undefined | Better HN

0 pointscyberax4mo ago0 comments

> Do you have more details on this 1 example, specifically the trends of city housing prices and demand?

I don't have all the information on Copenhagen yet. The stats from 1970-s are not available online, so I commissioned someone to get the data from the archives.

The available data basically shows that prices were stagnant during the 70-80-s and started rising in the 90-s.

> After all, building more housing in the city isn't mutually exclusive with building housing outside the city.

I think it is mutually exclusive, exactly because of the population growth (the lack thereof). Each dense apartment in a city core means one less house in a rural area somewhere.

Japan, that I gave as an example, has literally free houses that anyone can get for nothing but the government real estate transaction fees. Just 3-4 hours away from Tokyo.

0 comments

ImPostingOnHN4mo ago

> I think it is mutually exclusive

Is there any evidence of this? The demand for living in the city (rather than outside of it) already exceeds the supply.

> Japan, that I gave as an example, has literally free houses that anyone can get for nothing but the government real estate transaction fees. Just 3-4 hours away from Tokyo

Yeah, but that isn't housing in the city, it's housing in a place that isn't the city. Even setting aside the cultural differences of Japan, where homes are rebuilt every couple decades, and even setting aside that it has a declining population: a place where people don't want to live will naturally have lower prices than a place where they do.

It kind of sounds like when you're talking about reducing the density of a city, you're actually referring to keeping the density of the city the same, and building SFHs in places that aren't the city (which actually increases the density of those non-city places). Is that what you mean? Or did Tokyo replace skyscrapers with SFHs? And were those SFHs within the city cheaper than a unit in the skyscrapers was?

cyberaxOP4mo ago

> a place where people don't want to live will naturally have lower prices than a place where they do.

But that's not true, is it? Most people in the US want to live in suburban SFHs, yet they are often forced to live in apartments. But that's not a viable option for them because the jobs are only available in dense cities.

> It kind of sounds like when you're talking about reducing the density of a city, you're actually referring to keeping the density of the city the same, and building SFHs in places that aren't the city

Correct.

> which actually increases the density of those non-city places

And technically increases the housing price there from zero to some value, just as predicted :)

ImPostingOnHN4mo ago

>> a place where people don't want to live will naturally have lower prices than a place where they do.

> But that's not true, is it?

It certainly is: look at the price of housing in New York City, then look at the price of housing in Newark, New Jersey. Many people want to live in the former, but must settle for the latter, due to lack of affordable NYC housing. Then look at the price of housing in Ainsworth, Nebraska: Even cheaper, because people want to live there even less.

Or look at your own example: People want to live in Tokyo more than they want to live 3-4 hours outside of Tokyo, hence the pricing for the latter is lower.

> Most people in the US want to live in suburban SFHs, yet they are often forced to live in apartments.

In my experience, most people in the US want lots of square footage within the city, and either settle for suburbia to get the square footage they want, or settle for less square footage to get the city living they want. This goes for both renters and buyers, and for both Single- and Multi-Family Housing.

How, then, would increasing the price of in-city housing (by reducing the supply, by replacing denser housing with less-dense housing) allow people to realize their big-city-big-living desires?

Alternatively, how would building housing hours and hours and hours outside the city (where pricing illustrates people don't want to live) allow people to realize their big-city-big-living desires?

cyberaxOP4mo ago

> Many people want to live in the former, but must settle for the latter, due to lack of affordable NYC housing.

That's because they _have_ to work in NYC. Polls show that something like 80-85% of people in the US would prefer to live in suburbs.

> Then look at the price of housing in say, Cheyenne, Wyoming: Even cheaper, because people want to live there even less.

Well, yes. Land is not scarce in Cheyenne, so housing is cheap. But people don't flock there because they don't have any job prospects in WY. See my notes about remote work.

> Or look at your own example: People want to live in Tokyo more than they want to live 3-4 hours outside of Tokyo, hence the pricing for the latter is lower.

How about: "People HAVE to live in Tokyo, because there are no job prospects outside of Tokyo"?

> In my experience, most people in the US want lots of square footage within the city, and either settle for suburbia to get the square footage they want, or settle for less square footage to get the city living they want. This goes for both renters and buyers.

Well, sure. I would love to live in a mansion with a private lake, in the middle of Union Square.

> How, then, would increasing the price of in-city housing (by reducing the supply, by replacing denser housing with less-dense housing) allow them to realize their big-city-big-living desires?

You assume that people _want_ to live in big cities. People want to have access to big city amenities, but not necessarily live there all the time.

That's why suburbs are such a desirable place. Think about this: what if you live 1 hour away from the city core? This still allows you to easily enjoy all the amenities like theaters and shows. Or to periodically go to your favorite ethnic restaraunt. But it's _way_ too far for daily commutes so it's impractical.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse