Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kilometr t1_jc022d8 wrote

Reply to comment by Atlasatlastatleast in Center City's latest tower of condo power... by ericallenjett

New housing is generally luxury cause it’s expensive to build. A developer isn’t going to go through all the leg work of getting a building approved and designed and then during construction go for a lower end project.

When we build new housing the supply goes up lowering demand for other existing housing, making other units more affordable. Over time new housing becomes more affordable as the new amenities show age.

One of the big problems with the housing crisis is citizens don’t understand this and will oppose new housing cause it’s luxury. Meanwhile nothing gets built cause building affordable housing isn’t profitable, like in San Francisco. It’s annoying that we see what happens when we fight new housing. We get a California style housing crises. But still people here seem to want that to happen in Philly and oppose new housing.

7

Atlasatlastatleast t1_jc03ykg wrote

I understand how supply and demand works to that extent. I’m not even making a full argument against the tower in the post specially, I was relaying a common grievance. I do believe still though, every new build single family home isn’t a luxury house. There are tons of new builds at varying price points. It is possible to build —and they should be subsidized even — accommodations that are more affordable. So my comment, and I assume the one I was sort of defending, shouldn’t be taken as a shunning of new housing. Just the way that it’s being done, and who it is affecting.

Now I’m a little rusty here, but I believe that the reason that Philadelphia has the housing that it does, was that during the Industrial Revolution factories and other industry in the area needed workers, and they needed their workers to be able to make it to work without too much burden. Along came rowhouses, which were made to be more dense, though rather quickly built, accommodations for the working class family. There has been a shift in the nature of our work, but the existence of the new blue collar and the increase in price point of accommodations in a non-linear fashion, means that the actual blue collar (or more frequently I suppose ) non-professional employed people have a much harder time than they did previously.

Let me know if I’m off base on any of this.

2

kilometr t1_jc6pihh wrote

Well 100 years ago there was much less public involvement in construction. If you wanted to build a residential building you could if you owned the land. The neighbors couldn’t stop you because they didn’t like your project. Nowadays, with planning commissions and zoning laws there are a lot more obstacles in the way for creating new housing. Not saying getting rid of these public regulations is a good idea, but just pointing it out.

Also, construction was much cheaper back in the day. People could live in smaller spaces with more residents. Now, the avg square footage per resident is much higher. People expect more space. A house that used the fit a family is now deemed “too small for more than 2 people”. Residential units could also be built more cheaply then as construction standards were not as high and they didn’t need as many features/amenities as they do now (multiple bathrooms, more electrical outlets, etc.) And without OSHA and modern pay requirements labor was nowhere near as expensive as it is today.

But leaving these modern requirements in housing aside, we can still provide enough housing for everyone if we get held back by restricting new development.

1