America's big cities are turning into housing catastrophes. If we want to fix this mess, we should try and copy Tokyo.

shonuff

shonuff

All Star
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
1,169
Reputation
400
Daps
2,653
ExodusNirvana said:
Because you don't ACTUALLY know what you're co-signing or who you're co-signing and what they're connected to

And it definitely holds weight when you see the types of housing that gets built in NYC

Are YOU ready to have that convo since you been here a 1/3rd of your life?

We literally have a governor and mayor who are using the "housing crisis" as a cover to build more luxury development and a pittance of "affordable housing", all of which will only serve to displace Black and Brown people from historically minority neighborhoods ALL OVER THIS CITY.

You don't know the players, their partners, the greenwashing astroturf groups that they use to perpetuate this smokescreen, and you're telling me I don't know what's going on in this thread?

I been told ya'll:

1. Watch what OP posts about
2. The Twitter accounts he reposts
3. Who they work for, what they do, where they live, who retweets them and who they follow

And you'll still have the same positions you have now, which is fine (homelessness IS a problem in big cities and there IS a lack of housing) but you'll see past the bullshyt that dude posts and the people he co-signs or the accounts he uses to perpetuate certain positions and you'll realize that a lot that is a certain subsection of "the left" that uses these issues for their own goals which are NOT as altruistic as it seems.
Click to expand...
firstly i didnt say there is no housing or home less problem -
i said what you are saying about the "solution" being in Tokyo is not really a solution since Tokyo and the way land and living space works there is completely a porkchop to NY s ( and most of the US ) Apples.

secondly - said this before - its in NO ONES interest to drive down the cost of homes/housing -

not the state, not the banks, not builders and not people who already own homes .... every one of those entities make their livelihood off of "appreciating value" of homes/housing.

converting office buildings is ridiculously expensive and the return on the investment to do so means that those units created would have to sell as luxury units - again way above the ability of average people to pay - and whats needed is what avg people can pay

and clearly just building lots of luxury apts in the hopes that they will trickle down in price to be affordable by people isnt working....as if trickle down has ever worked...

the only CLOSE solution is really something like government built housing - but again that gets back to the govt and people who own homes already taking a hit in value since the law of supply and demand is in full force now-

again the entire economy of banks, govt, and people who already own homes is vested in home values staying flat or going up - doing something like flooding the market with more homes to drive down the price so that more people can afford to buy a home ( or rent ) destroys already existing institutional investment which means bad fukking news for everyone.......

the only other solution is actually less people - but that means literally a lot of people would have to not exist .....and making people not exist is kinda a Thanos thing.....
 
GnauzBookOfRhymes

GnauzBookOfRhymes

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
12,481
Reputation
2,832
Daps
47,847
Reppin
NULL
The housing problem is actually an income problem.

The thing is, places like San Jose - even if they built 50,000 new units they would still be filled by people who are relatively well off. The increase in # of units isn't going to make the rent affordable. It will just push more people from other places to make that move esp now that the definition of workplace/office has fundamentally shifted.
 
ExodusNirvana

ExodusNirvana

Change is inevitable...
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
40,959
Reputation
9,135
Daps
149,967
Reppin
Brooklyn, NY
shonuff said:
firstly i didnt say there is no housing or home less problem -
i said what you are saying about the "solution" being in Tokyo is not really a solution since Tokyo and the way land and living space works there is completely a porkchop to NY s ( and most of the US ) Apples.

secondly - said this before - its in NO ONES interest to drive down the cost of homes/housing -

not the state, not the banks, not builders and not people who already own homes .... every one of those entities make their livelihood off of "appreciating value" of homes/housing.

converting office buildings is ridiculously expensive and the return on the investment to do so means that those units created would have to sell as luxury units - again way above the ability of average people to pay - and whats needed is what avg people can pay

and clearly just building lots of luxury apts in the hopes that they will trickle down in price to be affordable by people isnt working....as if trickle down has ever worked...

the only CLOSE solution is really something like government built housing - but again that gets back to the govt and people who own homes already taking a hit in value since the law of supply and demand is in full force now-

again the entire economy of banks, govt, and people who already own homes is vested in home values staying flat or going up - doing something like flooding the market with more homes to drive down the price so that more people can afford to buy a home ( or rent ) destroys already existing institutional investment which means bad fukking news for everyone.......

the only other solution is actually less people - but that means literally a lot of people would have to not exist .....and making people not exist is kinda a Thanos thing.....
Click to expand...
I can respect and appreciate this post.

I hope that everyone else does what I suggested and start paying attention to who OP posts and what groups and orgs they are connected to

I think you'll find that they don't all share your nuanced view on the topic...
 
C

Conan

Superstar
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
4,982
Reputation
1,073
Daps
15,810
Reppin
Brooklyn
shonuff said:
firstly i didnt say there is no housing or home less problem -
i said what you are saying about the "solution" being in Tokyo is not really a solution since Tokyo and the way land and living space works there is completely a porkchop to NY s ( and most of the US ) Apples.

secondly - said this before - its in NO ONES interest to drive down the cost of homes/housing -

not the state, not the banks, not builders and not people who already own homes .... every one of those entities make their livelihood off of "appreciating value" of homes/housing.

converting office buildings is ridiculously expensive and the return on the investment to do so means that those units created would have to sell as luxury units - again way above the ability of average people to pay - and whats needed is what avg people can pay

and clearly just building lots of luxury apts in the hopes that they will trickle down in price to be affordable by people isnt working....as if trickle down has ever worked...

the only CLOSE solution is really something like government built housing - but again that gets back to the govt and people who own homes already taking a hit in value since the law of supply and demand is in full force now-

again the entire economy of banks, govt, and people who already own homes is vested in home values staying flat or going up - doing something like flooding the market with more homes to drive down the price so that more people can afford to buy a home ( or rent ) destroys already existing institutional investment which means bad fukking news for everyone.......

the only other solution is actually less people - but that means literally a lot of people would have to not exist .....and making people not exist is kinda a Thanos thing.....
Click to expand...

Most of what you have said is bullshyt.

1. It is in the interest of many citizens for home prices to drop. Homelessness is directly tied to the cost of living. If home prices drop, rents drop as well. That allows for more citizens to have a roof over their heads. More revenue for the banks, more business for the builders. The only people who lose out are those who view their homes as speculative assets, not actual homes to live in. fukk em

2. Building more luxury apartments increases the overall supply of apartments on the market, which over time would result in prices dropping. Ideally apartments across different price ranges would be built and that's where the government comes in, but more builds are better regardless of the apartment class

3. You've simply described a Ponzi scheme, where society needs to suffer so that existing homeowner's home values continue to rise. Not because of any value being added. But because they are opportuned to extract economic rent for ownership. If building more homes and apartments like Japan will create affordable living for many, fukk homeowner's home values. At least they have a roof over their heads.
 
C

Conan

Superstar
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
4,982
Reputation
1,073
Daps
15,810
Reppin
Brooklyn
If Hochul had any sense she'd run ads that juxtapose today's NIMBY retard opposition to new building, to yesterday's racist retard opposition to African Americans moving into the suburbs, because I'm hearing the same sound bites about wanting to "preserve the community nature" :mjpls:
 
C

Conan

Superstar
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
4,982
Reputation
1,073
Daps
15,810
Reppin
Brooklyn
ogc163 said:


More yuppie apartments benefits EVERYONE.

Jokers in this thread are too emotional in their dislike of yuppies and its negatively influencing their assessment of the situation.
Click to expand...


She wrote an excellent article in the Atlantic about homeowners incentivized to prevent further housing development...

 
Mook

Mook

We should all strive to be like Mr. Rogers.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
22,924
Reputation
2,427
Daps
58,571
Reppin
Raleigh
CEO of Morgan Industries said:
So, to bring this discussion around to some of the points folks are making, I will agree in general that just adding more high-density housing isn't enough. It is in Tokyo, but Tokyo is monocultural, comparative to us.

I think the sort of building going on in Tokyo would have to be combined with something like the class stratification of Athens apartments. This article talks about it: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

You'd have to codify into law that low-to-mid units are a part of every building, but how do you get that past the NIMBYs and real estate sharks? That might be a first step.

It's not a perfect solution, but I'm trying to be pragmatic. How do we build high-density housing, but make sure that it's not all luxury apartments that push poor black folks out to the burbs? Because I do see what @ExodusNirvana is saying. In my neck of the woods, black renters and homeowners who can't keep up with the price increases caused by too many STEM workers have been pushed to the suburbs and exurbs, and when new housing gets built, it's often luxury condos and not affordable homes.
Click to expand...

It's a culture thing too. Since alot more people don't want families and want to live like kids forever they want to be in the city till they die. Cities weren't built for middle or upper class . it's for poor people, but poor people can't move to the countryside and do 4 hour commutes by bus.

Connect the cities to suburbs. Make a speed train route. If yoy can make it say thirty to 45 minutes from NC to NYC then we got a game changer. More people would move out if getting to downtown was five minutes.
 
shonuff

shonuff

All Star
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
1,169
Reputation
400
Daps
2,653
adexkola said:
Most of what you have said is bullshyt.

1. It is in the interest of many citizens for home prices to drop. Homelessness is directly tied to the cost of living. If home prices drop, rents drop as well. That allows for more citizens to have a roof over their heads. More revenue for the banks, more business for the builders. The only people who lose out are those who view their homes as speculative assets, not actual homes to live in. fukk em

2. Building more luxury apartments increases the overall supply of apartments on the market, which over time would result in prices dropping. Ideally apartments across different price ranges would be built and that's where the government comes in, but more builds are better regardless of the apartment class

3. You've simply described a Ponzi scheme, where society needs to suffer so that existing homeowner's home values continue to rise. Not because of any value being added. But because they are opportuned to extract economic rent for ownership. If building more homes and apartments like Japan will create affordable living for many, fukk homeowner's home values. At least they have a roof over their heads.
Click to expand...
adexkola said:
She wrote an excellent article in the Atlantic about homeowners incentivized to prevent further housing development...

Click to expand...

ok firstly if home prices drop that means a lot of pain for a LOT of people not just home owners .

its doesnt mean more revenue for banks - they tried that in the early 2000s when they lowered the requirements to get a mortgage ....it blew up in 2008 and that affected builders and the stock market as well . so if youre looking to tank the market and put the country into a depression then yeh we could do that - but then that means noone left who still has a job still would be able to be in a home...and a depression would just mean a LOT more homelessness

as for the rest of your post ? its fanciful - at the least

and bizzaaro disillusioned at most...

the current REAL world operates on the idea that people buy homes to create wealth for themselves and pass on that wealth and value as an asset people build apt buildings to make the most off of rent they can....or at least to offset the money they spend to operate the property.

so no- the govt isnt getting into the house-building biz to drive down RE prices of private ownership or property JUST to allow someone who cant afford a place to rent / to be able to rent.- its one of the reasons a lot of housing owners dont want to take vouchers - if the person cant afford to live there with out it and the gov doesnt pay ( which has happened ) then where does that leave them ? this is exactly why the govt got out of building and administering housing in the first place.

noone is building housing for a "loss" or to get less money for the property than what they invested in it.

thats not a ponzi scheme thats just economics 101 - housings value is attached to its role as a commodity - just like food is a commodity, or oil, or water.

saying its shouldnt be one is about as realistic as saying "noone needs to die if there is a War"
 
ogc163

ogc163

Superstar
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
9,027
Reputation
2,150
Daps
22,318
Reppin
Bronx, NYC
adexkola said:
She wrote an excellent article in the Atlantic about homeowners incentivized to prevent further housing development...

Click to expand...

Yeah it's crazy the ideas folks have about real estate in this thread. Alot of intuition and jumping to conclusions with no basis in reality or even reasonable theory.
 
C

Conan

Superstar
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
4,982
Reputation
1,073
Daps
15,810
Reppin
Brooklyn
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top