|
icantfindaname posted:It's a good idea just because it's easier and more efficient for the government just to own and run rent-subsidized housing for the poor than it is to give the subsidy money to private landlords or try to fix prices Is Sweden the only nation that has experimented with this? Any country currently doing this?
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is Sweden the only nation that has experimented with this? Any country currently doing this? Chicago did it in the 50s. It broke down because racism and white flight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:This is kind of meaningless. If you have a situation where demand outstrips supply, any increase in supply is going to be helpful and will always be taken up by those with the most money to spend unless you have a seller who hates money and profit involved somewhere. Also, the difference in construction cost between a typical 'luxury' apartment and an 'affordable' one is negligible - the luxury is mainly about nice interior decoration rather than anything structural in most cases. That stuff only adds a few (tens of) thousands to the price of the place - hardly a big issue if prices are out of the average guy's reach by a few hundreds of thousands. It's not meaningless. First off, we are talking renting, not buying. Further, as long as the profit margins on building Class A apartments is larger than building lower Class apartments, builders will continue to chase Class A renters. At some point, the market for Class A might saturate and filter down to the lower Classes, but the over supply has to be large enough to reduce the profit margin from Class A apartments to at or below the level of lower Class apartments. In the meantime you have a two-tier rental market, where building more luxury apartments probably won't increase the availability of lower Class apartments. In the long run, you may be right, but in the short run we need places to rent that don't cost 50% of a paycheck. MickeyFinn fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is Sweden the only nation that has experimented with this? Any country currently doing this? Google "Pruitt-Igoe"
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's a good idea just because it's easier and more efficient for the government just to own and run rent-subsidized housing for the poor than it is to give the subsidy money to private landlords or try to fix prices Look, I know a lot of people live in housing, but rich people* use it as an investment, and isn't that what's really important? *Invest in a house and become rich too! It can't fail!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is Sweden the only nation that has experimented with this? Any country currently doing this? 82% of people in Singapore live in government-built housing. Of those, 95% own their unit under a 99-year lease. Somebody will probably complain about the bland concrete slab design, but concrete slab apartments are really the ideal: they block sound and vibrations, giving a sense of privacy that most other kinds of apartment buildings lack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:82% of people in Singapore live in government-built housing. Of those, 95% own their unit under a 99-year lease. Yeah, this sounds cool: quote:Public housing in Singapore is generally not considered as a sign of poverty or lower standards of living, as compared to public housing in other countries. Although they are cheaper than privately built homes in Singapore, they are also built in a variety of quality and finishes to cater to middle and upper middle income groups. Bolded is the key part, I think. If they had just built a shitload of lovely housing in a cheap, remote area that nobody would actually want to pay good money to live in, I imagine the look article would read differently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:82% of people in Singapore live in government-built housing. Of those, 95% own their unit under a 99-year lease. Wait what!? I was under the impression that Singapore was a neoliberal paradise...
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:82% of people in Singapore live in government-built housing. Of those, 95% own their unit under a 99-year lease. There have even been experiments in 3D printing concrete: http://www.contourcrafting.org/ If it could be made to work for high-rise buildings (I've seen concept drawings for that, but actually attempting it is probably a few years off), something like that could make building new housing way faster and way less expensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
I was under the impression that land prices were the reason housing is so high, not materials. Innovation has been going on for decades that have brought the costs of building housing down, but rent still remains high.
punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I was under the impression that land prices were the reason housing is so high, not materials. Land is expensive, but building dense concrete buildings on top of seismically unstable ground in a tropical climate with typhoons is more expensive than building the same building in NYC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
on the left posted:Land is expensive, but building dense concrete buildings on top of seismically unstable ground in a tropical climate with typhoons is more expensive than building the same building in NYC. Ahh. I was referring to in general, but I can see how it could be beneficial to some places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Wait what!? I was under the impression that Singapore was a neoliberal paradise... I always thought it was more state capitalist on domestic policy, but very pro-free trade because they are basically a port/trade city-state with a big financial sector.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 11:38
|
|
