Hacker News Reader

Comment by alistairSH | Hacker News Reader

Except, in a competitive/expensive market, the developer will pick the high-rise (almost) every time when allowed by law.

Locally, when I see people complain about luxury housing being built, it's because the developer is building high-spec townhomes and selling them for $800k+. Instead of lower-spec townhomes at $500k. The developer can't fit appreciably more homes in the same footprint (they're all 3-4 stories tall here - reducing size likely means one fewer stories). And the market will bear $800k+, so that's what we get.

The real answer is build even more homes. Or allow high-rises on the same lots.

In theory, the family that buys the $800k townhome came from somewhere. The smaller house they vacated is now open for somebody else (who in turn moved out of a studio flat that's now open, and on down).

View on HN

> Except, in a competitive/expensive market, the developer will pick the high-rise (almost) every time when allowed by law.

A developer will, indeed. More profit. But an acre is small enough that it could just as well be a rich individual buyer, in which case they'll build what they like.

There's a half-acre plot for sale nearby for nearly $2M, I'm curious if it ends up being bought by an IPO millionaire to build a small mansion or by some developer to put up two-story apartments. Could go either way.

That’s fair.

Local to me, redevelopment of a lot with an existing SFH tends to be another SFH because of zoning (unfortunately - many of the lots would be perfect for a nice duplex or very small apartment block).

Larger lots tend to be bought by corporate developers, both because they have the resources to develop it fully and also because they frequently have to battle NIMBYs for a while to get re-zoning approved (I tend to side with the developers, except when they buy parkland to develop, but that’s a whole other discussion).

I mean, it could; rich people do what they like. But would it statistical aggregate? I really doubt it.

And do they want to live in that mansion surrounded by multi-unit buildings built by developers buying the nearby acres? Also seems unlikely.

In many markets there’s no choice - it has to be a single family home.

> The smaller house they vacated is now open for somebody else

Or, they didn’t sell it and are just seeking rent on it, now. For this effect to really work, the number of home-owners should equal the number of homes.

Right now, there are many, many fewer home-owners than homes.

> Or, they didn’t sell it and are just seeking rent on it, now.

That's fine, it still provides housing for someone. And there are people who actually prefer to rent, so it's good to have rental units available.

Problematic is when they hold on to it and keep it empty, thus occupying space but providing housing for no one.

No, the number of homes has to be slighter higher than the number of residents. If a renter is living in a home then it isn’t going to waste!

(Slightly higher because it is mathematically impossible for anyone to move if there are no empty homes, and they sometimes have to sit vacant while being renovated or are in the process of being sold)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com