Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

If the wrong people (investors rather than residents) are buying the houses then building more may only stoke a bubble.

The demand for housing covers both people who need a place to live and the countless other reasons people buy houses (an apartments/condos etc). They are a place to invest or park money. So when a bringing more supply online you have to be careful that it targets the correct demand.

View on HN

Per the article, only a vanishingly small fraction of these are remaining unoccupied. Even if they’re not being inhabited by the purchaser they’re being inhabited, and thus absorbing some of the local demand for housing.

I would require more information as to the definition of "occupied". I used to live in Vancouver, a city struggling with that definition. Unless you are willing to send unannounced inspectors it is very difficult to determine whether the owner is actually living in an apartment. In most cities "occupied" simply means owned by an individual. Whether that person actually resides in the unit is another matter.

Take a look at this pic to see vancouver's problem: https://images.app.goo.gl/uGmMJcwyNvXQUWdQ6

What do you think the real occupancy rate is of those buildings? 60? 70% at best? (They are all residential except for the few commercial ones, those with entire floors lit.)

Or if that’s 4:30pm in December it could easily be that everyone’s still at work even though it’s dark out. That might not be the case here, but maybe worth considering.

How does building more of it ever make it more attractive as an investment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com