasing rents (which would spook their lenders), they just leave units vacant until they can hit that price point. There are half-empty “luxury apartment” buildings dotting every major city due to this.
The most anyone can point to for the impact of zoning is that prices to rent tend to go up slightly slower.
Your local government is also likely funded by property taxes that are pegged to property values, which is why they never do anything sufficient to handle this issue.
People generally want that suburban ideal, of a four bedroom house, two car garage, a front and backyard… Zoning would be needed to require housing to be denser, rather than allowing sprawl.
Private contractors also prefer building single family homes because they get paid way more to do 50 individual houses than put up an apartment that houses 50.
We aren’t here because people are stupid. We are here because this is where all the incentives align.
Sure, absolutely. That’s also why you see “luxury” developments popping up everywhere; they can make cosmetically nicer houses that have a higher profit margin, while not spending significantly more than a more modest house.
But, again, this is why you need zoning to restrict sprawl.