Extremely misleading headline.
The poor are better off when there isn't a housing shortage, because (surprise, surprise) the rich aren't the ones who are going to be forced out.
The poor are better off when there isn't a housing shortage, because (surprise, surprise) the rich aren't the ones who are going to be forced out.
"The poor are better off when we constantly build more than enough housing for the rich."
The last paragraphs actually point that out, albeit in a slightly reversed manner. As long as high-end housing supply is continuously being satisfied, the more aged buildings become affordable even without 95% percentile incomes.
On the other hand, I do find it somewhat insulting that the figures assume a time window of 50-60 years. This kind of approach ignores a crucial externality: if it takes ~3 generations of neglect to see the problem, it also takes another ~3 to repair it. Even assuming a perfect 180-degree flip in housing, zoning and transit policies, that's a century lost to bad decisions and blind greed. And in the meanwhile, the city is pricing itself out.
I'm not a historian, but I sure would like to know a bit more. Has any great city survived 100 years of exodus?
Dislaimer: I live in (Greater) London.
"More housing" is a pretty fluff summary of the intricacies of building sustainable neighborhoods.
Like when you go to the grocery store before a holiday, many people will tend to buy the leftovers [constrained stock] they normally would not buy --so it is with housing.