9 ms·

Extremely misleading headline. The poor are better off when there isn't a housing shortage, because (surprise, surprise) the rich aren't the ones who are going

Extremely misleading headline. The poor are better off when there isn't a housing shortage, because (surprise, surprise) the rich aren't the ones who are going to be forced out.

raldi 11y ago
You say the headline is misleading, but you seem to be arguing the same point as it. Could you go into more detail about why you feel it's misleading?
- ryankupyn 11y ago
  It's only misleading in the sense that it would better to say "The poor are better off when we build more housing of any sort, even if they can't afford the units being built."
- bostik 11y ago
  I'd say the title omits an important context. Let's see how it looks like if I add a few extra specifiers.. "The poor are better off when we constantly build more than enough housing for the rich." The last paragraphs actually point that out, albeit in a slightly reversed manner. As long as high-end housing supply is continuously being satisfied, the more aged buildings become affordable even without 95% percentile incomes. On the other hand, I do find it somewhat insulting that the figures assume a time window of 50-60 years. This kind of approach ignores a crucial externality: if it takes ~3 generations of neglect to see the problem, it also takes another ~3 to repair it. Even assuming a perfect 180-degree flip in housing, zoning and transit policies, that's a century lost to bad decisions and blind greed. And in the meanwhile, the city is pricing itself out. I'm not a historian, but I sure would like to know a bit more. Has any great city survived 100 years of exodus? Dislaimer: I live in (Greater) London.
- ethbro 11y ago
  Can't take a purportedly urban planning article seriously when it doesn't explicitly mention zoning and density. "More housing" is a pretty fluff summary of the intricacies of building sustainable neighborhoods.
  - raldi 11y ago
    Do you take the original study seriously? http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345 http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345
mc32 11y ago
It's not misleading. It makes some assumptions of the reader [that the context is housing and that given constrained supplies, the pressure on affordable housing is eased when more market rate stock is built for those who can afford it --i.e. they have other stock to choose from]. Like when you go to the grocery store before a holiday, many people will tend to buy the leftovers [constrained stock] they normally would not buy --so it is with housing.

Extremely misleading headline. The poor are better off when there isn't a housing shortage, because (surprise, surprise) the rich aren't the ones who are going to be forced out.

raldi 11y ago

You say the headline is misleading, but you seem to be arguing the same point as it. Could you go into more detail about why you feel it's misleading?

ryankupyn 11y ago
It's only misleading in the sense that it would better to say "The poor are better off when we build more housing of any sort, even if they can't afford the units being built."
bostik 11y ago
I'd say the title omits an important context. Let's see how it looks like if I add a few extra specifiers.. "The poor are better off when we constantly build more than enough housing for the rich." The last paragraphs actually point that out, albeit in a slightly reversed manner. As long as high-end housing supply is continuously being satisfied, the more aged buildings become affordable even without 95% percentile incomes. On the other hand, I do find it somewhat insulting that the figures assume a time window of 50-60 years. This kind of approach ignores a crucial externality: if it takes ~3 generations of neglect to see the problem, it also takes another ~3 to repair it. Even assuming a perfect 180-degree flip in housing, zoning and transit policies, that's a century lost to bad decisions and blind greed. And in the meanwhile, the city is pricing itself out. I'm not a historian, but I sure would like to know a bit more. Has any great city survived 100 years of exodus? Dislaimer: I live in (Greater) London.
ethbro 11y ago
Can't take a purportedly urban planning article seriously when it doesn't explicitly mention zoning and density. "More housing" is a pretty fluff summary of the intricacies of building sustainable neighborhoods.
- raldi 11y ago
  Do you take the original study seriously? http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345 http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345

mc32 11y ago

It's not misleading. It makes some assumptions of the reader [that the context is housing and that given constrained supplies, the pressure on affordable housing is eased when more market rate stock is built for those who can afford it --i.e. they have other stock to choose from]. Like when you go to the grocery store before a holiday, many people will tend to buy the leftovers [constrained stock] they normally would not buy --so it is with housing.