Hacker News Reader

Comment by saudioger | Hacker News Reader

Of course they are, they don't want to get priced out of their neighborhood by gentrification. You can live in an undesirable area for 20 years and have somewhat stable rent, but once the area gentrifies because of a crunch on housing availability, a developer's going to start buying properties, slapping on a coat of paint, and doubling the rent.

It's happening _incredibly_ quickly in Boston's neighborhoods one by one. It happened to The South End, Southie, Jamaica Plain, Somerville (not technically Boston proper but 10 years ago they used to call it Slummerville), and now Dorchester and Roxbury are gentrifying.

I own a single-family house in a previously undesirable area, and on 2 separate occasions I've had developers come to my door cold trying to buy my single-family house to tear it down and develop on the property.

View on HN

But new developments lower rents, since they increase the housing supply.

But a lot of people simply don't understand this and fight development despite it being in their best interest.

Then again, I see that one of the two studies was done in San Francisco, and if the renters are in rent controlled apartments, they don't have much reason to care about housing prices and can oppose development because they don't like change.

They only lower rent if they meet demand. If demand far outstrips supply, rent will continue to rise, just slower with new development.

Slower rises are still better than faster rises

They always lower rents, compared to if they hadn't been built.

Not if they increase demand, as gentrification does!

I know people think that happens, but economists haven't been able to see it.

What does happen is that both housing construction and gentrification increase when the economy is going well. It's easy to think that one is causing the other when in reality they're both caused by an underlying factor.

new development lowers the average rent, but doesn’t lower the rent for those who have been living in rent controlled apartments for the last ten years, when their apartments are replaced with fancy ones.

That greatly depends on the kind of development.

Not really, as long as the housing isn't going literally empty because of absent Chinese investors or the like.

If the new development is luxury low-density bullshit, it burns finite development space on low-density occupancies while raising average rents because they're expensive on top of it.

If this situation also started with the demolition of low-end high-density housing, it compounds in the direction of increased rents.

Rents don't go down when a neighborhood gentrifies...

How is this not obvious?

I get the impression the HN crowd is so solidly in the demographic of the gentrifying forces being overpaid tech folks that these types of discussions will always be strained.

You're of course right that if you tear down 50 units and "add" 20, rents will go up.

My unstated assumption when writing "new development" was that it's a net addition of new development.

I think that was obvious to most, but now I've spelled it out.

Aside from that, none of your caveats hold. Even adding high end luxury housing lowers the average rent, compared to if it wasn't added. If you don't understand that, you don't understand basic supply-and-demand economics, and will struggle understanding a lot of what happens in society!

The luxury stuff in California is often actually relatively high density, the run-down cheaper places they are replacing are often lower density, so density is still going up.

Since after the Johnson era, high density low income housing has been taboo.

>Of course they are, they don't want to get priced out of their neighborhood by gentrification.

And what about those of us who got priced out of our neighborhood this past year?

>It's happening _incredibly_ quickly in Boston's neighborhoods one by one. It happened to The South End, Southie, Jamaica Plain, Somerville (not technically Boston proper but 10 years ago they used to call it Slummerville), and now Dorchester and Roxbury are gentrifying.

If they're still holding it, I plan on attending the Somerville city meeting tomorrow night to fucking scream at them to stop trying to impose density limits. How am I supposed to move back to Somerville after getting priced out into Medford with net-added units equaling zero?

Hell, has anyone tried getting Cambridge to stop being a leafy fucking suburb that actually takes up almost half the Red Line?

But NIMBYism holds back the development that might lower rent. I understand why property owners don't want development, it can undermine the value of their property. But why don't renters want development?

Most people don't have even a basic understanding of economics or the incentives that drive markets. They equate development with gentrification and displacement. They don't realize that by opposing development they're actually restricting supply, and thus increasing prices.

> They equate development with gentrification and displacement.

Because even densifyig redevelopment usually does that, and not accidentally.

> They don't realize that by opposing development they're actually restricting supply, and thus increasing prices.

The people concerned about displacement have a preference for their current location that exceeds the cost savings they might realize by being displaced by a new development, even if that development drove down average prices in the broader area by upply side effects (which it might not; because new development can attract new people, induced demand can prevent local price reductions.)

because it's their apartments being developed, they get kicked out for rent hikes

Solution: more development in rich neighborhoods

Which isn't going to happen if the residents have a say because the rich are the worst offenders when it comes to NIMBYism.

Multiple residents of the North End of Boston went to a public meeting to complain about the addition of handicapped ramps on brick sidewalks because it would damage the historic authenticity of the neighborhood.

The Cape of Massachusetts couldn't get an offshore windfarm because locals complained about how it would negatively impact the view.

> Which isn't going to happen if the residents have a say because the rich are the worst offenders when it comes to NIMBYism.

Ok, then we take away their say and put zoning decisions at the state or regional level. Fuck rich NIMBY's, I want a place to live.

I think you are confusing cause and effect here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com