Is gentrification or gentrifier a controversial term in Pittsburgh (Washington: apartments, rental market)

[theta_sigma]

This thread being bumped reminded me:
1362 Hawthorne St, Pittsburgh, PA 15201 - Home For Sale and Real Estate Listing - realtor.com®

If you're not planning on having kids in the next few years (or ever), here you go.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

The question is always begged...if building new affordable units is desirable and profitable, why is that demand not being met? If that is not the case, how can you sustain the same level of local (poor) population in a gentrifying area and incorporate the wealthy newcomers? Do some (but not all) people get forced out? Or do you prevent gentrification altogether by stifling all development?

The reason affordable units are not profitable is pretty simple. Around 100 years ago, the U.S. enacted building standards which stopped the construction of units which didn't meet building codes - more or less shantytowns. Construction of these sort of substandard units, however, was the traditional way that housing was (quite profitably) built for the poor). So because low-quality housing was no longer allowed to be built, there were really only two ways to provide for low income housing. One was to subsidize its construction with public money. The other was to let historic neighborhoods go to ruin, letting existing housing values depreciate until they became affordable for even the poorest.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The reason affordable units are not profitable is pretty simple. Around 100 years ago, the U.S. enacted building standards which stopped the construction of units which didn't meet building codes - more or less shantytowns. Construction of these sort of substandard units, however, was the traditional way that housing was (quite profitably) built for the poor). So because low-quality housing was no longer allowed to be built, there were really only two ways to provide for low income housing. One was to subsidize its construction with public money. The other was to let historic neighborhoods go to ruin, letting existing housing values depreciate until they became affordable for even the poorest.

Sounds like a lousy way to house vulnerable people.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

Sounds like a lousy way to house vulnerable people.

The point is, as long as we decide there is some minimum level of built standard we're willing to allow for residential structures, there is no way the "free" market will ever be able to accommodate housing for low income people. Some subsidies have to be baked into the system.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The point is, as long as we decide there is some minimum level of built standard we're willing to allow for residential structures, there is no way the "free" market will ever be able to accommodate housing for low income people. Some subsidies have to be baked into the system.

So rather than give developers money to build in affordable units, why not subsidize existing residents to market rates?

[theta_sigma]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

So rather than give developers money to build in affordable units, why not subsidize existing residents to market rates?

We do. That's Section 8. Though Section 8 also does come with periodic inspections to make sure the units are up to a certain standard. That's the cited reason why a lot of landlords don't wan to accept Section 8 tenants.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

So rather than give developers money to build in affordable units, why not subsidize existing residents to market rates?

You're absolutely right. Study after study has shown that Section 8 vouchers are a far more cost-effective way to house low-income people than throwing federal money at new "mixed-use" developments.

The downside is that you can't ensure the affordable units will be in a particular neighborhood. So Section 8 in no way stops gentrification from happening. But from a utilitarian standpoint, it's the best program.

[bluecarebear]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The point is, as long as we decide there is some minimum level of built standard we're willing to allow for residential structures, there is no way the "free" market will ever be able to accommodate housing for low income people. Some subsidies have to be baked into the system.

Pittsburgh was affordable for almost everyone 5+ years ago. I'm seeing rents go up by the $100s over a year or two. We have straight up price gouging by landlords for generally crappy housing. It just wasn't like this when I moved here. Landlords know this is a renters city and they are taking full advantage of it.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by bluecarebear

Pittsburgh was affordable for almost everyone 5+ years ago. I'm seeing rents go up by the $100s over a year or two. We have straight up price gouging by landlords for generally crappy housing. It just wasn't like this when I moved here. Landlords know this is a renters city and they are taking full advantage of it.

Pittsburgh was more affordable to rent in because we had a greater supply of housing than we had demand for. In addition, many long-timers owned, so the market for rental property was pretty weak.

Things have inverted now. More people are moving into the urban core. Young people don't buy either because they don't have the desire to do so, or can't save up the down payment due to student loans, so demand for rental units has gone through the roof. In many parts of the city the amount of rental units has decreased too, through a combination of housing flips reducing the number of units, and loss to blight in declining neighborhoods. The result has been a rental market which is more similar to the national median.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by eschaton

You're absolutely right. Study after study has shown that Section 8 vouchers are a far more cost-effective way to house low-income people than throwing federal money at new "mixed-use" developments.

The downside is that you can't ensure the affordable units will be in a particular neighborhood. So Section 8 in no way stops gentrification from happening. But from a utilitarian standpoint, it's the best program.

If section 8 rents paid substantially more than "market" rents in an area, wouldn't that encourage landlords to put in the effort to achieve them?