[rflrob]

There is a belief, with a number of associated caveats, that "Today's luxury apartment's are tomorrow's affordable housing" [1]. They are one piece of the puzzle, and I don't think it's helpful to block their construction. That said, they aren't the only thing that's necessary for affordable and equitable housing, but I've become less hostile towards the luxury condo/shopping complex projects near me, even if I can neither afford them nor have much interest in living in one.

[1] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/todays-luxury...

[ng12]

I hear this a lot in Brooklyn. First, the reality is these units aren't very big (in fact, they are often smaller than cheaper units in Brownstones), so they're not significantly less efficient than "non-luxury" housing. Second, it's not like if the luxury buildings didn't exist the people who live there would just pack up and leave New York. Instead they'd just be moving into that renovated postwar that a lower-income person might have been able to afford.

[triviatise]

luxury units can create affordability immediately.

if 100 thousand luxury units suddenly came online at a cost of 1.5M each

Here are a few possible outcomes: 1) 100K people can afford them and decide to move from their current homes into the luxury homes. Homes that were 1.5m get downward pressure. As every level moves up it puts downward pricing pressure on the level below. Luxury housing will impact entry level housing if enough is built.

2) 100K people choose to not buy the new luxury housing a) the owners go bankrupt and the price of the luxury housing goes down. Then see 1) b) the owners lower the price of the new luxury housing. then see 1

The point is that any inventory puts downward pricing pressure on existing inventory.

You generally don't see the effect so obviously because the new supply of luxury housing rarely keeps up with demand in hot markets. You can see the impact in flat markets where new housing dries up demand for existing houses such that agents recommend you not buy existing homes in areas that are being actively developed.

[tomatotomato37]

Don't forget 3) Foreign oligarch parks questionable money in the entire building and then leaves it unoccuped for a decade in the hopes that he could sell it to another foreign investor at double the price

[my_usernam3]

I wish SF would listen to this way of thinking. I'm no urban development expert, but this seems pretty cut and dry to me. Unfortunately I've seen it being coupled with "trickle down economics"

Personally I would love to move into a more luxury (some call cookie cutter) apartment which would free up my existing dwelling and potentially lower housing costs.

[antisthenes]

Unfortunately the belief is false, since it is easily demonstrated that an old luxury building has such high HOA fees to account for the increased needs in maintenance and upkeep that it is anything but affordable.

Inevitably the costs for the building's aging infrastructure upkeep will be pushed on its residents, so the costs going forward (aka the esoteric 'tomorrow') are unlikely to down if at all.