Expect tons of new housing development throughout the city. 100,000 units to be built.
3 Likes
This might be the most consequential legislation (next to congestion pricing) that could actually bring the city into the 21st century.
Eliminating parking minimums, boosting densities with affordable components, and allowing ADU’s are how you take the handcuffs off of society and allow them to build affordable, sustainable, equitable communities.
4 Likes
It’s all up in the air now after the indictment… ugh
1 Like
Sound policy can still be used regardless of if he’s mayor or not. Hopefully the ball gets rolling and the next mayor prioritizes this and even more units if possible.
2 Likes
Rents will not go down without state subsidy. Unless there is a mass exogenous shock to the market that would necessitate extensive undercutting, let’s say 2 million people left, no amount of building will noticeably depreciate rents. That being said expanding housing stock is a good endeavor, and should be carried out however possible.
1 Like
That’s just not true.
4 Likes
I think we need 100,000 units per year for the next ten years. This should be the goal.
5 Likes
I tend to agree with that claim. Take a look at the massive commercial vacancy rate in NYC post covid: there has been no ‘significant’ decrease in commercial rent compared to about 5 years ago when the supply was much (much) smaller.
The increase in ‘supply’ has NOT depreciated rents. So, I don’t for sure, but that simple fact does support your claim.
Good observation… 
That is simply a gross understatement, commercial real estate has different classes. Class b and c offices naturally have a higher vacancy rate because large companies want nicer spaces with modern amenities. I don’t think it’s fair to extrapolate what’s happening in the commercial space and saying that will be true in when it comes to residential. Simple economics are that when you increase supply, prices will drop. The issue at hand is what is that number that will start to drop the prices. While I think 100k is a great start I think we need much more
8 Likes
Source - Subscribe to read
A very good read on the subject.
Thanks!
2 Likes
I too used to hold Minneapolis as a success of the traditional supply housing model.
However reality cared little for the ideology I held. It became apparent to me that the only places and tine where rents were low, were places and times where the state through; low interest financing (i.e. Mitchell-Lama), direct/indirect subsidy (grants for the construction of housing/tax breaks), or direct ownership (public housing) kept rents low.
I agree the government can build social housing, subsidize housing and enforce rent control – all of which can lower market rents as well by competing with market units. However, all due respect, aren’t these articles you posted actually making the case that the reason for increased housing cost is not enough new housing? Just pulling some quotes from the articles you posted here:
Article one: (the title tells us that the twin cities construction boom is ending, leading to rent rises) and “There’s just not enough units of housing in general,” Hylton said, referring to both for sale and rental housing. “And those with lower incomes are the ones to lose out.”
Article two: “The median asking rent for Austin, Texas in April was $1,494, which is down $195 (-11.5%) from its September 2022 peak… The decline was partly driven by an influx of new multi-family homes into the Southern market, which has helped to push Austin’s rental vacancy rate higher.”
“By contrast, in parts of the Midwest, rents are climbing… Driving higher rents are below-average unemployment rates and the slow pace of new multi-home construction.”
Article three is just about the effect of housing cost on CPI, so not understanding the relevance.
6 Likes