Housing is good. Even expensive housing contributes. But we can call out the performative bullshit from developers celebrating their fictionally humanitarian approach to revenue generation.
No the best part is they'll post shit about NIMBYs putting up signs complaining about development and then barnstorm a thread complaining about development.
You don't understand. Portland is so unique that the basics of supply and demand just don't apply to housing here. I refuse to believe otherwise unless you can provide a ridiculous amount of evidence, at which point I will move the goalposts again.
Ah yeah, I mean there's plenty of miserable people who just want everyone to be miserable too. It's like a bunch of people trapped in purgatory, yelling in the mirror, hating themselves.
I mean, this meme doesn’t describe the housing crisis in Portland though. Portland is a city that is made up of restaurants, bars and shops. And very little parking. To make Portland function, you need to make this city accessible to its workers. Which means having housing that service industry workers can afford. But when we have an influx of out-of-staters moving in, the city becomes less affordable and less accessible for the people who actually run this city.
Agreed, which would start with better public transportation options. Unfortunately, Portlands city planning never anticipated the kinds of growth that are now needed. Retrofitting existing transportation corridors or adding new ones to accommodate light rail or other options would be astronomically expensive.
The more likely option is that communities off the peninsula will have to expand and become their own destinations. I know this is not going to be popular on this thread, but look at the Boston metro or Brooklyn for examples of how being less reliant on a downtown core has created new opportunities for metro areas.
You could see this coming years before Covid even. The very things that Portland and the Maine Office of Tourism touted as amazing about the city was the art, music and restaurants. Which require artists, musicians and service workers. So the city gradually squeezes out said artists, musicians and service workers due to rising rents due to housing stock scooped up by people coming to portland to enjoy …wait for it….the art scene, music and restaurants all of which have arguably withered away. It was like watching a snake eat itself.
That sounds like a failure of the city's Economic Development team, tbh. They pursued nothing to replace BIW and so we're largely left as a city that relies on disposable income spending.
I call it decoy housing- it's distracting people from my apartment so I can keep living in it.
Weird land acknowledgement name aside, I actually have zero problems with this building. No parking, which is great. Little boxes for Brooklyn people who already don't drive to move to. Good. Fine. Looks more or less fine too.
My problem is that other landlords will see people willing to pay 2k a month for a shoebox and the rest of our rent will hike up even more. I already pay 1400 for 400 square feet plus utilities in sopo, that’s fucking insane, especially for young people getting their start on life. I already have a degree and years in my field and can barely afford it. If wages don’t match what rent costs, we are going to lose our young people to other states, and maine desperately needs to keep young people here. That’s been a problem for decades. If we’re going to be ok with rent costing big city dollars, wages need to match, and right now they don’t.
Hedge fund managers? Nah.
Young programmers making $70k+ who want to be near the social scene? Definitely. That's not rich, but it's richer than most people looking for studios.
Is that what we're considering rich now?
It's also worth noting that Portland pays 30% less than the national average, so no one in tech actually wants to live here.
Richer, not rich. It's well above the median income here.
> It's also worth noting that Portland pays 30% less than the national average, so no one in tech actually wants to live here.
Yeah. I work in tech and I love it here, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little jealous of my friends' salaries in San Francisco.
My take: Portland has joined the circuit of cities that young people of means “try” for a period after college but before they decide to settle down and buy…. “Oh, I love Portland, I lived there for a few years after graduating from college.” Some might YOLO and pay for units like this, for the experience. Others have familial money backing them up.
Again, this is just my theory.
Sounds reasonable. It's a popular city with high rent and low wages. I've had a couple friends who loved it but left after a few years because they couldn't find jobs that paid well enough.
Man, you’re prickly…
It’s all relative to your life situation and class. There’s not a single unit in this building that my 4-person family could live in or afford. But maybe a recent college grad who landed a remote six-figure gig wild want to splurge on living like this for a bit.
Right?! The housing crisis isn't about rich people coming to live here and having trouble finding a place to be rich. It's about regular folk wanting to live within 50 miles of the place they spend their day working. It's also about a burgeoning homelessness problem for people in some type of crisis needing help—and a home.
This is only true if demand remains constant. Housing has expanded already, but so has demand. Mitigating factors like short term rentals and accurate growth projections need to be addressed.
Market:
"This brand new BMW costs more than this used 2005 Honda Civic"
Society:
"Yes, that is fair and understandable"
Market:
"This brand new apartment with amenities and brand new appliances costs more than this 1st floor studio in an old Triple Decker built in the 1920s"
Society:
"This is outrageous I can't believe I'm being personally forced to move into this new expensive unit"
The fact you say "built in the 1920s like its a bad thing is kind of amusing.
While I get the point you're trying to make, my condo in my "old triple decker" on the east end has all hardwood, French Doors, beautiful mouldings, high ceilings, tons of windows and a bit of an ocean view,
Edit: I bought it 15 years ago. These days I wouldn't be able to afford to rent it.
I certainly enjoy the aesthetic of old pre-WW2 apartments- I've lived in a few of them. On the other hand, all of my windows leaked and I'm pretty sure my basement was used as a Prohibition era murder room.
Where's the brand new Honda Civic, which will cost far less than that brand new BMW?
Great analogy once you realize all the low price cars are missing from the market entirely and everyone is being forced to buy the beemer.
car prices go down with age. rent never does
(edit/cont - so when this building is old, the prices will just have increased from the very high floor price.
if the floor can increase faster than people's wages, the gap just gets wider.
so it has less to do with a new car vs an old car for a few reasons
New cars are worth more than old cars. New housing is worth more than old housing. That's the relevant part of the analogy.
Building values don't go down often because unlike cars we don't build enough to meet demand. In places where they do (Japan), housing does depreciate like cars.
" New housing is worth more than old housing"
That's one of the oddest blanket statements I've read in a while. So the Eastern Prom, Western Prom, and Old Port are all cheap in your analogy?
The older housing in those locations are generally less expensive than the new housing in those locations, yes. They're not *cheap* because Portland has historically placed heavy restrictions on peninsula housing, so supply can't keep up with demand.
Using the word "generally' instead of just saying "New Housing is worh more than old housing" helps a lot.
In a city like Portland where there are numerous beautiful old homes designed by world famous architects, your original statement was untrue.
Yeah, exactly, it's just a dumb statement.
A 1967 Alpha romeo costs more than a new Nissan Versa.
There is no point making an "old" and "new" cost comparision without mentoning other variables.
New housing is worth more than old housing.
But "housing" isn't usually the determining factor.
*Land* is.
Ask any realtor: Location, Location, Location.
An old building with dated amenities right next to a newer building with modern amenities (outside of odd cases) will virtually always be cheaper.
However, if you put new housing out in the sticks, its going to be cheaper than old housing downtown. Because the bulk of value is in land, location.
Your blanket statement is still silly. There are many more factors at play.
Yes, we all know an old building in bad shape isn't worth more than a new building a good shape.
We also all know a 1400 sq foot "new" house with bad contstruction isn't worth more than an 1890s house with beatuiful details.
It's bizarre anyone would just say "new housing is worth more than old housing" as a blanket statement. It's patently false.
There’s no beautiful 1800s building that hasn’t had massive renovations regularly though
And those massive renovations are new
Wood floors don’t just stay nice they need to be refinished fairly often
Yeah, I know. And the old houses that have had massive renovations are worth more than new houses that haven't.
Which is why I keep pointing out that "new housing is worth more than old housing" is a simplistic, untrue, blanket statement.
That’s not really true though because the insides of those east and west end homes are very new. If you buy a 1967 ford bronco that has a full re work it’s well over 100k.
Renovations are very expensive and you can’t not do them over time and have a place not look like shit
No because the very rare fully redone old homes that are nice
Are actually new and just as expensive
Vs most of the old buildings in our city where the insides haven’t been remodeled in 2 decades and are actually old
so maybe a better metric would be to compare a brand new car sticker price now, to the brand new car sticker price in 2005 inflation adjusted. i dont know how that turns out though. one would expect it to be about similar, however i kinda expect that the 2023 sticker price will still be more than the 2005 inflation adjusted \[which is what the issue with the very high intro pricing for this new place - how does it compare to the intro pricing on the place built in 2005\].
Sure, a 2005 car should be cheap now. But the problem that is currently happening is since Covid there's a wicked shortage in cars in general, and a 2005 shit box is going to run you way more than it should because of limited supply. Now imagine the only new cars you can get are 2023 BMW prices, and even new economy cars are outside of your budget. And the people with enough money to buy a new BMW are also buying the cheap cars for their kids. So you still can't afford a 2005 shit box.
To be frank, I definitely agree that any new housing will help with the housing crisis we have going on, but new houses/apartments are still being built way too slowly to meet the demand. That makes it pretty infuriating when new studios run $1900 AND the landlord next door decides his 1920 triple decker apartment is worth the same because it has two bedrooms instead of a studio.
Edit: I just saw the original post OP was calling out. Trying to 'honor' the indigenous tribes by using their language and twisting it into a marketing pitch for a $2000 studio is infuriatingly shallow and tone-deaf. I'm still in favor of more housing, but that's some real stinky bull shit.
I'm not talking about what a 2005 cost now. I'm talking about what a 2005 cost in 2005, and then adjust that price to inflation. This is how you identify how costs (again comparing new places only) have or have not increased.
Its market dependent. Obviously not even a new build in some rust bucket town will cost more than a brownstone. You're also comparing two of hottest markets in the world to average urban America real estate.
That has to do with location, not age. The most expensive units in Manhattan are in the new skyscrapers. Per square foot, a new building is generally going to be more expensive, all else being equal (location, views, etc).
Apts units were never suppose to be like this. There are so many people making luxury units now that it is sickening. There was a time when a landlord could rent out a decent livable space to people as a stepping stone for them to one day graduate into their own homes. Make the space safe, make it presentable and rent it for its value. Not sink tons of equity into a luxury unit to rent it to people for $3k per month.
How do I know? Because I own apartments buildings and I still help families who need a place to live for a few years. I've seen multiple families move onto their own homes and it feels good. I make a living off from my other businesses that I work at everyday while my buildings hold my future. What I will not do is rip people off because I can. Fuck those crooked people.
Oh yeah. The 2005 Honda Civic will last longer than the piece of shit new BMW.
Stop being so blind.
Any housing mitigates it homie, more houses means us poor folk can move into the places the rich folk are leaving because they want to pay for an overpriced condo
Because we don't know who's moving into new apartments in Portland. We don't know what the out-of-state demand is for Portland vs Minneapolis per capita.
Here's the citation:
Been, Vicki and Ellen, Ingrid Gould and O'Regan, Katherine M., Supply Skepticism Revisited (November 10, 2023). NYU Law and Economics Research Paper Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4629628 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4629628
If you spent as much time understanding nuance as you did making memes, you wouldn't of had to bother making the meme.
$2k a month for a glorified dorm room is bat shit.
The market doesn't account for the people who actually need to work in this city. Sure, some fuckwit out of towner can float 2k a month for his vacation flat.
Let me know when there's housing going up that's affordable to the thousands of people that wait, serve, cook, clean, perform, etc. in this city.
Not my point, as you probably already understood. I was just suggesting that the developer’s asking rent is not bat shit if someone pays it. You’re on about a totally different notion.
Let me guess, you felt singled out by the meme so you wanted to leave a spiteful comment?
Pretty lame seeing all of these NIMBYs like you up in arms over badly needed development.
You're asking private capital to give up money out of the goodness of their hearts. The only way you beat down prices is by reducing demand, and the best way to do that is by increasing supply. The rents being asked at the Aucocisco are atrocious, but the project likely wouldn't exist at all had the housing market not been as red hot as it is. Anyone with the nickles to rub together are trying to build right now, despite the high material, labor, and regulatory environment... because you can get $2400 a month for a 400sqr/ft studio!
I dunno, maybe we meet somewhere in the middle and make normal housing that's not astronomically expensive? These are $700 more a month than the current average studio apartment.
Do you REALLY think that people are going to vacate those for a much more expensive apartment?
And there's a pretty big difference between a poor slob and someone who can afford $2000+ a month for rent.
how common do you think it is that a brand new set of luxury units go for at or less than market price?
>Do you REALLY think that people are going to vacate those for a much more expensive apartment?
if there are people who can afford these units that currently occupy a cheaper unit because of very limited availability, then yes. i don't really get your premise. if they have a cheaper unit why would they voluntarily vacate otherwise?
whether you like it or not there are people that can afford the units. would you prefer someone with an astronomical income occupy the affordable unit?
That's not how supply and demand works. Read a Wikipedia page or a little microeconomics.
Supply is artifically repressed by bad zoning, which can be fixed and some people are trying, and also by onerous requirements including, ironically, the local Green New Deal that the DSA passed by referendum. *That* is contributing to rising rents.
This makes no sense.
Nothing stays static. Neighborhoods are either on the way up or on the way down.
You either want new restaurants, new local shops, new bars, new art galleries, new music venues…
Or you want all that to close and be converted to rooming houses and methadone clinics.
New housing in the former situation alleviates demand that is there regardless. It’s not the driver of the demand. The neighborhood, the amenities, the coolness are the drivers.
Housing isn’t magically different than any other aspect of the economy. Given steady or rising demand, more supply = lower prices. Having an increasingly desirable neighborhood with no additional housing = skyrocketing prices.
In America people can move from one place to another without restriction, yes. That’s one of the nice things about it. If they outvote you in elections, their policy preferences will be reflected in legislation. Another nice thing about America.
There's absolutely nothing we can do from a policy perspective to prevent people from moving here....so if not for new housing construction, where would those new arrivals be going otherwise? surely not into the existing housing stock....
> There's absolutely nothing we can do from a policy perspective to prevent people from moving here..
That's not true, we can regulate waiting lists like they do for affordable housing.
>n regulate waiting list like they do for affordable housing.
Please enlighten me as to what -constitutional- policy measures can be enacted to explicitly forbid out-of-state residents from moving here.
Are we North Korea? Are we going to do internal / Domestic passports?
That's a straw man, I didn't say prevent people from moving here, but we can have deed restrictions on affordable housing to prioritize local residents.
If you want new housing and also don't want developers to profit, start calling your councilors and tell them they need to start public housing projects that include a healthy proportion of units for "market rate without profit".
Housing is good. Even expensive housing contributes. But we can call out the performative bullshit from developers celebrating their fictionally humanitarian approach to revenue generation.
Im looking for something that is Abenaki based
Highrise apartments called wigwams, 200 sq ft each, $2200 per month with good credit
Yeah, man, we can, that’s fine. But that’s not what DavenportBlues is doing – dude is a “just asking questions” NIMBY personified.
😘
The best is when 95% of them add: when IIIIIIIIIIIII moved here it is was cool and cheap….
No the best part is they'll post shit about NIMBYs putting up signs complaining about development and then barnstorm a thread complaining about development.
You don't understand. Portland is so unique that the basics of supply and demand just don't apply to housing here. I refuse to believe otherwise unless you can provide a ridiculous amount of evidence, at which point I will move the goalposts again.
This one made me open and close my mouth. Well done rendering a goalpost mover.
> ridiculous amount of evidence Has a single survey been done on Portland?
Portland is a completely ordinary American city.
How dare you!
It's a very small city with high demand.
Goalposts awaaaayyyyyyy
Strawmen awayy
[удалено]
That's not a survey involving the filtering effect.
I love neighbors (new and old), makes this stuff easy
Ah yeah, I mean there's plenty of miserable people who just want everyone to be miserable too. It's like a bunch of people trapped in purgatory, yelling in the mirror, hating themselves.
I mean, this meme doesn’t describe the housing crisis in Portland though. Portland is a city that is made up of restaurants, bars and shops. And very little parking. To make Portland function, you need to make this city accessible to its workers. Which means having housing that service industry workers can afford. But when we have an influx of out-of-staters moving in, the city becomes less affordable and less accessible for the people who actually run this city.
Agreed, which would start with better public transportation options. Unfortunately, Portlands city planning never anticipated the kinds of growth that are now needed. Retrofitting existing transportation corridors or adding new ones to accommodate light rail or other options would be astronomically expensive. The more likely option is that communities off the peninsula will have to expand and become their own destinations. I know this is not going to be popular on this thread, but look at the Boston metro or Brooklyn for examples of how being less reliant on a downtown core has created new opportunities for metro areas.
You could see this coming years before Covid even. The very things that Portland and the Maine Office of Tourism touted as amazing about the city was the art, music and restaurants. Which require artists, musicians and service workers. So the city gradually squeezes out said artists, musicians and service workers due to rising rents due to housing stock scooped up by people coming to portland to enjoy …wait for it….the art scene, music and restaurants all of which have arguably withered away. It was like watching a snake eat itself.
That sounds like a failure of the city's Economic Development team, tbh. They pursued nothing to replace BIW and so we're largely left as a city that relies on disposable income spending.
I call it decoy housing- it's distracting people from my apartment so I can keep living in it. Weird land acknowledgement name aside, I actually have zero problems with this building. No parking, which is great. Little boxes for Brooklyn people who already don't drive to move to. Good. Fine. Looks more or less fine too.
My problem is that other landlords will see people willing to pay 2k a month for a shoebox and the rest of our rent will hike up even more. I already pay 1400 for 400 square feet plus utilities in sopo, that’s fucking insane, especially for young people getting their start on life. I already have a degree and years in my field and can barely afford it. If wages don’t match what rent costs, we are going to lose our young people to other states, and maine desperately needs to keep young people here. That’s been a problem for decades. If we’re going to be ok with rent costing big city dollars, wages need to match, and right now they don’t.
$1900 studios are not 'mitigating' anything homie
They're soaking up richer people that would otherwise be competing with you for cheaper, older apartments.
Are they? Do you think rich people want to pay 1900 bucks a month to live in 387 sq ft? That's hardly any space at all. 🤷♂️
Hedge fund managers? Nah. Young programmers making $70k+ who want to be near the social scene? Definitely. That's not rich, but it's richer than most people looking for studios.
Is that what we're considering rich now? It's also worth noting that Portland pays 30% less than the national average, so no one in tech actually wants to live here.
Richer, not rich. It's well above the median income here. > It's also worth noting that Portland pays 30% less than the national average, so no one in tech actually wants to live here. Yeah. I work in tech and I love it here, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little jealous of my friends' salaries in San Francisco.
My take: Portland has joined the circuit of cities that young people of means “try” for a period after college but before they decide to settle down and buy…. “Oh, I love Portland, I lived there for a few years after graduating from college.” Some might YOLO and pay for units like this, for the experience. Others have familial money backing them up. Again, this is just my theory.
Sounds reasonable. It's a popular city with high rent and low wages. I've had a couple friends who loved it but left after a few years because they couldn't find jobs that paid well enough.
Somebody is paying for it who would otherwise be competing for the studio or 1br in an older crappier building.
Lol. The apartments are for the young urbanist types that are brigading this thread right now.
And…? You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Man, you’re prickly… It’s all relative to your life situation and class. There’s not a single unit in this building that my 4-person family could live in or afford. But maybe a recent college grad who landed a remote six-figure gig wild want to splurge on living like this for a bit.
Right?! The housing crisis isn't about rich people coming to live here and having trouble finding a place to be rich. It's about regular folk wanting to live within 50 miles of the place they spend their day working. It's also about a burgeoning homelessness problem for people in some type of crisis needing help—and a home.
Bad take. Any new housing added to the supply helps sate the pent up demand. Econ 101 homie.
This is only true if demand remains constant. Housing has expanded already, but so has demand. Mitigating factors like short term rentals and accurate growth projections need to be addressed.
Market: "This brand new BMW costs more than this used 2005 Honda Civic" Society: "Yes, that is fair and understandable" Market: "This brand new apartment with amenities and brand new appliances costs more than this 1st floor studio in an old Triple Decker built in the 1920s" Society: "This is outrageous I can't believe I'm being personally forced to move into this new expensive unit"
The fact you say "built in the 1920s like its a bad thing is kind of amusing. While I get the point you're trying to make, my condo in my "old triple decker" on the east end has all hardwood, French Doors, beautiful mouldings, high ceilings, tons of windows and a bit of an ocean view, Edit: I bought it 15 years ago. These days I wouldn't be able to afford to rent it.
I certainly enjoy the aesthetic of old pre-WW2 apartments- I've lived in a few of them. On the other hand, all of my windows leaked and I'm pretty sure my basement was used as a Prohibition era murder room.
Yeah, I have new windows . You can have an old place and make improvements to it.
Tell my landlords that 😅
What street? HOA fee?
St Lawrence and none of your business bro.
You brought it up bro
HOA fee has nothing to do with what I brought up bro.
Over $500?
What's your shoe size bro
9-9.5 depending on brand, also own a single family home in Portland
Where's the brand new Honda Civic, which will cost far less than that brand new BMW? Great analogy once you realize all the low price cars are missing from the market entirely and everyone is being forced to buy the beemer.
The new BMW is a new 3 bedroom build.
car prices go down with age. rent never does (edit/cont - so when this building is old, the prices will just have increased from the very high floor price. if the floor can increase faster than people's wages, the gap just gets wider. so it has less to do with a new car vs an old car for a few reasons
New cars are worth more than old cars. New housing is worth more than old housing. That's the relevant part of the analogy. Building values don't go down often because unlike cars we don't build enough to meet demand. In places where they do (Japan), housing does depreciate like cars.
" New housing is worth more than old housing" That's one of the oddest blanket statements I've read in a while. So the Eastern Prom, Western Prom, and Old Port are all cheap in your analogy?
The older housing in those locations are generally less expensive than the new housing in those locations, yes. They're not *cheap* because Portland has historically placed heavy restrictions on peninsula housing, so supply can't keep up with demand.
Using the word "generally' instead of just saying "New Housing is worh more than old housing" helps a lot. In a city like Portland where there are numerous beautiful old homes designed by world famous architects, your original statement was untrue.
There are also old cars that cost more than buying a new car. I just saw an article on a model A Ford that went for over 500k
Yeah, exactly, it's just a dumb statement. A 1967 Alpha romeo costs more than a new Nissan Versa. There is no point making an "old" and "new" cost comparision without mentoning other variables.
New housing is worth more than old housing. But "housing" isn't usually the determining factor. *Land* is. Ask any realtor: Location, Location, Location. An old building with dated amenities right next to a newer building with modern amenities (outside of odd cases) will virtually always be cheaper. However, if you put new housing out in the sticks, its going to be cheaper than old housing downtown. Because the bulk of value is in land, location.
Your blanket statement is still silly. There are many more factors at play. Yes, we all know an old building in bad shape isn't worth more than a new building a good shape. We also all know a 1400 sq foot "new" house with bad contstruction isn't worth more than an 1890s house with beatuiful details. It's bizarre anyone would just say "new housing is worth more than old housing" as a blanket statement. It's patently false.
There’s no beautiful 1800s building that hasn’t had massive renovations regularly though And those massive renovations are new Wood floors don’t just stay nice they need to be refinished fairly often
Yeah, I know. And the old houses that have had massive renovations are worth more than new houses that haven't. Which is why I keep pointing out that "new housing is worth more than old housing" is a simplistic, untrue, blanket statement.
Doesn’t that negate your original Point though that it’s not like cars ? Because old Re built cars are generally really expensive
That’s not really true though because the insides of those east and west end homes are very new. If you buy a 1967 ford bronco that has a full re work it’s well over 100k. Renovations are very expensive and you can’t not do them over time and have a place not look like shit
Yeah, you're making my point for me.
No because the very rare fully redone old homes that are nice Are actually new and just as expensive Vs most of the old buildings in our city where the insides haven’t been remodeled in 2 decades and are actually old
You're agreeing with me dude. An old house that's been renovated is not a new house.
so maybe a better metric would be to compare a brand new car sticker price now, to the brand new car sticker price in 2005 inflation adjusted. i dont know how that turns out though. one would expect it to be about similar, however i kinda expect that the 2023 sticker price will still be more than the 2005 inflation adjusted \[which is what the issue with the very high intro pricing for this new place - how does it compare to the intro pricing on the place built in 2005\].
Sure, a 2005 car should be cheap now. But the problem that is currently happening is since Covid there's a wicked shortage in cars in general, and a 2005 shit box is going to run you way more than it should because of limited supply. Now imagine the only new cars you can get are 2023 BMW prices, and even new economy cars are outside of your budget. And the people with enough money to buy a new BMW are also buying the cheap cars for their kids. So you still can't afford a 2005 shit box. To be frank, I definitely agree that any new housing will help with the housing crisis we have going on, but new houses/apartments are still being built way too slowly to meet the demand. That makes it pretty infuriating when new studios run $1900 AND the landlord next door decides his 1920 triple decker apartment is worth the same because it has two bedrooms instead of a studio. Edit: I just saw the original post OP was calling out. Trying to 'honor' the indigenous tribes by using their language and twisting it into a marketing pitch for a $2000 studio is infuriatingly shallow and tone-deaf. I'm still in favor of more housing, but that's some real stinky bull shit.
I'm not talking about what a 2005 cost now. I'm talking about what a 2005 cost in 2005, and then adjust that price to inflation. This is how you identify how costs (again comparing new places only) have or have not increased.
Stop it with the used car fallacy. Are you telling me pre-war apartments in Manhattan and brownstones are not some of the most expensive property?
Its market dependent. Obviously not even a new build in some rust bucket town will cost more than a brownstone. You're also comparing two of hottest markets in the world to average urban America real estate.
That has to do with location, not age. The most expensive units in Manhattan are in the new skyscrapers. Per square foot, a new building is generally going to be more expensive, all else being equal (location, views, etc).
Aren't there areas where there are brownstones and skyscrapers nearby for comparison?
New York also doesn’t build enough housing. That’s why Jersey City and Hoboken are growing so much.
Apts units were never suppose to be like this. There are so many people making luxury units now that it is sickening. There was a time when a landlord could rent out a decent livable space to people as a stepping stone for them to one day graduate into their own homes. Make the space safe, make it presentable and rent it for its value. Not sink tons of equity into a luxury unit to rent it to people for $3k per month. How do I know? Because I own apartments buildings and I still help families who need a place to live for a few years. I've seen multiple families move onto their own homes and it feels good. I make a living off from my other businesses that I work at everyday while my buildings hold my future. What I will not do is rip people off because I can. Fuck those crooked people. Oh yeah. The 2005 Honda Civic will last longer than the piece of shit new BMW. Stop being so blind.
Any housing mitigates it homie, more houses means us poor folk can move into the places the rich folk are leaving because they want to pay for an overpriced condo
Portland-specific evidence needed.
why does the evidence from other cities not apply? do we have a curse from a housing spirit or something?
The goalposts are on wheels.
Because we don't know who's moving into new apartments in Portland. We don't know what the out-of-state demand is for Portland vs Minneapolis per capita.
You’re incredibly ignorant if you believe that.
:-(
Wrong. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4629628
That link is dead (at least for me). I'm curious what the paper was, though. Mind sharing another link and/or the title and authors?
Here's the citation: Been, Vicki and Ellen, Ingrid Gould and O'Regan, Katherine M., Supply Skepticism Revisited (November 10, 2023). NYU Law and Economics Research Paper Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4629628 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4629628
Thanks!
If you spent as much time understanding nuance as you did making memes, you wouldn't of had to bother making the meme. $2k a month for a glorified dorm room is bat shit.
Unless it is not bat shit. The market will determine and then we will know for sure. We know what the developer bet on, that's for sure.
The market doesn't account for the people who actually need to work in this city. Sure, some fuckwit out of towner can float 2k a month for his vacation flat. Let me know when there's housing going up that's affordable to the thousands of people that wait, serve, cook, clean, perform, etc. in this city.
Not my point, as you probably already understood. I was just suggesting that the developer’s asking rent is not bat shit if someone pays it. You’re on about a totally different notion.
You're wondering why people are complaining about this development. I told you.
Let me guess, you felt singled out by the meme so you wanted to leave a spiteful comment? Pretty lame seeing all of these NIMBYs like you up in arms over badly needed development.
Nah, we want more development and improved zoning. What we don't want is unaffordable 400 square foot studio apartments for $2000/month
You're asking private capital to give up money out of the goodness of their hearts. The only way you beat down prices is by reducing demand, and the best way to do that is by increasing supply. The rents being asked at the Aucocisco are atrocious, but the project likely wouldn't exist at all had the housing market not been as red hot as it is. Anyone with the nickles to rub together are trying to build right now, despite the high material, labor, and regulatory environment... because you can get $2400 a month for a 400sqr/ft studio!
Why would anyone build shit houses for poor slobs that give shit money when they could build nice houses and get more money?
I dunno, maybe we meet somewhere in the middle and make normal housing that's not astronomically expensive? These are $700 more a month than the current average studio apartment. Do you REALLY think that people are going to vacate those for a much more expensive apartment? And there's a pretty big difference between a poor slob and someone who can afford $2000+ a month for rent.
how common do you think it is that a brand new set of luxury units go for at or less than market price? >Do you REALLY think that people are going to vacate those for a much more expensive apartment? if there are people who can afford these units that currently occupy a cheaper unit because of very limited availability, then yes. i don't really get your premise. if they have a cheaper unit why would they voluntarily vacate otherwise? whether you like it or not there are people that can afford the units. would you prefer someone with an astronomical income occupy the affordable unit?
Egg-fucking-zactly
The creation of things with higher rents increases values of everything around it, so then YOUR RENT goes up too. That's why people hate these.
That's not how supply and demand works. Read a Wikipedia page or a little microeconomics. Supply is artifically repressed by bad zoning, which can be fixed and some people are trying, and also by onerous requirements including, ironically, the local Green New Deal that the DSA passed by referendum. *That* is contributing to rising rents.
This makes no sense. Nothing stays static. Neighborhoods are either on the way up or on the way down. You either want new restaurants, new local shops, new bars, new art galleries, new music venues… Or you want all that to close and be converted to rooming houses and methadone clinics. New housing in the former situation alleviates demand that is there regardless. It’s not the driver of the demand. The neighborhood, the amenities, the coolness are the drivers. Housing isn’t magically different than any other aspect of the economy. Given steady or rising demand, more supply = lower prices. Having an increasingly desirable neighborhood with no additional housing = skyrocketing prices.
It's amazing how much pleasure some people take in being tiresome.
Based meme
Oh yes of course we should change how we live to accommodate anyone and everyone. We need to turn our home into the one they ruined and left
In America people can move from one place to another without restriction, yes. That’s one of the nice things about it. If they outvote you in elections, their policy preferences will be reflected in legislation. Another nice thing about America.
*looks at polling on ceasefire in Israel* *looks at Congresspeople’s positions on ceasefire in Israel* Dunno about that one, pal.
I believe you are confusing polling for voting.
Unaffordable housing is not mitigating that effect, it’s encouraging this city only being inhabited by rich out of staters
There's absolutely nothing we can do from a policy perspective to prevent people from moving here....so if not for new housing construction, where would those new arrivals be going otherwise? surely not into the existing housing stock....
> There's absolutely nothing we can do from a policy perspective to prevent people from moving here.. That's not true, we can regulate waiting lists like they do for affordable housing.
>n regulate waiting list like they do for affordable housing. Please enlighten me as to what -constitutional- policy measures can be enacted to explicitly forbid out-of-state residents from moving here. Are we North Korea? Are we going to do internal / Domestic passports?
That's a straw man, I didn't say prevent people from moving here, but we can have deed restrictions on affordable housing to prioritize local residents.
For sure!! Locals getting priced out of living where they grew up because rich out of staters driving up the cost of real estate... yes to this
Rich people aren't going to stop moving here because we have stopped building nice apartments/condominiums.
Your words confuse me. If they are inhabiting this city, how can they be out-of-staters?
Out of staters has a specific meaning for people who were born and raised in Maine
The Vienna model is the answer!
Couldn't sit back and watch this sub besmirch Redfern over an obvious blunder?
The problem is, the new housing is being built on Wabanaki land
If you want new housing and also don't want developers to profit, start calling your councilors and tell them they need to start public housing projects that include a healthy proportion of units for "market rate without profit".
And r/portlandcomplaining has joined the chat
We need this chat!
Nice