Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a peculiar case because the government is basically driving this development, right? Even if these buildings are empty now, all the government has to do is bullzone some rural communities and force their inhabitants into the cities. Much to the chagrin of urbanistas on C-D and Streetsblog, the U.S. Government can't do the same to suburbs.
According to the "Agenda 21" conspiracy nut crowd over on the P&OC forum, Obama is planning on doing that next week...
No, you do induce demand. Single family housing in the suburbs is no different. Migratory growth happens in a region. Migratory growth can only happen with available housing supply.
No, none of this is true. You have it reversed.
Growth occurs because people are born, or because people move in from somewhere else. Births don't happen because buildings were built; people don't move to a new city because a new residence was built.
You grow a population by growing births or inmigration. Housing production is a consequence of growth, and does not create growth, as if I'm going to make a baby with someone because a new apartment building was just built down the street.
Will he get around to installing microchips in our forearms before then?
Probably, though the question is does that happen before or after we're all herded into FEMA camps and forced to buy CFL lightbulbs...or something along those lines.
You can most certainly overbuild. I've gone on tour of basically abandoned five-year old apartment mega complexes in Shanghai. You can way overbuild.
I agree, however, I'm talking about regional growth when I say overbuild. You can overbuild your population growth rate, but D.C. is NO WHERE NEAR THAT! Infact, we are way below it.
This is about population absorption by jurisdiction.
Growth occurs because people are born, or because people move in from somewhere else. Births don't happen because buildings werebuilt; people don't move to a new city because a new residence was built.
You grow a population by growing births or inmigration. Housing production is a consequence of growth, and does not create growth, as if I'm going to make a baby with someone because a new apartment building was just built down the street.
Huh?
You are confusing everything I just said. Where did I say this:
"Growth occurs because people are born, or because people move in from somewhere else. Births don't happen because buildings were built; people don't move to a new city because a new residence was built."
That was your claim. Population growth is nothing more than births and in-migration, so if buildings "induce growth", they're apparently inducing childbirth, immigration, and cross-country moving vans.
That's a peculiar case because the government is basically driving this development, right? Even if these buildings are empty now, all the government has to do is bullzone some rural communities and force their inhabitants into the cities. Much to the chagrin of urbanistas on C-D and Streetsblog, the U.S. Government can't do the same to suburbs.
This is exactly why that couldn't happen in the U.S. You wouldn't get financing for your project!
This is exactly why that couldn't happen in the U.S. You wouldn't get financing for your project!
It has nothing to do with financing, and yes, banks make stupid real estate loans all the time (see 80's S&L crisis, 90's recession, 2008 economic collapse, etc.).
That was your claim. Population growth is nothing more than births and in-migration, so if buildings "induce growth", they're apparently inducing childbirth, immigration, and cross-country moving vans.
You sure about that? Please see below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
You know what is funny about that article, when I read it a few weeks ago, they failed to mention the amount of time it takes a building to fill up. A 400 unit building takes 2 years to lease up. Buildings in NOMA are still filling up faster than two years. I know NOMA very well and know management. If a submarket gets 1,000 units at the same time, it will take a few months for the curve to change again. Let's see what happens in a couple months.
Also, keep in mind, you can't overbuild apartments. Apartments create induced demand. All that happens is the population shifts to the new units overtime, thus increasing housing supply which is badly needed in D.C. and we are way behind. D.C. could build apartments until there was no land and it would still not be enough. The lease up time is for management companies to worry about with their excessive profit margins. All that happens is they have to wait a couple months to lease up. D.C. land offers major return on investment and developer demand shows that. D.C. this year, for the first time in 60 year's, increased it's share of the metro region population growth per capita over the suburbs. That will continue to move up going forward.
So.....
Induced Demand = people having the ability to move into units
You see, when there isn't an apartment building to move to, people have to stay put. Why do you think exurbs grow? It's new construction. Without it, there could be no real growth that would make anybody notice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
