Study: New housing units in New York City lead to a reduction in nearby rents and house sales prices. This contradicts some NIMBY claims that more housing supply makes housing less affordable.

  1. Wait, how is this of any surprise to literally anyone? Isn't this the primary reason NIMBYs complain about new housing (because their homes would decline in price)?

  2. Most NIMBYs nowadays are a bit too socially conscious to use the old arguments about their own property values or new developments attracting "the wrong kind of people". Now, it's usually dressed in some pseudo-progressive concerns about gentrification, so you can maintain the façade of caring about others while still pursuing self-serving policy.

  3. Progressive NIMBYs believe it raises rent. Although many have been coming around. Jabari Brisport said that he spoke with NYU profs who study this and changed his mind. AOC has been saying we have a housing shortage.

  4. If your in this sub regularly, you will see plenty of people yelling that we need more affordable units instead of just more units. No study will change there minds

  5. The NIMBY strongman argument is that the macroeconomic affect of new housing is small per development and spread out over a large region. The microecononic effect can be strong to a local neighborhood. The ideal then being for everyone else to develop, but your neighborhood stays the same. Not in my backyard (but yes everywhere else please). Everyone makes locally rational arguments - that cause everyone everywhere to lose (pay high prices).

  6. NIMBYs are actually white millennial gentrifiers who think they own Astoria because the god AOC is in charge.

  7. A lot of people think that is why NIMBYs complain about new housing, but honestly, I have never seen a NIMBY say such a thing. And the real estate industry, which cares a lot about real estate prices, is generally not especially NIMBY.

  8. Would anyone mind telling me what a NIMBY is? Moved out of the city to the mountains and have apparently been living under a rock.

  9. There is also a worry about gentrification. There is a reason even older pre war appartments cost so much more in Williamsburg than other neighborhoods when they were the only gentrified neighborhood in north Brooklyn.

  10. I mean, given that people's largest investment is typically their home (if they own) can you blame them?

  11. The size of the effect is actually kind of depressing. A 10% increase in housing stock is actually quite large but only brings down rent by 1%. That's better than nothing but it hardly suggests that new construction can solve our housing cost woes (as is often claimed by those touting "basic economics").

  12. the house sale price going down is the part they dont like but they know no one gives a shit about that so they need to lie. gotta protect their asset to everyone elses detriment

  13. I doubt the price reduce by that much or any at all. You telling me the non renovated units in post zoned/higher developed LIC , WB, etc are worth less now? vs pre development? Development in area raise property value as long its not developed into a waste land or a truck stop and etc...

  14. If you build luxury high rises for the wealthy the wealthy won’t be competing with the non wealthy for non luxury buildings keeping those rents low. The rich gotta live somewhere do you really want them competing with you for a prewar walk up?

  15. The rich compete not with one person for the prewar walk up but with multiple people because they are now buying multiple shitty units to combine to one big ass renovated unit

  16. The underlining and true concern of NIMBY regarding new housing is not the rent increase (it was always going to increase). Its that new residents are going to change the demographics of the area. They fear they become the minority eventually.

  17. She’s the worst. She’s being primaried and said the last thing Harlem needs is more millionaires in charge. Generally I agree but this particular millionaire got his money from a settlement for being one of the Central Park Five.

  18. Can I ask and please have a non-judgemental response because I am truly trying to learn and understand both sides

  19. NYC's population has expanded by about 3 million between 100 years ago and now, from about 5.6 million to 8.8 million, but the population of the country has tripled in that same period of time

  20. The idea that private market participants don’t do stupid shit to tank prices is absurd given how private market participants often cause huge price busts…look at any normal commodity market (corn, wheat, orange juice, pork belly, copper, gold). We literally had a massive oil bust a few years ago because shale producers just kept pumping oil even when you have a cartel trying to prop prices up. Imagine if oil were a more normal market. And frankly the oil producing countries can coordinate a lot more easily than developers and homebuilders can in a more liberalized zoning regime

  21. Population growth in the city still greatly outpaced housing development. The city’s own data showed that pop grew by 500,000 and housing only grew by 100,000 in the same period.

  22. even if the price stays the same, it's good that this latent demand is being fulfilled. if people want to move to NYC, building more enables them to. it's good for people to move to NYC if they want to

  23. I didn't read all 166 comments at the time of my post, so maybe this was already mentioned. But a key point that is usually omitted in these reddit threads, is that added supply doesn't immediately lower the equilibrium price for rents. But the medium- and long-term affects of increased supply do exert downward pressure on prices (all other things held constant).

  24. Wait am I reading this right? His most recent data is from a decade ago and part part of the period he looked at was during the housing crash?

  25. I think he’s looking at change vs baseline, i.e. he’s controlling for other factors. Let me know if you think otherwise.

  26. More data on this is always good to have, because a whole lot of politically motivated people will deny that fact very hard. I once shared a study showing a similar effect on market rates in housing that was analyzing Helsinki, and the other person rejected it because it wasn't NYC.

  27. NIMBY or yimby it doesn’t matter your just a mouth piece for the rich and you ain’t solving shit.

  28. Remember in 2020 when the cost of housing crashed because of the exodus of people from cities? Just imagine actually engineering a similar situation but in reverse—so much housing coming online at once that rents drop. People who argue against new housing starts of any sort have their heads buried in the sand. And people who pull out the “we need to build only AFFORDABLE housing, only subsidized units, etc.” You might as well wait for prime Porterhouse Steak at a vegetarian restaurant. Solution needs to be building more affordable housing wherever possible, while also loosening land use regulation to not make it impossible to build.

  29. The classic nimby argument is: new development = gentrification = well-paid yuppies move in = price out current residents = neighborhood "character" now caters to higher income individuals

  30. Bro what part of “lack of supply” did you not read lmao. The city is NOT keeping up and not building enough which is why rent is going up. There’s something like 5x more jobs added than new apartments added the past decade

  31. This study is from last year and it examines housing effects within 500 feet of new developments. They found a 1% decrease in rent for 10% increase in units. But the results havent been replicated. Using the same dataset and isolating different 500 foot areas using historical data from the 421a program, the same methods found a 1.8% increase in rent for every 1% increase in new housing supply (ahhhh the Bloomberg years.)

  32. to be fair... housing varies a lot by region, and there are many places where housing is far from not a open marketplace:

  33. People frequently say “look at all the new development yet my rent went up” because they don’t understand that a few skyscrapers does not equate to adequate development.

  34. Would be interesting to see a representative sample of peer-reviewed research on this issue. Any academics here who are in this field and don’t have an ax to grind?

  35. More housing doesn’t raise prices. It just makes things even more crowded- especially subway cars.

  36. Not necessarily, could be that multi generational homes are splitting or 3 roommates go their separate ways. I would not assume a 1:1 mapping between new units and new residents. Plus in theory with a larger tax base we can run more trains and more stores/restaurants will open as well.

  37. If the subway is at risk of being dangerously crowded shouldn’t we limit population growth? Why would we limit development? People can still just become room mates so the subway is still getting crowded.

  38. Ummm I always want to know who does these studies. City is way less affordable than ever. Landlords are making out great. Hmmmm

  39. The city is less affordable because supply hasn't kept up with demand. If you want to stop or reverse price increases, you should support building more housing.

  40. My claim on this is by literally looking at the developments going across Nassau/Suffolk county, seeing their prices being higher than most rentals, seeing rentals increase in price across the board.

  41. Long Island is one of the most NIMBY places in America. They’ve barely allowed any new housing over the past several decades.

  42. Fuck the city and its residents, current and future, because a couple of apartment owners will see their home's price not appreciate as much as expected?

  43. Using housing as a commodity. Should be criminal. There should be hard limits on housing. Part of inflation is housing. Oil had nothing to do with sudden rent hikes. There’s no real value for anyone moving out and moving in and eating additional 5k worth of fees. The place didn’t produce anything beyond a roof over your head so why is this legal?

  44. What if instead of housing we just made it illegal to be homeless? Can’t see a problem if it’s locked in prison for being poor.

  45. Well we building new denser housing in the wrong place. Basically we are making denser areas more dense which usually are the expensive areas to start with. Meanwhile plenty of cheaper land in the 1hr+ commute zones where nil development and only place financially feasible to have cheaper housing built in large numbers but no one looking there with large interest be it renters/developers/city

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin