BonesIIX t1_j6o0g8p wrote
Man, I wish there was a better way to solve the housing crisis aside from essentially selling all newly zoned residential land to corporate development/management companies.
We're not creating more housing as much as we are selling huge amounts of land to developers who will simply charge above market rate because they have an outsized impact on price setting.
man2010 t1_j6o5o1r wrote
They're not charging above market rate, they're charging the market rate. The market rate for a 1bd apartment in Braintree in a new building is $2500 because people in towns like Braintree think a couple new apartment buildings next to a highway and a giant mall would add too much density.
3720-To-One t1_j6o2sky wrote
They wouldn’t be able to set prices so high if there weren’t so many people willing to pay that much… precisely because NIMBYs have been preventing adequate housing for decades.
BonesIIX t1_j6o4pf5 wrote
Eh, it's not really singularly NIMBYs, as much as that's a convenient Boogeyman. Boston has had an insane growth/interest since the growth of software, biotech industries, and the complete beautification of the city with the completion of the Big Dig in 2008. Software industry didn't really become a thing in Boston until the mid aughts as well.
It's much easier to say "boo NIMBYS", sure but it's a much more complicated mix of factors that are less than 2 decades in the making.
ik1nky t1_j6ob0qc wrote
Boston's population growth isn't particularly notable. 8.5% population growth over a decade compared to some southern cities growing 20-30%. We would probably see similar numbers if we actually built enough housing, but we're not even close.
Maxpowr9 t1_j6og2df wrote
>Man, I wish there was a better way to solve the housing crisis aside from essentially selling all newly zoned residential land to corporate development/management companies.
You're not gonna find much land left to build SFH neighborhoods in Eastern MA; and if you do, they certainly won't be cheap (million dollar homes on third acre lots). Local developers don't have deep enough pockets to spend 8-figures for the property alone and then the cost to redevelop it either. The alternative is abandoned property.
BonesIIX t1_j6ohikr wrote
I mean there are high rise residential buildings that are condos rather than apartments. It seems like people simply forget that it's possible to have a construction company that isn't also a management company.
There's a way to build density but actually give the occupants actual ownership. That's my problem with all the new developments. How is it going to help someone to buy a living space when they spend about the same, if not more to rent than a mortgage?
Equity from an owned unit is so fundamentally important for wealth building over the decades you live in a space. Sure people have space to live but are essentially kept at a huge financial disadvantage by living in apartments vs condos.
amos106 OP t1_j6o34dc wrote
I'm no corporate boot licker but don't get it twisted this absolutely would be creating more housing. Market rate is never going to be logical or fair, it's just a reflection of how abundant supply is in comparison to demand. Unless there is some sort of tennant cooperative movement that can get people organized and accumulate the capital needed to break ground and push through NIMBY resistance, corporate developers are the next best thing. No point in arguing about ownership of something that never gets built in the first place.
BonesIIX t1_j6oolij wrote
It's not the right kind of housing we should be building. I'm all for high density, but we need condos rather than apartments.
Basically a building practice that died during the 2008 recession and we've all been baited and switched that apartment complexes are the only option.
fuckitillmakeanother t1_j6ot4so wrote
This is letting perfect be the enemy of good. We need more of all kinds of (high density) housing
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments