[mcphage]

> Therefore people should stop talking about affordable housing, and start talking about more housing.

Well, for starters, "affordable housing" is usually used in the context of adding housing. So it's generally already part of the discussion. And secondly, it's not just more, but what kind of more housing. More, yet expensive housing won't help, so "more" is necessary, but not sufficient.

[smeyer]

>More, yet expensive housing won't help

Yes it will. It might not help as much as cheaper housing, but it will help. Any increase to housing stock should lower prices overall. For example, building a luxury apartment building that adds a few hundred expensive units to an area will apply a bit of downward pressure on other parts of the housing market.

[sp332]

Not when foreign investors are buying properties as investment vehicles instead of having people live in them. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/london-prope... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/the-market/foreig...

[rhino369]

They invest because they think it's a good bet that property will rise. If you build enough housing so that housing won't keep rising in price, people will stop investing.

[Kluny]

Not always. In a lot of cases they do it because real estate is a safe, illiquid investment that will remain stable and valuable if the despots in their home country ruin the local economy or decide to seize their assets. In those cases, they don't mind if values take a hit.

[jessaustin]

That phenomenon is not common in locales in which Wal-Marts are closing.

[mcphage]

So instead of solving the problem (lack of housing that people can afford), you're going to solve a different problem (lack of expensive housing), hoping that eventually the solution trickles down to everyone else? How about, instead of adding a few hundred expensive units, you take the same amount of real estate, and add 1,000-2,000 less expensive units. It'll add more housing, as well as add it where it's needed most. Rather than waiting a few years for a game of musical chairs?

[rhino369]

The difference between luxury and non luxury apartments is mostly marketing and a some marble countertops. If there isn't more luxury stuff built, people just buy a non luxury property and make it luxury.

There might be a problem if new luxury spaces were too big, but in my experience they are still very small units. In my neighborhood the new luxury buildings have smaller units than mine. Mine isn't luxury just bcause its older and doesn't have a new kitchen.

In big expensive cities I'm not even sure how you'd build non luxury. I think you'd have to make it shitty on purpose.

[EdHominem]

You're aware that the city doesn't build the units, right? And developers only build where it's profitable.

If you think it's a good idea then start a development company, petition the city for permission, and raise money.

[mcphage]

My city is doing decently well with affordable housing, thanks.

[st3v3r]

Not nearly as much, which is why the emphasis is on affordable as well.

Further, housing is not a purely elastic good. Many luxury/high end places would rather a unit stay vacant for longer than to rent it out at lower prices to someone who might be an "undesirable".