Hacker News Reader

> They are building these gigantic highrises, that are destined to be packed with yuppies.

Unless there have been major changes in the last few years, many of those buildings will not, in fact, be filled with yuppies. They'll sit vacant, parking the money of the world's ultrarich in a low-tax investment.

Think of apartments the way you think about cars. New ones cost more, and many lower income people think of a new car as a luxury that they can't reasonably afford. But you need people to buy new cars in order for them to become used cars later. And like we saw during the pandemic, when the car factories shut down many of the people who wanted a new car jumped into the used car market instead, and prices for used cars went through the roof.

If you don't build new housing, then the people who can afford it will just end up driving up the price of older homes. Alphabet City is expensive now because they didn't build enough apartments in the East Village to meet the demand from people who want to live in that area.

>Around these parts, these new housing units are insanely expensive.

So long as the total number of units increases, it really doesn't matter how much they cost, so long as they get filled. Increased supply will bring down rents at the less expensive end of the market.

I lived in exactly that in Liberty Village in Toronto for a period. "Lulu's and Shitzu's" it was often called. How right they were.

New rental-only builds were even going up in the area, not just condos. But they were more expensive to rent than the bloody condos, and about 3/4 the size.

Areas like Alphabet City, that used to be considered "dangerous," are now primo real estate, and well-dressed young couples walk their toy poodles around these neighborhoods.

How awful. The government should do something about this kind of degradation.

Supply is supply. Unless they are tearing down older units, new expensive apartments should make the older, less trendy units cheaper.

You mean the ones they knock down, to make room for the highrises?

Supply is supply, and there's only so much real estate in NYC.

There are still a whole lot of brownstones waiting to be bulldozed!

If you knock down 300 units to make 800, that's still going to improve things.

For investors from China, yes. For locals, not so much.

Okay, if the units get used then it's good.

and thats the problem. if you watch any of Louis Rossmans videos on NYC real estate he explains the Issue.

Buisness dump invested money into expensive building. If no one rents then it stays vacant. Why vacant, isnt the landlord going to lose money? well yes but if he rents a lower amount then his valuation goes down and he is suddenly upside down on his loan. So he is compelled to not rent versus renting it.

Add to this governments make more tax yearly if its valued hire and now there is no incentive to fix this.

You'd think a speculation & vacancy tax would solve this, but doesn't seem to as seen in BC, Canada :(

More about the tax: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/speculation-vacancy...

https://vancouversun.com/business/real-estate/three-years-in...

That tax appears to be .5% or 2%? That's not very much for someone that's already giving up rental money. Let's try 8%.

>I am not personally familiar with the way France is structured, but I have been told that the cities are where the wealthy live, and the suburbs are where the not-wealthy live.

I hear Italy is the same way. Source: Gomorrah