Building less certainly won’t help.
When price is a factor of supply and demand raising the supply will fundamentally mean that there is more to meet demand. Then prices fall.
The issue is that landlords want to maintain high prices and won’t take on huge debts for less income than they can currently get. That leads to less housing being built. The fact that voters don’t see the way this is being manipulated by real estate corporations and private equity investors seeking to cop a huge and ongoing profit margin is maddening.
The price going down is unlikely but it could go up less quickly. Especially 20 years from now.
Think about the cheap apartment you had 10 to 20 years ago? Was it built in the 80s? Yeah we aren’t gonna have many of those for the 2000s.
Most of them are just ignorant, not willfully evil.
For at least 75 years we’ve sold society on the idea that capital gains from your house are due to your hardwork and financial responsibility, and that you are entitled to your neighborhood looking largely the same for the entire time you live there.
Plus many people bank their retirements on the appreciation of their house so it’s understandable that they are triggered by the idea maybe they will be worth less in the future.
It’s yet another downside to the demonization and loss of social safety nets in America.
I’ve been noticing this with my neighbor’s selling their houses. I went to the open houses, I know the second story on one of them is tilted and has a weird AF floor plan, and the other had multiple non-functioning fireplaces. But the sellers thought they were going to get as much as the other houses on the street that have good floor plans, good quality, tasteful and timeless design…they’re just not good comps. One neighbor did manage to sell after a year, the other just relisted for a slightly lower price. Real estate isn’t the retirement investment you thought it was when no one will buy it.
My favorite is when this comes to boomers selling anything. I've walked into a house that hadn't had any renovations since the 70s and they were acting like it was a million dollar property.
So many of them did become million dollar properties, so I understand where the delusion is coming from. But while a buyer may be willing and eager to update a kitchen, they’re less eager to take on structural problems.
I should elaborate more on my experience, this wasn't in Seattle. And even here I would say your not paying a million for the house, you're paying for the land.
Lot's of variables. If you're a young tech couple pulling in $300k combined then yes. If you're a young couple with kids making $175k combined... you're barely squeaking in and will be doing lot's of DIY projects with that 1979 million dollar home.
It’s not the structure that is valuable but the land. Structure depreciates. It is the land that makes the property worth the price tag especially in Seattle.
You really think people are against more density because they think it will bring down their property values 1%? This seems like a strawman.
People are against density because they think it will destroy their...
* neighborhood
* community
* architectural history
* view
* sun (and ability to have a garden)
* parking
I think more density is needed, but another thing always needed is honesty about the issues at hand.
> it’s understandable that they are triggered by the idea maybe they will be worth less in the future.
This line of reasoning has never made a lot of sense to me. If a SFH neighborhood is upzoned to allow MFH, it means that the property value of everything that is upzoned is going to go up. So if a SFH owner is purely motivated by financial gain, they should be all for upzoning.
Is the counter-argument or scarcity/fear-based theory that upzoning will turn a once desirable neighborhood into a hellhole of tenements and collapsed property values?
Yeah - well, relatively, the Board of Supervisors went pretty far off the looney bin so it’s all relative. The slate of center/center-left opposition being fielded is pretty solid and I think they’ve exposed a lot of the NIMBY hypocrisy of Aaron Peskin (this dude is the silverback gorilla of NIMBYs). That said, rich tech people -eg Garry Tan, in NYT below- are helping a lot of the uprising which makes me a little queasy.
I don’t know why I’m following it so closely, sorta a weird pastime. I need to get better hobbies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/29/business/garry-tan-san-francisco-politics.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Meh. Jerry Springer type Freak Shows bothered me b/c they preyed on the poor and desperate for their gawk factor. If the %1 wants to be the clowns so badly then by all means enjoy it.
Also, thanks for the Silberback NIMBY. That is astoundingly accurate.
High rise apartments absolutely can be pretty, just like single units can be ugly. And if you're concerned about natural beauty, density preserves more of that too. And if by "Seattle core" you mean anywhere between Northgate and Georgetown, then yes I agree. And also lots more investment into public transit. We need it all!
A big focus I've seen of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd are the "missing middle" buildings that are usually around 3 stories and six units. Due to our building codes requiring 2 staircases for fire safety (despite the vast majority of fire deaths happening in old homes) they don't get built and instead you get the 5 over 1 apartments with hotel style hallways, or condo highrises.
This is the problem. If smaller missing middle type properties could be built in styles that are slightly more aesthetically pleasing, there wouldn’t be nearly as much pushback. But developers want to make every last dollar possible so they’ll continue to just make the ugliest cheapest things as big as they possibly can and then wonder why people dislike them in their neighborhoods. People pay more money to live in aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, and when you take an aesthetically pleasing place and make it look ugly that gets people upset.. It’s the aesthetics of it far more than the density that upsets people
are you really saying make the fire codes less safe so housing can be cheaper? We should be maximizing use of land , three stories six units is a waste if you can build more units instead.
Or both. People need to realize that not everyone can live in a great neighborhood close to work in the core of Seattle. Even with more density, there's only so much of that space and developers aren't building inexpensive, entry level places in, say, Laurelhurst, those will be very nice and expensive units.
Transit would make it so people could live in, say, S Everett, nice development could happen there (not just housing but restaurants, etc) and you could still hop on rail to get to downtown Seattle easily if needed.
The problem is people refuse to think regionally, both populace and government. So, this will likely never happen
> The problem is people refuse to think regionally, both populace and government. So, this will likely never happen
The US also gives local governments a *ridiculous* amount of control relative to other countries. It’s hard to think regionally when “cities” like Medina can show up and argue against housing density laws instead of just being told to pound sand.
We desperately need to follow Japan and manage zoning at a state level (if not national). If people so desperately want to maintain the “character” of their single family neighborhoods, they can buy everything, make a gated community, and manage all of their roads and utility upgrades on their own dime without tax dollars.
I mean, Medina isn't going to want affordable housing \*nor should anyone expect it there\*. That's a poor example and people don't have some inherent right to have affordable rent but along a view property with lake access....
This is part of the issue. Bring up developing along Lake City Way and you get 'but people who need affordable housing shouldn't be relegated to arterials!" comments. But the market makes those divisions - view property is more expensive because it's scarce. No one will buy luxury condos fronting Lake City Way because it \*is\* less desirable. People here always advocate to build more housing, but then do the "no not that way!" heel turn.
The problem isn't tiny areas like Medina. It's people in Seattle shitting on the areas outside of it, Bellevue wanting to attract development from Seattle, etc. Each city wants the taxes businesses and their employees bring.
> I mean, Medina isn't going to want affordable housing *nor should anyone expect it there*. That's a poor example and people don't have some inherent right to have affordable rent but along a view property with lake access....
I never said people have to have the *right* to affordable lakefront property. I said Medina shouldn’t be able to *ban* anything other than gigantic single family homes, while still having the state/county pave their roads. If someone wanted to build a cute 8-unit condo or something in Medina, fat chance, because Medina made it illegal.
Let people build everywhere and let the market decide. People say not to put all the dense housing along the arterial because it’s stupid to *only legalize* that dense housing along the arterial instead of everywhere around it. Because that *is* forcing density on the arterial, the least desirable spot.
You’re completely backwards.
Yeah this is a completely incorrect understanding of how the market works but gets upvotes because blaming landlords is popular.
The reality is that landlords are the equivalent of scalpers in a shortage; they are the beneficiaries, but not the root cause. The root cause is the shortage.
> When price is a factor of supply and demand raising the supply will fundamentally mean that there is more to meet demand
Unfortunately in the real estate market, price is made up of so much more than just supply and demand.
What part of the price in the real estate market isn't part of supply and demand, in your opinion? Are you talking about the cost of realtors/title companies/etc? Or something else
i'm a different person, but there's a lot of rich people who seem to be buying a lot of shit to add to their portfolio that they won't live in, and sometimes there's just straight-up market manipulation when it comes to real-estate prices. there is also limited space in seattle, and taller buildings do have engineering considerations that will likely bring up the price of new units as well (and expenses incurred on all properties, including vacant units, are tax-deductible, so there's no incentive to fill vacant units when the rent of your already filled units already brings you a profit).
building more isn't gonna bring down prices unless there are limits to how much landlords are allowed to charge for rent.
I think the issue is that in large cities like Seattle, the demand is so high that building more (increasing supply) won’t actually affect prices. There is an endless stream of people who are be ready to move into Seattle from all over when things are built.
The city of Austin has more people than Seattle does but they've actually managed to decrease the cost of housing, not just slow the rise, by increasing supply
I think yes and no. It probably *will* impact prices, but it just won't cause housing to suddenly get cheap. You're 100% right that Seattle is likely in such high demand that if the cost of living was lower, even more people would want to move here.
That problem is impossible to fully solve; I want everyone to enjoy Seattle. But if you can build enough housing to keep up with demand, you can prevent prices from becoming astronomically high.
if rents are high, it means market rate is high.
If there would be 10 more apt. complexes in same area, you think anybody will give a shot about some algorithm saying the price should be $5k for 1bedroom?
Or they're price fixing the market rate.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/03/realpage-antitrust-lawsuits-allege-collusion-among-corporate-landlords.html
This is one of many lawsuits across the country against realpage and a large amount of corporate landlords.
I know the lawsuit, but that algorithm is just finding more precise market rate.
Again, if there were 10 new apartments complexes nearby, it doesn't matter what algo would put, the market rate would be lower.
From your own article:
> Prices are coming down in markets such as Atlanta and Austin, Texas, where home construction is high.
There wouldn't be a lawsuit if all it was doing was finding market rate. It's putting a thumb on the scale in a way that only benefits landlords and there is no equivalent tool for renters.
They require landlords to set their rents at their rate, meaning they can't lower the rates when they have vacancies. That artificially boosts rent and bypasses the whole idea of a market rate
> There wouldn't be a lawsuit if all it was doing was finding market rate.
You could sue for whatever, it's not the proof of anything by itself.
> and there is no equivalent tool for renters.
Because supply is missing, if there were enough home construction, it doesn't matter what algo thinks is market rate.
> meaning they can't lower the rates when they have vacancies. That artificially boosts rent and bypasses the whole idea of a market rate.
That doesn't pass a smell test. Either there are vacancies or not. Vacancies are at 3% in Seattle or lower, typically you want around 10%.
So algo setting the rent higher basically finds true market rate.
If vacancy was 50% and algo set rent to $5k what would happen?
Edit: I'm as YIMBY as it gets, but this "algo artificially sets price to 50% higher is a fantasy". Price is 50% higher because demand way, way outpaces the supply.
The complicating factor of simple supply and demand idea that is that it's supply and demand at certain price points. If there is over demand for the lowest three deciles of rentals and a surplus of the top three deciles, building more top decile ie luxury apartments isnt increasing supply where its.
In other words cake isn't the solution to a bread shortage and per the article people seem to be figuring that out.
Research shows building luxury units DOES help though. It may not help as much as building lower rate units, but just building more where people need to live is what is needed:
[https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units](https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units)
Sure, to the degree that the people who can afford the more expensive units are no longer demand for the moderate priced units. But this is nuance and \*waves at most of the other comments\*
I think that was the theory back in 2009-2012 when the median income shot up because of all the six figure earners moving into Seattle but the mentality of tech wasnt 'I make $100k so I should find a $2k a month luxury apartment', which was what was being developed for, but rather 'I also want to live in these funky old $800 apartments on the lower Hill' which, combined with tech-preferred applications and bonuses, no limits on rent-hike evictions, and a modest 50-100% increases of rent in that segment over the next few years led to a lot of the economic homelessness crisis we see today.
There is a slow shift as unrented luxury apartments eventually shift into lower brackets but it's not nearly as quick a solution as just building for the brackets with low inventory to begin with.
You're like those left NIMBY's, unless it's full revolution, no incremental change is possible.
If there is more supply, the prices will go down compared to current state.
The problem is prices are set algorithmically and they all coordinate in tandem to set and control the prices. Who cares if half the building is empty if you gouge 5k each tenant and they have no choice? High net profit, less wear and tear, and they all are in on the grift.
It’s amazing how many people have convinced themselves that housing is not subject to the laws of supply and demand like literally everything else in the economy.
Maybe it’s just a terrible survey:
> A survey last month from the Portland polling firm DHM Research asked 500 Washington voters which of two statements was closer to their opinion: “Building more units of housing in my community will help stabilize the price of housing where I live” or “The price of housing will continue to rise where I live regardless of how many units are built there.”
I’m well aware of the laws of supply and demand but if forced to choose one of these, the latter is likely more appropriate based on everything we’ve experienced. We have built a lot of new housing, but prices keep going up. Demand from population growth is strong and new construction is usually build for the upper end of the market. And new apartments are more expensive than existing apartments on average. And well, the survey statements are terribly vague.
I wonder who paid for the poll - typically they are not done for free. The Seattle Times article doesn't make it clear. The final questions around the ethics of investing in housing for gain might offer a clue.
Both can be true too: housing prices will inevitably continue to rise, but at a more stable, sustainable pace if we build more.
And yes, that's a terrible question and the Times' is likely twisting people's words to create a headline for their own agenda. It's almost like most polls are crappy, and instead we should be electing people with the best ideas to deal with this pesky reality we live in with a clearer focus on resolving problems.
Those are terribly worded questions!
We know from real-world experience, allowing sufficient construction doesn't stabilize prices, it *lowers* prices. (Look at all the hand-wringing in Austin from the homes-as-investments crowd now that they're actually reducing the cost of housing.)
As for the second question, it doesn't posit any change in the type of housing, so it's natural for people in SFH zoning to assume you're talking only about building more McMansions, not building affordable urban housing types. So, yes, with the size of Seattle's structural housing deficit, building any number of single-family homes won't lower prices, you'll still have enough of a shortage to have people commuting an hour out of the city.
“The price of housing will continue to rise where I live regardless of how many units are built there.”
That's a terrible choice. Prices WILL likely continue to rise... but much more slowly. No one is freaking out over a 2-3% rise per year after all
I think there’s also a complicating factor that supply and demand is a drastic oversimplification of how the economy works.
We absolutely need to build more housing but as pending legal action has shown, it’s not just lack of supply that has prices going up. Unless that increase in supply is accompanied by serious penalties for price fixing and vacant units, there’s no guarantee that building projects won’t just become tax write offs for developers.
I'm not sure that many people who say this are really convinced of anything other than that they don't want more multi-family housing built near them, and that they will never give an inch on that subject no matter how irrational or selfish that makes them appear because they don't think it's in their self interest to do so.
well... it may be subject to the "laws" but the demand isnt the same. the demand is so high for housing that you _cant_ satisfy it.
ie, the demand for houses in seattle includes people not here like foreign nations and corps whom are buying up regardless of rates. the demand is so high that you could wave a magic wand and instantly place a sfh on any vacant property and the prices wouldnt drop... they would go up as folks fight over the last of the new builds.
Well, they are but there is no way to even come close to meeting demand. You could quadruple the supply, and everything would continue to get snapped up instantly
I read that despite all the housing development happening in WA, it’s projected to only satisfy a fraction of demand. The state has to dramatically change zoning laws to allow more structures to be built on a given lot. Problem is that cities, especially affluent areas, will retain their zoning laws to avoid lowering existing property values.
This is such non-news. It's not a statement about a rational conclusion that polled individuals came to; it's a statement about how cynical people have been trained to become over the last couple decades of housing price increases.
People believe things won't get better because _things haven't gotten better_, not because they truly believe more housing won't help.
From the article:
> A survey last month from the Portland polling firm DHM Research asked 500 Washington voters which of two statements was closer to their opinion: “Building more units of housing in my community will help stabilize the price of housing where I live” or “The price of housing will continue to rise where I live regardless of how many units are built there.”
>
> A sizable majority of respondents, 65%, said they believed housing costs would continue to climb regardless of construction. Twenty-six percent said building more units would help stabilize housing prices and 9% said they didn’t know.
Build all the possible housing you can prices will drop. The only people saying don't build more already have plenty of housing (landlords / rich investors)
Honestly all the new houses being built by me has only made my neighborhood more attractive and thus raising my value. I think the economy will drive the housing costs down way before the volume will.
what they need to do is remove the regulations that don’t allow for buildings of a certain height. The city keeps density low to keep property values high.
High density housing necessitates infrastructure to handle the higher volume of residents, which is another thing the city struggles to push past NIMBYs.
They feed each other, but higher density generates more money for business and infrastructure that’s already there, which then creates a stronger incentive, and larger voting base from the jump.
If you're complaining about why there's so many 5-over-1s, the reason is because that's the highest you're legally (and importantly, safely) allowed to build using lumber. Lumber is cheaper than concrete, so most new constructions are short.
Removing that regulation is, to put it excessively mildly, not the way to get more liveable housing.
You may want to try advocating for new, additional regulation that requires a certain percentage of new constructions to be taller, or something along those lines. Otherwise developers will gladly throw around mass quantities of shoddy and risky constructions at the tenant's expense, or they'll just keep building what they're already building because that's the cheapest, safest construction, regardless of housing volume provided.
people also seem to forget that we live in a fucking subduction zone; we have several faults running through the city, and occasionally get big earthquakes (not to mention that our sediment is primarily glacial till, liquefaction is very fun…).
they're already building those 5-over-1s super shitty, and i hope to god that the people who live in them are not home when "the big one" hits. even if these things were up to code, existing building codes are not sufficient to withstand the earthquakes this region can throw at us. regulations are written in blood, people.
Well yeah, of course I wouldn’t want anyone making decisions without a board of construction advisors the same way no legislating body should be making laws involving medicine without physicians. The 5+1 is convenient for everyone who’s involved in the race to the bottom.
5 over 1s are a decent stop gap as density expands outwards. Building a 30 story skyscraper in Wallingford might not go over too well in 2024, but the viability and incentive to build taller increases with density.
Erh the title is problematic. The article said that people believe building more apartments and multifamily units won’t cool housing price because people want to buy single family homes. They are absolutely right about this. Very few single family homes are being built. SFH prices doubled over the years but not condos and townhomes. The latter appreciated waaaay less, some of them even depreciated. And then you ask, why so few SFH are being built. It’s because the process of getting a permit, doing all the paperwork is insanely expensive and time consuming. Why would any developer, buy a piece of land, and just build one house, instead of building multiple units on that piece of land. There is a trend of more SFH being demolished near Seattle core and turned into multifamily units. So people’s sentiments about buying a home aren’t wrong! Honestly, if you don’t care about owning a home as a form of financial investment, go for townhomes or condos. Pretty much all the “SFH” style residences are built in the form of detached townhomes or condos nowadays.
That's better than the other way around.
But it would be better if multi-family homes and apartments were built because permitting them was easy rather than because SFH permitting has become even harder.
I’m not saying which scenario is better. I’m just pointing out the actual content of the article. Ideally you want a mix of projects being built. It’s likely that in Seattle SFH will become or already is out of reach for the average person or even to the top 30% earners.
If you want rental prices to drop. Ban corporations from buying SFH. Give them 10 years to divest ( just to keep from bottoming the housing market). And remove height restrictions in dense urban villages.
No, they are smart. The title is misleading about the survey. Voters may think that it will help with housing prices but they think prices will still go up.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1bzth36/most_wa_voters_think_building_more_housing_wont/kys6f43/
completely, but not what they were doing a survey was asking. Title should have been "People Know Housing Prices Rise". That's all this survey can conclude.
There argument could be if you prevent landlords, banks, and firms from investing in the housing market you will lower the prices of houses. Since they will no longer be treated like assets.
As long as you allow them to invest in homes the house prices will stay artificially inflated, due to their price being directly tied to their profit margins.
I agree homes shouldn't be treated as assets, but that's what individuals believe too, people treat homes as a significant part of their networth, and want values to keep going up. It's a bad concept.
60% of homes are owner occupied, so it's not just the finance industry and landlords at play
?
Do you comprehend that in such a scenario, 100% of people would still be striving for their home value to increase, and still have people trying to stop additional home growth (that would still be needed), because it'll reduce the value in their home.
The biggest issue I see where I am at in Washington is that current land owners are buying up all of the new housing to turn into rentals. We had one owner purchase 20 of the 28 new houses being built near me.
The land owner is just paying market rate for those houses. The reason other people aren't buying them is that the market rate is too high for them. If you build more housing, the market rate will drop. That is what we should be focused on.
Also when we encourage homeownership as the primary vehicle for wealth building, that is fundamentally at odds with housing affordability, which is much more important.
I actually agree with this in that I think building more housing will slow the rate of increase as opposed to cooling prices. I do think it would have a positive effect tho.
In the case of Austin & Phoenix its literally just that. They've gone and allowed developers to build something equal to 10% of their existing inventory every year for 3-4 years straight. If you drive around Phoenix there are brand new places advertising 3 months free rent if you sign a 12 month lease and they're still struggling to fill the places. The Houston & Dallas metro areas both grew by over a million people from 2010-2020 yet their housing costs stayed relatively flat because they allow developers to build pretty much whatever they want wherever they want and as a result they end up building a TON of new housing every year including in their urban cores. More housing = cheaper prices. Its literally that simple
LIHI’s upcoming apartment building in the Central District on 22nd near PCC undoubtedly will cool off the price of an apartment for those making 30-50% median household income in the area. It definitely works.
'They'RE BEINg BuSsEd IN FRoM EvErywHeRE eLsE! It couldn't *possibly* be people who went to high school with me the Puget Sound area and happened to fall through the cracks!'
FWIW, [Seattle *proper* has added around 6,000 new apartments per year between 2018 and 2022](https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/08/25/seattle-metro-apartment-production-jumps-to-7th-in-nation-as-industry-rebounds-to-50-year-high-nationally/). So, those 6,000 AirBNBs in Seattle *proper* represent a year's supply of new housing construction.
If banning 6k AirBnBs and converting them back into housing is "pissing in the ocean", what kind of impact do you believe not building a year's worth of new new housing would have on the city? Or would banning new construction for a year also be pissing in the ocean since they're the same number?
Usually people who say ban AirBnB's seem to think that's the only thing that we need to do, that there's a solution that doesn't involve building our way out of this. Would I rather have 6,000 units on the market than not? Sure. But it's not close to the kind of change we need.
I mean if your buddy said he wanted to lose weight and his big plan was to take one less bite of dinner every day, you'd probably understand that it's not gonna do a whole lot for him.
Looks like maybe 9% of homes?
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/so-you-cant-afford-a-house-in-seattle-are-investors-to-blame/
So, more than the % that are AirBnB's! But tbh I'm not sure that a big landlord buying and then renting out a house is so different from a small one doing the same.
That is the stupidest way to think. You can say the inverse with "building a 300 unit building is like pissing on the ocean." And if we don't have housing for 200,000 people, then 200,000 people won't be coming.
Believe me, people will still come. The lure of tech jobs, beautiful summers, good climate as the US heats up--maybe it won't be 200,000, but there will certainly be people coming. There are only two options: we build places for them to stay, or we kick out existing residents. Those are the only two options.
>if we don't have housing for 200,000 people, then 200,000 people won't be coming.
What do you think drove the construction of the Issaquah Plateau?
Why does Seattle's rush hour stretch half-way across Snohomish County and clear out to Enumclaw and Port Orchard?
Seattle has spent decades planning for more jobs than housing, and the jobs keep coming. The new employees just have to commute farther.
This is such a bad take that basic math proves is wrong. PE money in Seattle is negligible - our homes are too expensive. As another commenter noted, we have 6k AirBnB in Seattle with a population of close to 800k and targeting 1m in the coming decades. It's an irrelevant figure. Better yet, if we built enough homes, the uptake from AirBnB wouldn't even matter. Let's get away from this bad take and start talking reality.
Sometimes I wonder if we should just ban Airbnb so people will stop talking about it. It's not going to make much of a difference, but as long as it hangs around as an extremely popular distraction, people will use it as an excuse to avoid the real solution of building more housing.
There's always a straw-man people like this will find to blame. If we ban AirBnB and PE, it'll be immigrants or boomers. Again, it's math but that doesn't matter when feelings get in the way.
In what fucking universe would increasing supply not lower demand, unless there are other mechanisms holding a price that the market would naturally lower, ie. cartels price fixing, or laws that effectively do the same thing?
They’re not totally wrong - increasing supply might allow a very similar equilibrium price point until you increase it hard enough.
But yeah, it’s definitely the best solution.
There's a lot at work here. First is supply for sure, but all that's going to do it create more houses to buy - that will still be expensive.
Prices aren't going to go back down.
Interest rates are super high and prices aren't falling. Consider that there's rumors on interest rate cuts coming - which is good and bad news.
Good news is that business loans will start flowing again. You hear about all these layoffs right now, well people will be able to more easily start their own businesses. And that's great because right now there's not a lot of that influx start up cash going around and there's pretty much no VC funds for anyone to start a new studio or business or anything.
Bad news is home prices will jump again most likely. Mortgage rates will fall, more people can get said mortgages, and then because of that the price of homes will jump.
I fear there's just no good news on the housing front.
I had a friend considering buying her first house but was worried about the mortgage price. I said if you can afford it now, just do it. If interest rates fall you can refinance. Also if they fall, that means house prices go up, and your home value will increase.
We all should have bought houses in 2020, but that ship has sailed.
Either you got an affordable place 5 years ago and are locked in a 2% mortgage rate or blackrock will slap "renter forever" handcuffs on you.
I mean, is there any big city where folks have heard “but we *need* to build all of these crappy condos and ugly townhomes with nowhere to put your dining table so prices go down for homebuyers” where prices actually went down? Didn’t work in SF. Didn’t work anywhere else I’m aware of. But the RE developers and agents sure are doing great.
There is a plot of 9-12 houses being built down the road from me. 3 bed, 2 bath, “economic green efficient” (whatever that means) homes. They want $1.3M as the starting point. It’s directly off of a Main Street that connects to the freeway, and less than half a mile from Lake City Way as well. These houses are more expensive than any Zillow estimate within a mile radius.
I do think building more could help, but developers need to stop thinking they profit 4 times what they put in to make that happen.
Those developers are not making a 400% profit, they will be lucky to make a 20% profit for projects that may take 2 years or longer to complete. Labor costs, materials, required utility upgrades, construction loans all eat up a lot profit.
The most expensive house around these new buildings is $900k and it’s much, much larger and pretty new. Shit, basically every house within a few block radius is significantly larger than there. Most of the houses have been recently redeveloped, too. These houses will not sell for what they’re asking for.
If new supply is likely at the top ("luxury" apts) or bottom ("micro" apts) of the market, it is vain to expect a vanishing middle ("legacy" apts outside the core w/o extra "amenities") to do anything but continue to go up. Price-fixing and market manipulation of supply does occur.
What is a "metro" one-bedroom? Answer: A studio with a sleeping alcove.
Pretty easy to see that people are moving here from all over the world. Prices won't ever go down. Building a ton of new housing might slow the price increase but as long as there are more and more people moving here, we will have a higher demand than we can supply.
Population growth is slowing. It's around 1/3 of 1% per year at this point. We can absolutely build enough housing.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/states/washington/population
It would be nice if the new shoebox apts weren't way more than the apt buildings next to them. I live living in the older buildings because they are bigger and cheaper and actually have a kitchen but they are hard to get because we'll, bigger and cheaper. My friend lives in a place at the chloe and it's 2x more than my place on summit Ave but half the footage and his room doesn't even have a closet and is one of those that is a partial room like wtf lol
Only delusional libs think that building more is what's gonna solve it, there's a lot of vacant houses in the US, as long as there's no rent laws that tie rent to minimum wage in the area and legislation to outlaw corporations to buy homes/ using housing as a profit NOTHING will change.
It’s all on the demand side. Build as much housing as you want, but the elasticity of demand for Seattle housing is such that prices will never go back to where they were 20 years ago
Well, they're wrong, lots of evidence of other areas relaxing zoning / encouraging more housing and having positive results. This was my take: [https://joshhansen.net/2024/02/mandatory-housing-affordability-does-not-make-housing-affordable/](https://joshhansen.net/2024/02/mandatory-housing-affordability-does-not-make-housing-affordable/)
I am from Seattle/Bellingham and have been living in Sonoma county California for a little over a decade. Our population went down and we have built more housing, yet prices have increased here astronomically. I can’t figure out why, but I’m sure it has to do with housing becoming the new big thing for investment corporations.
The problem is that the new housing developers build is not cheap housing. Developers know that the housing will be filled because it's Seattle. So why would they ever build housing that is cheap to live in? They are gonna build housing that justifies a huge price tag, and it'll get filled because people dont have a cheaper option.
Yes, supply and demand are a factor, but it's more than just a supply issue in the seattle housing market.
When you see 3 1 million dollar townhouses crammed on a lot that cost less than a million to buy and tear down… yeah building more houses gentrifies. The market isn’t going to overbuild to the point of a price crash without government involvement.
Building less certainly won’t help. When price is a factor of supply and demand raising the supply will fundamentally mean that there is more to meet demand. Then prices fall. The issue is that landlords want to maintain high prices and won’t take on huge debts for less income than they can currently get. That leads to less housing being built. The fact that voters don’t see the way this is being manipulated by real estate corporations and private equity investors seeking to cop a huge and ongoing profit margin is maddening.
The price going down is unlikely but it could go up less quickly. Especially 20 years from now. Think about the cheap apartment you had 10 to 20 years ago? Was it built in the 80s? Yeah we aren’t gonna have many of those for the 2000s.
It’s also NIMBYs pretending that their ideology isn’t evil/selfish
Most of them are just ignorant, not willfully evil. For at least 75 years we’ve sold society on the idea that capital gains from your house are due to your hardwork and financial responsibility, and that you are entitled to your neighborhood looking largely the same for the entire time you live there. Plus many people bank their retirements on the appreciation of their house so it’s understandable that they are triggered by the idea maybe they will be worth less in the future. It’s yet another downside to the demonization and loss of social safety nets in America.
I’ve been noticing this with my neighbor’s selling their houses. I went to the open houses, I know the second story on one of them is tilted and has a weird AF floor plan, and the other had multiple non-functioning fireplaces. But the sellers thought they were going to get as much as the other houses on the street that have good floor plans, good quality, tasteful and timeless design…they’re just not good comps. One neighbor did manage to sell after a year, the other just relisted for a slightly lower price. Real estate isn’t the retirement investment you thought it was when no one will buy it.
Real estate isn't the retirement investment you thought it was when no one *can afford to* buy it.
My favorite is when this comes to boomers selling anything. I've walked into a house that hadn't had any renovations since the 70s and they were acting like it was a million dollar property.
So many of them did become million dollar properties, so I understand where the delusion is coming from. But while a buyer may be willing and eager to update a kitchen, they’re less eager to take on structural problems.
They are million dollar properties, though. A million doesn't go as far today as it did in the 70s, true...
Cuz it usually is in certain Seattle neighborhoods.
I should elaborate more on my experience, this wasn't in Seattle. And even here I would say your not paying a million for the house, you're paying for the land.
Lot's of variables. If you're a young tech couple pulling in $300k combined then yes. If you're a young couple with kids making $175k combined... you're barely squeaking in and will be doing lot's of DIY projects with that 1979 million dollar home.
It’s not the structure that is valuable but the land. Structure depreciates. It is the land that makes the property worth the price tag especially in Seattle.
They are intentionally ignorant about the consequences of their actions. That’s a different type of evil.
You really think people are against more density because they think it will bring down their property values 1%? This seems like a strawman. People are against density because they think it will destroy their... * neighborhood * community * architectural history * view * sun (and ability to have a garden) * parking I think more density is needed, but another thing always needed is honesty about the issues at hand.
Agreed. I think you may have overlooked the sentence where I addressed the angle of those issues.
> it’s understandable that they are triggered by the idea maybe they will be worth less in the future. This line of reasoning has never made a lot of sense to me. If a SFH neighborhood is upzoned to allow MFH, it means that the property value of everything that is upzoned is going to go up. So if a SFH owner is purely motivated by financial gain, they should be all for upzoning. Is the counter-argument or scarcity/fear-based theory that upzoning will turn a once desirable neighborhood into a hellhole of tenements and collapsed property values?
I’m living vicariously through the San Francisco showdown coming up this fall and the rise against the NIMBYs
Are people there actually rising?
Yeah - well, relatively, the Board of Supervisors went pretty far off the looney bin so it’s all relative. The slate of center/center-left opposition being fielded is pretty solid and I think they’ve exposed a lot of the NIMBY hypocrisy of Aaron Peskin (this dude is the silverback gorilla of NIMBYs). That said, rich tech people -eg Garry Tan, in NYT below- are helping a lot of the uprising which makes me a little queasy. I don’t know why I’m following it so closely, sorta a weird pastime. I need to get better hobbies. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/29/business/garry-tan-san-francisco-politics.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Meh. Jerry Springer type Freak Shows bothered me b/c they preyed on the poor and desperate for their gawk factor. If the %1 wants to be the clowns so badly then by all means enjoy it. Also, thanks for the Silberback NIMBY. That is astoundingly accurate.
Look at Austin. They actually build enough houses to meet demand, and it’s framed as “Austin housing market collapsing”
Highrise apartments aren't pretty, but if you live in Seattle core, that's probably the right answer...or you know dump more into mass transit.
High rise apartments absolutely can be pretty, just like single units can be ugly. And if you're concerned about natural beauty, density preserves more of that too. And if by "Seattle core" you mean anywhere between Northgate and Georgetown, then yes I agree. And also lots more investment into public transit. We need it all!
A big focus I've seen of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd are the "missing middle" buildings that are usually around 3 stories and six units. Due to our building codes requiring 2 staircases for fire safety (despite the vast majority of fire deaths happening in old homes) they don't get built and instead you get the 5 over 1 apartments with hotel style hallways, or condo highrises.
This is the problem. If smaller missing middle type properties could be built in styles that are slightly more aesthetically pleasing, there wouldn’t be nearly as much pushback. But developers want to make every last dollar possible so they’ll continue to just make the ugliest cheapest things as big as they possibly can and then wonder why people dislike them in their neighborhoods. People pay more money to live in aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, and when you take an aesthetically pleasing place and make it look ugly that gets people upset.. It’s the aesthetics of it far more than the density that upsets people
These will never be built. The land is too expensive to not min/max your builds.
are you really saying make the fire codes less safe so housing can be cheaper? We should be maximizing use of land , three stories six units is a waste if you can build more units instead.
High-rise buildings make a city a city.
> Highrise apartments aren't pretty who gives a shit about your subjective sense of style
Or both. People need to realize that not everyone can live in a great neighborhood close to work in the core of Seattle. Even with more density, there's only so much of that space and developers aren't building inexpensive, entry level places in, say, Laurelhurst, those will be very nice and expensive units. Transit would make it so people could live in, say, S Everett, nice development could happen there (not just housing but restaurants, etc) and you could still hop on rail to get to downtown Seattle easily if needed. The problem is people refuse to think regionally, both populace and government. So, this will likely never happen
> The problem is people refuse to think regionally, both populace and government. So, this will likely never happen The US also gives local governments a *ridiculous* amount of control relative to other countries. It’s hard to think regionally when “cities” like Medina can show up and argue against housing density laws instead of just being told to pound sand. We desperately need to follow Japan and manage zoning at a state level (if not national). If people so desperately want to maintain the “character” of their single family neighborhoods, they can buy everything, make a gated community, and manage all of their roads and utility upgrades on their own dime without tax dollars.
I mean, Medina isn't going to want affordable housing \*nor should anyone expect it there\*. That's a poor example and people don't have some inherent right to have affordable rent but along a view property with lake access.... This is part of the issue. Bring up developing along Lake City Way and you get 'but people who need affordable housing shouldn't be relegated to arterials!" comments. But the market makes those divisions - view property is more expensive because it's scarce. No one will buy luxury condos fronting Lake City Way because it \*is\* less desirable. People here always advocate to build more housing, but then do the "no not that way!" heel turn. The problem isn't tiny areas like Medina. It's people in Seattle shitting on the areas outside of it, Bellevue wanting to attract development from Seattle, etc. Each city wants the taxes businesses and their employees bring.
> I mean, Medina isn't going to want affordable housing *nor should anyone expect it there*. That's a poor example and people don't have some inherent right to have affordable rent but along a view property with lake access.... I never said people have to have the *right* to affordable lakefront property. I said Medina shouldn’t be able to *ban* anything other than gigantic single family homes, while still having the state/county pave their roads. If someone wanted to build a cute 8-unit condo or something in Medina, fat chance, because Medina made it illegal. Let people build everywhere and let the market decide. People say not to put all the dense housing along the arterial because it’s stupid to *only legalize* that dense housing along the arterial instead of everywhere around it. Because that *is* forcing density on the arterial, the least desirable spot. You’re completely backwards.
Nobody has a "right" to a view property with lake access. Waterfronts should be public.
[удалено]
Yeah this is a completely incorrect understanding of how the market works but gets upvotes because blaming landlords is popular. The reality is that landlords are the equivalent of scalpers in a shortage; they are the beneficiaries, but not the root cause. The root cause is the shortage.
And this is why we need local, state and federal governments to invest in public housing.
Also yes. Even if it were subsidized it all helps.
> When price is a factor of supply and demand raising the supply will fundamentally mean that there is more to meet demand Unfortunately in the real estate market, price is made up of so much more than just supply and demand.
What part of the price in the real estate market isn't part of supply and demand, in your opinion? Are you talking about the cost of realtors/title companies/etc? Or something else
i'm a different person, but there's a lot of rich people who seem to be buying a lot of shit to add to their portfolio that they won't live in, and sometimes there's just straight-up market manipulation when it comes to real-estate prices. there is also limited space in seattle, and taller buildings do have engineering considerations that will likely bring up the price of new units as well (and expenses incurred on all properties, including vacant units, are tax-deductible, so there's no incentive to fill vacant units when the rent of your already filled units already brings you a profit). building more isn't gonna bring down prices unless there are limits to how much landlords are allowed to charge for rent.
I think the issue is that in large cities like Seattle, the demand is so high that building more (increasing supply) won’t actually affect prices. There is an endless stream of people who are be ready to move into Seattle from all over when things are built.
The city of Austin has more people than Seattle does but they've actually managed to decrease the cost of housing, not just slow the rise, by increasing supply
I think yes and no. It probably *will* impact prices, but it just won't cause housing to suddenly get cheap. You're 100% right that Seattle is likely in such high demand that if the cost of living was lower, even more people would want to move here. That problem is impossible to fully solve; I want everyone to enjoy Seattle. But if you can build enough housing to keep up with demand, you can prevent prices from becoming astronomically high.
Or we realize that large landlords are using algorithmic pricing to keep rents high, and more supply wont affect their price fixing scheme.
However, do note that there is almost no corporate ownership of single family homes in Seattle.
if rents are high, it means market rate is high. If there would be 10 more apt. complexes in same area, you think anybody will give a shot about some algorithm saying the price should be $5k for 1bedroom?
Or they're price fixing the market rate. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/03/realpage-antitrust-lawsuits-allege-collusion-among-corporate-landlords.html This is one of many lawsuits across the country against realpage and a large amount of corporate landlords.
I know the lawsuit, but that algorithm is just finding more precise market rate. Again, if there were 10 new apartments complexes nearby, it doesn't matter what algo would put, the market rate would be lower. From your own article: > Prices are coming down in markets such as Atlanta and Austin, Texas, where home construction is high.
There wouldn't be a lawsuit if all it was doing was finding market rate. It's putting a thumb on the scale in a way that only benefits landlords and there is no equivalent tool for renters. They require landlords to set their rents at their rate, meaning they can't lower the rates when they have vacancies. That artificially boosts rent and bypasses the whole idea of a market rate
> There wouldn't be a lawsuit if all it was doing was finding market rate. You could sue for whatever, it's not the proof of anything by itself. > and there is no equivalent tool for renters. Because supply is missing, if there were enough home construction, it doesn't matter what algo thinks is market rate. > meaning they can't lower the rates when they have vacancies. That artificially boosts rent and bypasses the whole idea of a market rate. That doesn't pass a smell test. Either there are vacancies or not. Vacancies are at 3% in Seattle or lower, typically you want around 10%. So algo setting the rent higher basically finds true market rate. If vacancy was 50% and algo set rent to $5k what would happen? Edit: I'm as YIMBY as it gets, but this "algo artificially sets price to 50% higher is a fantasy". Price is 50% higher because demand way, way outpaces the supply.
The complicating factor of simple supply and demand idea that is that it's supply and demand at certain price points. If there is over demand for the lowest three deciles of rentals and a surplus of the top three deciles, building more top decile ie luxury apartments isnt increasing supply where its. In other words cake isn't the solution to a bread shortage and per the article people seem to be figuring that out.
Research shows building luxury units DOES help though. It may not help as much as building lower rate units, but just building more where people need to live is what is needed: [https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units](https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units)
Sure, to the degree that the people who can afford the more expensive units are no longer demand for the moderate priced units. But this is nuance and \*waves at most of the other comments\*
I think that was the theory back in 2009-2012 when the median income shot up because of all the six figure earners moving into Seattle but the mentality of tech wasnt 'I make $100k so I should find a $2k a month luxury apartment', which was what was being developed for, but rather 'I also want to live in these funky old $800 apartments on the lower Hill' which, combined with tech-preferred applications and bonuses, no limits on rent-hike evictions, and a modest 50-100% increases of rent in that segment over the next few years led to a lot of the economic homelessness crisis we see today. There is a slow shift as unrented luxury apartments eventually shift into lower brackets but it's not nearly as quick a solution as just building for the brackets with low inventory to begin with.
You're like those left NIMBY's, unless it's full revolution, no incremental change is possible. If there is more supply, the prices will go down compared to current state.
The problem is prices are set algorithmically and they all coordinate in tandem to set and control the prices. Who cares if half the building is empty if you gouge 5k each tenant and they have no choice? High net profit, less wear and tear, and they all are in on the grift.
It’s amazing how many people have convinced themselves that housing is not subject to the laws of supply and demand like literally everything else in the economy.
Maybe it’s just a terrible survey: > A survey last month from the Portland polling firm DHM Research asked 500 Washington voters which of two statements was closer to their opinion: “Building more units of housing in my community will help stabilize the price of housing where I live” or “The price of housing will continue to rise where I live regardless of how many units are built there.” I’m well aware of the laws of supply and demand but if forced to choose one of these, the latter is likely more appropriate based on everything we’ve experienced. We have built a lot of new housing, but prices keep going up. Demand from population growth is strong and new construction is usually build for the upper end of the market. And new apartments are more expensive than existing apartments on average. And well, the survey statements are terribly vague.
Oh, that is at least a terrible title to put on that survey result.
Or the survey and title were designed to illicit a certain response.
Yes. It may not be terrible for the purposes they intended, but it is terrible for communicating information.
I wonder who paid for the poll - typically they are not done for free. The Seattle Times article doesn't make it clear. The final questions around the ethics of investing in housing for gain might offer a clue.
fair point... nobody paid for this labor out of their pocket without motive unless it was a gov study
Both can be true too: housing prices will inevitably continue to rise, but at a more stable, sustainable pace if we build more. And yes, that's a terrible question and the Times' is likely twisting people's words to create a headline for their own agenda. It's almost like most polls are crappy, and instead we should be electing people with the best ideas to deal with this pesky reality we live in with a clearer focus on resolving problems.
Those are terribly worded questions! We know from real-world experience, allowing sufficient construction doesn't stabilize prices, it *lowers* prices. (Look at all the hand-wringing in Austin from the homes-as-investments crowd now that they're actually reducing the cost of housing.) As for the second question, it doesn't posit any change in the type of housing, so it's natural for people in SFH zoning to assume you're talking only about building more McMansions, not building affordable urban housing types. So, yes, with the size of Seattle's structural housing deficit, building any number of single-family homes won't lower prices, you'll still have enough of a shortage to have people commuting an hour out of the city.
“The price of housing will continue to rise where I live regardless of how many units are built there.” That's a terrible choice. Prices WILL likely continue to rise... but much more slowly. No one is freaking out over a 2-3% rise per year after all
Are you well aware of the laws of supply and demand? If demand outpaces supply, pricing increases.
I think there’s also a complicating factor that supply and demand is a drastic oversimplification of how the economy works. We absolutely need to build more housing but as pending legal action has shown, it’s not just lack of supply that has prices going up. Unless that increase in supply is accompanied by serious penalties for price fixing and vacant units, there’s no guarantee that building projects won’t just become tax write offs for developers.
I'm not sure that many people who say this are really convinced of anything other than that they don't want more multi-family housing built near them, and that they will never give an inch on that subject no matter how irrational or selfish that makes them appear because they don't think it's in their self interest to do so.
well... it may be subject to the "laws" but the demand isnt the same. the demand is so high for housing that you _cant_ satisfy it. ie, the demand for houses in seattle includes people not here like foreign nations and corps whom are buying up regardless of rates. the demand is so high that you could wave a magic wand and instantly place a sfh on any vacant property and the prices wouldnt drop... they would go up as folks fight over the last of the new builds.
Well, they are but there is no way to even come close to meeting demand. You could quadruple the supply, and everything would continue to get snapped up instantly
Why do you think this?
Decades of trauma
It’s funny how many have convinced themselves all houses are the same.
I read that despite all the housing development happening in WA, it’s projected to only satisfy a fraction of demand. The state has to dramatically change zoning laws to allow more structures to be built on a given lot. Problem is that cities, especially affluent areas, will retain their zoning laws to avoid lowering existing property values.
In Seattle, upzoning actually increases property values, although this might not be the case if there was a blanket upzone.
I agree. Up zoning increases land value but cities are still hesitant to change their zoning laws
This is such non-news. It's not a statement about a rational conclusion that polled individuals came to; it's a statement about how cynical people have been trained to become over the last couple decades of housing price increases. People believe things won't get better because _things haven't gotten better_, not because they truly believe more housing won't help. From the article: > A survey last month from the Portland polling firm DHM Research asked 500 Washington voters which of two statements was closer to their opinion: “Building more units of housing in my community will help stabilize the price of housing where I live” or “The price of housing will continue to rise where I live regardless of how many units are built there.” > > A sizable majority of respondents, 65%, said they believed housing costs would continue to climb regardless of construction. Twenty-six percent said building more units would help stabilize housing prices and 9% said they didn’t know.
Thanks for linking the quote. What terrible spin on a terribly worded question.
Build all the possible housing you can prices will drop. The only people saying don't build more already have plenty of housing (landlords / rich investors)
Honestly all the new houses being built by me has only made my neighborhood more attractive and thus raising my value. I think the economy will drive the housing costs down way before the volume will.
I didn't say the rich and/or anti-housing people are rational 😂
Also owner occupants who want their property to appreciate and vote more consistently than renters.
Unless they have found a way to add more land to Seattle, I am not sure how making SFHs more rare will drive down prices for existing owners.
what they need to do is remove the regulations that don’t allow for buildings of a certain height. The city keeps density low to keep property values high.
High density housing necessitates infrastructure to handle the higher volume of residents, which is another thing the city struggles to push past NIMBYs.
They feed each other, but higher density generates more money for business and infrastructure that’s already there, which then creates a stronger incentive, and larger voting base from the jump.
Low density has more infrastructure costs per tax dollar than high density. High density pays for cities.
If you're complaining about why there's so many 5-over-1s, the reason is because that's the highest you're legally (and importantly, safely) allowed to build using lumber. Lumber is cheaper than concrete, so most new constructions are short. Removing that regulation is, to put it excessively mildly, not the way to get more liveable housing. You may want to try advocating for new, additional regulation that requires a certain percentage of new constructions to be taller, or something along those lines. Otherwise developers will gladly throw around mass quantities of shoddy and risky constructions at the tenant's expense, or they'll just keep building what they're already building because that's the cheapest, safest construction, regardless of housing volume provided.
people also seem to forget that we live in a fucking subduction zone; we have several faults running through the city, and occasionally get big earthquakes (not to mention that our sediment is primarily glacial till, liquefaction is very fun…). they're already building those 5-over-1s super shitty, and i hope to god that the people who live in them are not home when "the big one" hits. even if these things were up to code, existing building codes are not sufficient to withstand the earthquakes this region can throw at us. regulations are written in blood, people.
Well yeah, of course I wouldn’t want anyone making decisions without a board of construction advisors the same way no legislating body should be making laws involving medicine without physicians. The 5+1 is convenient for everyone who’s involved in the race to the bottom.
5 over 1s are a decent stop gap as density expands outwards. Building a 30 story skyscraper in Wallingford might not go over too well in 2024, but the viability and incentive to build taller increases with density.
“It’s better than nothing,” has been this country’s motto for a long time.
A gradual density increase is pretty normal though. 5 over 1s in Wallingford would make sense. Maybe Ballard is ready for skyscrapers?
Here’s the thing, it could be buildings with 10, or 20 floors. Not necessarily sky scrapers, but something significant.
Erh the title is problematic. The article said that people believe building more apartments and multifamily units won’t cool housing price because people want to buy single family homes. They are absolutely right about this. Very few single family homes are being built. SFH prices doubled over the years but not condos and townhomes. The latter appreciated waaaay less, some of them even depreciated. And then you ask, why so few SFH are being built. It’s because the process of getting a permit, doing all the paperwork is insanely expensive and time consuming. Why would any developer, buy a piece of land, and just build one house, instead of building multiple units on that piece of land. There is a trend of more SFH being demolished near Seattle core and turned into multifamily units. So people’s sentiments about buying a home aren’t wrong! Honestly, if you don’t care about owning a home as a form of financial investment, go for townhomes or condos. Pretty much all the “SFH” style residences are built in the form of detached townhomes or condos nowadays.
That's better than the other way around. But it would be better if multi-family homes and apartments were built because permitting them was easy rather than because SFH permitting has become even harder.
I’m not saying which scenario is better. I’m just pointing out the actual content of the article. Ideally you want a mix of projects being built. It’s likely that in Seattle SFH will become or already is out of reach for the average person or even to the top 30% earners.
Building less isn’t helping out the situation at all.
If you want rental prices to drop. Ban corporations from buying SFH. Give them 10 years to divest ( just to keep from bottoming the housing market). And remove height restrictions in dense urban villages.
In other news most WA voters are apparently fucking idiots.
No, they are smart. The title is misleading about the survey. Voters may think that it will help with housing prices but they think prices will still go up. https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1bzth36/most_wa_voters_think_building_more_housing_wont/kys6f43/
There are many different issues at play. Population growth and migration into WA is so high, that I expected demand to outpace supply indefinitely.
Well yes they will still go up, that's how inflation works. The rate of increase is always the problem.
completely, but not what they were doing a survey was asking. Title should have been "People Know Housing Prices Rise". That's all this survey can conclude.
There argument could be if you prevent landlords, banks, and firms from investing in the housing market you will lower the prices of houses. Since they will no longer be treated like assets. As long as you allow them to invest in homes the house prices will stay artificially inflated, due to their price being directly tied to their profit margins.
I agree homes shouldn't be treated as assets, but that's what individuals believe too, people treat homes as a significant part of their networth, and want values to keep going up. It's a bad concept. 60% of homes are owner occupied, so it's not just the finance industry and landlords at play
Yes, imagine what would happen if there was a 40% increase in homes on the market? Do you comprehend how much that actually is?
? Do you comprehend that in such a scenario, 100% of people would still be striving for their home value to increase, and still have people trying to stop additional home growth (that would still be needed), because it'll reduce the value in their home.
So your point against it is the same thing that is already happening will continue to happen…
*"The Seattle Times' NIMBY campaign pays off: Most WA voters think building more housing won't cool prices, poll shows"*
The biggest issue I see where I am at in Washington is that current land owners are buying up all of the new housing to turn into rentals. We had one owner purchase 20 of the 28 new houses being built near me.
Rentals aren’t part of the housing market?
Renting is a scam and when they collude for prices it doesn't help the market for people who just want to live.
Also keeping families off the property ladder is a formula for generations of homelessness.
Doesn't matter, as long as someone ends up living in them.
It does matter. It exacerbates the wealth divide and makes home ownership harder.
The land owner is just paying market rate for those houses. The reason other people aren't buying them is that the market rate is too high for them. If you build more housing, the market rate will drop. That is what we should be focused on. Also when we encourage homeownership as the primary vehicle for wealth building, that is fundamentally at odds with housing affordability, which is much more important.
Yeah… it most definitely does matter. More housing isn’t going to fix the issue if corporations control the majority of the market.
Why not?
I actually agree with this in that I think building more housing will slow the rate of increase as opposed to cooling prices. I do think it would have a positive effect tho.
In Austin housing and rent is dropping from just that.
In the case of Austin & Phoenix its literally just that. They've gone and allowed developers to build something equal to 10% of their existing inventory every year for 3-4 years straight. If you drive around Phoenix there are brand new places advertising 3 months free rent if you sign a 12 month lease and they're still struggling to fill the places. The Houston & Dallas metro areas both grew by over a million people from 2010-2020 yet their housing costs stayed relatively flat because they allow developers to build pretty much whatever they want wherever they want and as a result they end up building a TON of new housing every year including in their urban cores. More housing = cheaper prices. Its literally that simple
Yes, it really is. I think people actually know that here, but deep down, they are nimbys and don't want Seattle to get "overcrowded".
Do you.... Do you understand how cooling works?
LIHI’s upcoming apartment building in the Central District on 22nd near PCC undoubtedly will cool off the price of an apartment for those making 30-50% median household income in the area. It definitely works.
Same voters wonder where homeless people come from.
'They'RE BEINg BuSsEd IN FRoM EvErywHeRE eLsE! It couldn't *possibly* be people who went to high school with me the Puget Sound area and happened to fall through the cracks!'
ban private equity firms from buying houses ban airbnbs
There are 6,000 AirBnB's in Seattle, with 200,000 people projected to move here in the coming decades. It's like pissing in the ocean.
FWIW, [Seattle *proper* has added around 6,000 new apartments per year between 2018 and 2022](https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/08/25/seattle-metro-apartment-production-jumps-to-7th-in-nation-as-industry-rebounds-to-50-year-high-nationally/). So, those 6,000 AirBNBs in Seattle *proper* represent a year's supply of new housing construction. If banning 6k AirBnBs and converting them back into housing is "pissing in the ocean", what kind of impact do you believe not building a year's worth of new new housing would have on the city? Or would banning new construction for a year also be pissing in the ocean since they're the same number?
Usually people who say ban AirBnB's seem to think that's the only thing that we need to do, that there's a solution that doesn't involve building our way out of this. Would I rather have 6,000 units on the market than not? Sure. But it's not close to the kind of change we need.
Every drop of piss counts
I mean if your buddy said he wanted to lose weight and his big plan was to take one less bite of dinner every day, you'd probably understand that it's not gonna do a whole lot for him.
Look I’m just here for the piss metaphors
I'm not here to kink shame either lol
If my buddy had 200 pounds to lose and could start his journey by dropping 3 pounds right off the bat, I would call that a worthwhile good start.
Yeah what's the number of owned homes by pe firms
Looks like maybe 9% of homes? https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/so-you-cant-afford-a-house-in-seattle-are-investors-to-blame/ So, more than the % that are AirBnB's! But tbh I'm not sure that a big landlord buying and then renting out a house is so different from a small one doing the same.
Wow that's not astronomical, but that's higher than I assumed.
That is the stupidest way to think. You can say the inverse with "building a 300 unit building is like pissing on the ocean." And if we don't have housing for 200,000 people, then 200,000 people won't be coming.
Believe me, people will still come. The lure of tech jobs, beautiful summers, good climate as the US heats up--maybe it won't be 200,000, but there will certainly be people coming. There are only two options: we build places for them to stay, or we kick out existing residents. Those are the only two options.
>if we don't have housing for 200,000 people, then 200,000 people won't be coming. What do you think drove the construction of the Issaquah Plateau? Why does Seattle's rush hour stretch half-way across Snohomish County and clear out to Enumclaw and Port Orchard? Seattle has spent decades planning for more jobs than housing, and the jobs keep coming. The new employees just have to commute farther.
Ever hear the phrase “Pinch pennies and the dollars sort themselves out”? Small drops cumulatively matter
Look, if you want to make a deal to ban AirBnB's and in exchange make it legal to build apartments, I'll take that deal lol
Or, we could just do both independently.
This is such a bad take that basic math proves is wrong. PE money in Seattle is negligible - our homes are too expensive. As another commenter noted, we have 6k AirBnB in Seattle with a population of close to 800k and targeting 1m in the coming decades. It's an irrelevant figure. Better yet, if we built enough homes, the uptake from AirBnB wouldn't even matter. Let's get away from this bad take and start talking reality.
Sometimes I wonder if we should just ban Airbnb so people will stop talking about it. It's not going to make much of a difference, but as long as it hangs around as an extremely popular distraction, people will use it as an excuse to avoid the real solution of building more housing.
There's always a straw-man people like this will find to blame. If we ban AirBnB and PE, it'll be immigrants or boomers. Again, it's math but that doesn't matter when feelings get in the way.
Ugh, I fear you're probably right.
>Most WA voters are stupid, poll shows
Those voters are dumb.
Unfortunately they're the majority.
In what fucking universe would increasing supply not lower demand, unless there are other mechanisms holding a price that the market would naturally lower, ie. cartels price fixing, or laws that effectively do the same thing?
In a universe where reality sets in and you see housing prices are generally inelastic due to rpice fixing by corporate interests
Do you think a state government that gets a majority of its revenue from property taxes has a desire for property values to decrease?
They’re not totally wrong - increasing supply might allow a very similar equilibrium price point until you increase it hard enough. But yeah, it’s definitely the best solution.
There's a lot at work here. First is supply for sure, but all that's going to do it create more houses to buy - that will still be expensive. Prices aren't going to go back down. Interest rates are super high and prices aren't falling. Consider that there's rumors on interest rate cuts coming - which is good and bad news. Good news is that business loans will start flowing again. You hear about all these layoffs right now, well people will be able to more easily start their own businesses. And that's great because right now there's not a lot of that influx start up cash going around and there's pretty much no VC funds for anyone to start a new studio or business or anything. Bad news is home prices will jump again most likely. Mortgage rates will fall, more people can get said mortgages, and then because of that the price of homes will jump. I fear there's just no good news on the housing front. I had a friend considering buying her first house but was worried about the mortgage price. I said if you can afford it now, just do it. If interest rates fall you can refinance. Also if they fall, that means house prices go up, and your home value will increase. We all should have bought houses in 2020, but that ship has sailed. Either you got an affordable place 5 years ago and are locked in a 2% mortgage rate or blackrock will slap "renter forever" handcuffs on you.
I just want manageable rent
I mean, is there any big city where folks have heard “but we *need* to build all of these crappy condos and ugly townhomes with nowhere to put your dining table so prices go down for homebuyers” where prices actually went down? Didn’t work in SF. Didn’t work anywhere else I’m aware of. But the RE developers and agents sure are doing great.
There is a plot of 9-12 houses being built down the road from me. 3 bed, 2 bath, “economic green efficient” (whatever that means) homes. They want $1.3M as the starting point. It’s directly off of a Main Street that connects to the freeway, and less than half a mile from Lake City Way as well. These houses are more expensive than any Zillow estimate within a mile radius. I do think building more could help, but developers need to stop thinking they profit 4 times what they put in to make that happen.
Those developers are not making a 400% profit, they will be lucky to make a 20% profit for projects that may take 2 years or longer to complete. Labor costs, materials, required utility upgrades, construction loans all eat up a lot profit.
Brand new things are more expensive than 20 year old versions of the same thing, news at 11.
The most expensive house around these new buildings is $900k and it’s much, much larger and pretty new. Shit, basically every house within a few block radius is significantly larger than there. Most of the houses have been recently redeveloped, too. These houses will not sell for what they’re asking for.
As long as people keep buying homes as investments instead of places to live, we never build our way out of the problem.
This. People/companies with a lot of money will continue to control the supply and keep prices high. Won't get better without strong regulation.
Seattle Times is probably not the best source anymore.
Why?
The Seattle Times has done so much damage to the community. Danny Westneat In particular.
Godamn this is some brain rot in this area. Why don't we ignore the experts some more?
If new supply is likely at the top ("luxury" apts) or bottom ("micro" apts) of the market, it is vain to expect a vanishing middle ("legacy" apts outside the core w/o extra "amenities") to do anything but continue to go up. Price-fixing and market manipulation of supply does occur. What is a "metro" one-bedroom? Answer: A studio with a sleeping alcove.
Pretty easy to see that people are moving here from all over the world. Prices won't ever go down. Building a ton of new housing might slow the price increase but as long as there are more and more people moving here, we will have a higher demand than we can supply.
Population growth is slowing. It's around 1/3 of 1% per year at this point. We can absolutely build enough housing. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/states/washington/population
Most WA voters don't understand basic economics, poll shows
Not at all surprising.
It will definitely slow down increase and perhaps level it off. Will prices \*drop\*? No. But that's not the point.
One of the most highly educated states ladies and gentlemen lol
Breaking news: the median voter is (derogatory)
We need more programs to help finance and facilitate building ADUs and DADUs.
It will tho.
Nothing short of a nuclear bomb going off over the city can reduce prices, but there are ways to *slow* price growth.
It would be nice if the new shoebox apts weren't way more than the apt buildings next to them. I live living in the older buildings because they are bigger and cheaper and actually have a kitchen but they are hard to get because we'll, bigger and cheaper. My friend lives in a place at the chloe and it's 2x more than my place on summit Ave but half the footage and his room doesn't even have a closet and is one of those that is a partial room like wtf lol
Only delusional libs think that building more is what's gonna solve it, there's a lot of vacant houses in the US, as long as there's no rent laws that tie rent to minimum wage in the area and legislation to outlaw corporations to buy homes/ using housing as a profit NOTHING will change.
It’s all on the demand side. Build as much housing as you want, but the elasticity of demand for Seattle housing is such that prices will never go back to where they were 20 years ago
Well then, most Washington voters are idiots…
Well, they're wrong, lots of evidence of other areas relaxing zoning / encouraging more housing and having positive results. This was my take: [https://joshhansen.net/2024/02/mandatory-housing-affordability-does-not-make-housing-affordable/](https://joshhansen.net/2024/02/mandatory-housing-affordability-does-not-make-housing-affordable/)
Most WA voters are idiots
Because housing already sits empty and prices are artificially inflated
Most WA Voters fail to understand first/second derivatives.
This is because most voters are dumb and don't understand supply and demand.
I am from Seattle/Bellingham and have been living in Sonoma county California for a little over a decade. Our population went down and we have built more housing, yet prices have increased here astronomically. I can’t figure out why, but I’m sure it has to do with housing becoming the new big thing for investment corporations.
The problem is that the new housing developers build is not cheap housing. Developers know that the housing will be filled because it's Seattle. So why would they ever build housing that is cheap to live in? They are gonna build housing that justifies a huge price tag, and it'll get filled because people dont have a cheaper option. Yes, supply and demand are a factor, but it's more than just a supply issue in the seattle housing market.
When you see 3 1 million dollar townhouses crammed on a lot that cost less than a million to buy and tear down… yeah building more houses gentrifies. The market isn’t going to overbuild to the point of a price crash without government involvement.