[1] https://www.immobilienwirtschaft.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg28...
[1] https://www.immobilienwirtschaft.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg28...
I beg your pardon? You can't possibly call rent prices in Vienna incredibly low and still keep a straight face. Maybe for the lucky Viennese that got grandfathered in some rent controlled flats, but last time I looked (pre-covid), rents there for new comers were insane compared to the next "biggest" cities like Graz or Linz, while Viennese working class wages were not much higher than those other two cities, if you exclude fancy lawyers, bankers, UN, IAEA and other diplomats.
Maybe rent prices have come down a bit recently due to covid disrupting AirBnBs but even telling Austrians that rents in Vienna are incredibly low is a guaranteed way of getting a few laughs out of them.
The measure I would apply is whether middle class people can live in the city, and that's definitely the case, in contrast to e.g. Munich.
Munich is the only city in Germany that I can think of that's comparable to Vienna in terms of wealth, demand and size though.
So I don't see how this is moving the goalposts.
That's exactly what I said. What's your point in the end?
>Munich is the only city in Germany that I can think of that's comparable to Vienna in terms of wealth, demand and size though.
"$EXPENSIVE_CITY in the country I live in, is less expensive than $EXPENSIVE_CITY with higher wages in another country I don't live in."
Great, how does that help me? I'm sure rent is even more expensive in SF or NY but I don't compete on the jobs or rental market with those over there. Whataboutism doesn't pay my rent or feed my kids.
Turning it around since I don't see your point. Comparing to smaller, and/or less in demand, less wealthy cities doesn't give a good comparison to whether rent control/social housing in Vienna works or not.
The fact that there are cities in Germany, or in any other country, that are even more expensive is irrelevant for the people here.
If you have free pricing in perpetuity, then you can build housing that might have a lower margin near term but an overall high NPV over its lifetime.
I don't disagree that they don't add much to the cost, but they are high-margin offerings - people pay more rent for places that offer these.
http://38doloressf.com/amenities/
Amenities: LEED Gold certified, butterfly garden, outdoor living room with fire pit
Compare that building with the 181 Fremont[2] in SOMA which has a several private lounges, a doorman, a building concierge, and valet parking. Several other building in that area, such as the Avery[3] do have pools. I'd consider that 181 Fremont would still be a luxury offering in a city like Chicago where the housing market isn't insane.
However, despite the range the building offerings, most units still rent out for $55-75/sqft.
[1] https://www.avaloncommunities.com/california/san-francisco-a... [2] https://181fremont.com/amenities/ [3] https://www.theaverysf.com/lifestyle
Contrast that with the more spartan apartment buildings building 30-40 years ago. Basic construction, laundry in the basement was the main amenity. These were clearly built for middle or lower class folks to live in.
Rather than contrasting it to living standards 30 years ago, it makes more sense to contrast it with living standards today in real estate markets that aren't insane. A comparable apartment to 38 Dolores, with similar amenities is Chicago's Jeff Jack apartments[1] which has much of the similar amenities at a fraction of the price (~$1,000/mo for 1bd) - still likely targeting yuppies but in a different tier than Chicago's high end offerings. However something like a building in Chicago's Gold Coast (which has pricing of around ~3,500/mo for bd) includes features that are in 181 Fremont - pool, lounges, concierge, dry cleaning and even larger floor plans than you would typically find [2].
Alternatively you could say that a lot of apartments in SF get away with charging luxury prices for what really should be standard fan-fare apartment because demand is so high. The GP mentioned more succinctly, a lot of units in SF are cheaply constructed building that are actually rented at luxury rates.
[1] https://jeffjackapartments.com/building/ [2] https://www.twowestdelaware.com/amenities-and-features/
It's not legally defined as anything so any developer can build a shoebox with a bathroom and a murphy bed throw in a nice countertop and call it "luxury".
It's also become a pejorative for ANY market-rate housing in cities by NIMBY anti-development types.
What do you mean by that? Rent control in SF only applies to buildings built before mid-1979. New buildings built today, whether low-end or high-end, will not be subject to rent control now, or in 15 years.
There was a 2020 ballot initiative to change that so buildings older than 15 years old could be subject to rent control on a rolling basis, but IIRC that failed. (And even if it had passed, that wouldn't explain the last 10+ years of predominately "luxury" building.)
New construction is exempt, though.
https://www.apartmentguide.com/blog/rent-control-vs-rent-sta...
https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/faqs/...
Yep, those are the definitions. It looks like rent stabilization policies are frequently mis-termed "rent control", though.
Luxury has many uses as a euphemism "No Karen, just because it is an apartment doesn't mean it will cause a flood of criminals!" NIMBY defense, "Sounds good so you will pay more." and the hillariously low bar to pass "Literally anything above neccessities to sell the place."
A HUGE portion of the city is just giant single family homes or 2-3 story buildings and you are absolutely forbidden from redeveloping them into dense, affordable housing.
Change the zoning laws and developers will gladly build affordable market-rate housing.
And it's not like people can easily find housing outside of SF and commute in, about 80% of the Bay Area is zoned for single-family housing as well. There was a damning report[2] from UC Berkeley on this just a few months ago.
[1] https://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/
[2] https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-san-fran...
1. Land zoned for more than a single-family home or just a few units is relatively scarce and thus expensive.
2. The planning process is ridiculously long, which means:
2a) They need to pay property taxes on the unimproved land for much longer without any income, and
2b) Investors expect a certain % return per year, so a longer amount of time between the investment and sale means you need higher prices.
3. Nearly every development project faces lawsuits from NIMBYs, and lawyers are expensive.
Remove rent control and we'd still have the same situation with new development.
That is, globally applying a cap on rents would be a bad idea, since there would be no incentive to build new housing. However, when coupled with restrictions such as requiring only some fraction of new housing construction to be below market rate it can produce better results.
Imo we should just solve this issue once and for all by supplying government housing to anyone at a low price, but there seems to be little political will for that. It seems to me if you can reach the right people to pay for it they would gladly pay to solve homelessness (which, is admittedly more than just having available housing), but it's difficult to get that to happen.
Edit: Ah, I’m realizing now that you may have meant delivering it to the occupants at a low price out of their pocket, and not necessarily at a low cost overall.
Singapore does exactly this with the HDB flats.
Way cheaper than a private condo ($1M), but still a significant barrier to many people in Singapore especially since you can’t buy one if you’re single until you’re over 35.
Where would that end? If you always build more to accommodate any poor or homeless people, they'll come from other cities to enjoy the cheap housing.
If you applied that uniformly across the US, no one city or town would become hot spots for migration.
I don't think this is really a workable policy, however. Not even sure it'd be constitutional for the federal government to do this.
And public housing has a reputation for being lowest-common-denominator, poorly-built, and poorly-maintained. If you drive through the south of the Potrero Hill neighborhood in SF, you'll see a lot of public housing, and... frankly, it doesn't look particularly pleasant to live there. I'm sure there are much worse options, but the housing there doesn't look in great shape.
Vacant properties should be taxed at an increasing rate sufficient to force the owners hand to either lower rates (and realize the losses from the new valuation from their creditors) or liquidate the property. The proceeds of these taxes can go towards the building and maintenance of affordable housing in the district their collected from.
This should encourage liquidation of speculative properties in hot markets and allow those without capitol to compete against those living parasitically off of their "investments".
Obviously this isn't perfect, and I'm open to admitting it's a terrible plan. But can we at least try something FFS? So long as people are homeless and can't afford to buy homes near their jobs I don't think anyone is entitled to profiting off of renting property.
Also worth trying:
Eminent domain land and task the national guard or army engineers with building minimally viable affordable housing condos. Attach a jobs program to train the un/under-employed from the area and scale up to the size of the problem.
or
"Yeah my policy is toxic political poison that will ensure the defeat of any politician who runs on it outside SF and Manhattan but SO WHAT?"
In that case why have politicians at all?
You can advocate for Soviet style collectivization and liquidating all businesses in the US if you want but no one outside of SF is ever getting elected on it in our lifetime.
If you think taxing zombie landowners and forcing a more equitable evolution in the archaic property market is too extreme wait until you hear some other ideas like:
Nationwide rent and mortgage strikes
Renters unions
Actually collectizing housing by taking property, some people aren't even ashamed to say they'd be forceful about it if their positions continue to deteriorate.
We can keep debating solutions to these problems until the worst effected take matters into their own hands, and pay more to clean up the mess, or we can behave like rational humans and make sure that everyone has the basic necessities of life as a prophylactic against mob violence from those with nothing to lost but their miserable lives.
So please, take a stand and share with us what your solutions are and how you're so confident they're better than the ones I've mentioned. Casually calling ideas extreme and unserious without honest consideration is at minimum rude and at worse a disingenuous bad faith distraction from the merits of my statement.
[] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/great-affo...
These policies you mention are already everywhere. You just haven't been obviously effected by them. Perhaps you're even a beneficiary.
I would expect it to actually increase the market rate because setting aside some amount of the supply at below market rate / subsidized means that there is a smaller remaining supply than if they hadn’t done that.
1. There's no right to live somewhere. If you cannot afford it, it doesn't matter you grew up in the place or that you like the place a lot. 2. No place is inflatable. You can increase density, but only to some point. 3. Have you seen how housing built in this style looks like? Most of them are concrete cubes. You can find them anywhere in Eastern Europe. It's not desirable.
Let's imagine a beautiful town on a small island. Neat houses and everything. Place for 100 houses. But now, 1000 families decide to live here. So the politician replaces those 100 family houses with a five huge 100 unit buildings. Locals get units, living is more affordable for everyone. The place is destroyed. Nobody wants to live there anymore.
So those 1000 people find another beautiful island with 100 neat houses...
The latter seems like it would be a workable system: incentivize new buildings by allowing the owners to charge whatever rents the market will bear for the first 10 or 20 years or so, then eventually they revert to rent control (presumably after the original construction costs have been repaid and then some).
Typical YIMBY broken record here, but in the U.S. it's more or less illegal to build new housing on almost every inch of land (especially in the most expensive cities). We don't need to develop baroque incentives for developers to create housing; we need to stop making it illegal.
And then, yes, of course, there are some plots of land where it's legal to build one or more of the categories listed above.
The places where housing is scarce are in the former groups, by and large, not the latter, which is to say the problem where housing is scarce is indeed that it's illegal to build enough housing there. Those places don't need to incentivize development. They need to make it legal.
Manhattan for example is about 7x as dense as Vienna. There just isn't the space for the government to be churning out cheap flats for the amount of people that want to live there.
SF is not nearly as dense and there is absolutely a lot of space to build there but unfortunately the zoning there is an absolute nightmare that doesn't seem to be getting better any time soon.
This strategy wouldn’t work out for a much faster growing city.