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.
Sorry you don't like the answer, but new high-rise housing will not be cheaper than what is here now.
There are about 50 high to medium rise residential buildings in Chicago. 2000 is a ton.
It might not be cheaper, it might be. But one thing is for sure: more supply means lower prices. That's Econ 101.
If we allow more apartments to be built in DC, that will mean lower housing prices for SOMEBODY.
You might say, "oh well lifting the restriction will just induce more people to move to DC, thereby pushing the price of housing right back up." That is a possibility.
But those people moving in DC have to come from SOMEWHERE, meaning that there are now fewer people where they are coming from. Hence, lower housing demand, and lower prices and rents.
If we allow more housing space in DC, somebody is going to benefit from a lower cost of living. I don't see how "but I don't like the way skyscrapers look!" is a good reason to not save people money.
Sorry you don't like the answer, but new high-rise housing will not be cheaper than what is here now.
Repeating something wrong doesnt make it anymore correct. Supply and demand, econ 101.
Let me ask it a different way, do you think the housing crash happened because of a tight supply of homes or a dry up of available buyers which caused inventory to build?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
There are about 50 high to medium rise residential buildings in Chicago. 2000 is a ton.
Well I think higher incomes due to the higher education is also part of why DC prices are so high. The market will have prices as high as bearable. People here make more money and therefore can afford to $500K for a tiny little rowhouse. I know I'm not one of them but as mentioned there are plenty of people in DC that make more money than me.
I understand this, and I agree with it, (not saying you said this) I just disagree with the notion that if you build a bunch more townhomes that the prices will forever stay at 500K is flawed logic. It has to break somewhere....
It might not be cheaper, it might be. But one thing is for sure: more supply means lower prices. That's Econ 101.
If we allow more apartments to be built in DC, that will mean lower housing prices for SOMEBODY.
You might say, "oh well lifting the restriction will just induce more people to move to DC, thereby pushing the price of housing right back up." That is a possibility.
But those people moving in DC have to come from SOMEWHERE, meaning that there are now fewer people where they are coming from. Hence, lower housing demand, and lower prices and rents.
If we allow more housing space in DC, somebody is going to benefit from a lower cost of living. I don't see how "but I don't like the way skyscrapers look!" is a good reason to not save people money.
I hope you went beyond Econ 101 in school. Just putting up skyscrapers will not result in lower housing costs. Is there even one city you can point to and say that building skyscrapers made that city more affordable? Where is this "somewhere" that you speak of? Aren't you assuming that they'll all come from the suburbs of DC and not from anywhere else? Much of the growth here are from the thousands who move here from other cities and states.
Another thing, families aren't going to be leaving the suburbs to live in a skyscraper. Unless you, once again, fix the school system in DC, you can pretty much expect families will choose the suburbs, as they have been for many, many years now.
The Feds are busy sending jobs away from DC. The FBI is considering moving to the suburbs, for example. What makes you think a skyscraper would make them decide to stay? When they move, the agents will most likely also move, although many already live in the suburbs.
Just putting up tall buildings is not enough. I'm not arguing against tall buildings at all. What causes me to even join this discussion is the 101 level (simplistic) arguments for building them. It's just not convincing.
It might not be cheaper, it might be. But one thing is for sure: more supply means lower prices. That's Econ 101.
If we allow more apartments to be built in DC, that will mean lower housing prices for SOMEBODY.
You might say, "oh well lifting the restriction will just induce more people to move to DC, thereby pushing the price of housing right back up." That is a possibility.
But those people moving in DC have to come from SOMEWHERE, meaning that there are now fewer people where they are coming from. Hence, lower housing demand, and lower prices and rents.
If we allow more housing space in DC, somebody is going to benefit from a lower cost of living. I don't see how "but I don't like the way skyscrapers look!" is a good reason to not save people money.
Go look at those million dollar high rise condos in Chicago and tell me what grade you actually made in Econ 101. By your simplistic understanding of economics, prices along Georgia Ave should be plummeting as higher density medium rise development replaces two and three story townhouses. Check what has happened to housing prices along Georgia Ave over the last 10 years and report back.
I hope you went beyond Econ 101 in school. Just putting up skyscrapers will not result in lower housing costs. Is there even one city you can point to and say that building skyscrapers made that city more affordable? Where is this "somewhere" that you speak of? Aren't you assuming that they'll all come from the suburbs of DC and not from anywhere else? Much of the growth here are from the thousands who move here from other cities and states.
Another thing, families aren't going to be leaving the suburbs to live in a skyscraper. Unless you, once again, fix the school system in DC, you can pretty much expect families will choose the suburbs, as they have been for many, many years now.
The Feds are busy sending jobs away from DC. The FBI is considering moving to the suburbs, for example. What makes you think a skyscraper would make them decide to stay? When they move, the agents will most likely also move, although many already live in the suburbs.
Just putting up tall buildings is not enough. I'm not arguing against tall buildings at all. What causes me to even join this discussion is the 101 level (simplistic) arguments for building them. It's just not convincing.
Just because an argument is simplistic doesn't make it false. I fail to see how increasing the housing supply won't at some point down the line lower prices for somebody.
As for an example of a city where skyscrapers have lowered rents, imagine how much more expensive Manhattan would be if you forced all the buildings to be half as tall. You'd have that many more people who want to live in Manhattan competing for an even smaller pool of spots. Of course rent would go up.
And no I'm not assuming that all the people from DC move from the suburbs. It doesn't matter where they come from.
Go look at those million dollar high rise condos in Chicago and tell me what grade you actually made in Econ 101. By your simplistic understanding of economics, prices along Georgia Ave should be plummeting as higher density medium rise development replaces two and three story townhouses. Check what has happened to housing prices along Georgia Ave over the last 10 years and report back.
You're confusing real and nominal values. Of course other factors can inflate the cost of housing, such as people flocking to a gentrifying neighborhood.
The point is that allowing more supply makes prices lower in a world where everything else is held equal.
I could create a height restriction of one story and impose it on Georgia Ave so there would not even be medium rise development. Now assume the same amount of people that are moving to Georgia Ave now try to move to this world of one-story buildings. It would be a lot more expensive.
Of course in the real world, that lack of supply would drive people away from this hypothetical Georgia Ave. Does the fact that property values wouldn't rise because nothing gets built prove that height restrictions don't raise costs? No, it just proves that it pushes development elsewhere.
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.
