[haxney]

> If you want rent to go down, allow more building. End of story. There's actually nothing else to it.

There's actually another solution, but people don't talk about it: reduce demand. Break some windows. Have a few organized robbery parties. Hold monthly "Stabby Sundays" where you just stab people randomly. That'll drive down demand, and prices will drop like a rock.

Obviously, I'm joking. Building more houses is the only solution to the problem of "a lot of people want to live here" and "it's almost impossible to build new houses."

[skohan]

I would argue the solution is build a lot of affordable housing. I've noticed in Berlin, a lot of new development follows a pattern: small footprint apartments with luxury amenities. This is great if you're a landlord, and you want to maximize the revenue of your property. But it's terrible if you're just looking for a safe, clean place to live, and you end up paying double the rent because luxury units are the only thing available.

[adamkf]

Small, luxury apartments are going to be more profitable than something more affordable. Landlords will build the most affordable thing they can, to do anything else would be irrational. If only luxury apartments are being built, that means demand for such apartments hasn't been satisfied yet. The solution is to allow MUCH more building, so that something affordable will eventually be built. Even without that, having luxury apartments prevents the renters from competing on more affordable units, so it likely does have a positive impact.

I don't know anything about Berlin, but in San Francisco, there are plenty of affordable housing requirements placed on developers of new apartment buildings. This ends up just making new construction MUCH more expensive, as a single unit has to support itself as well as some fraction of an affordable unit. The result is that it's even less profitable to build new housing.

[skohan]

I don't agree that the free market is the only way to allow for more affordable housing, or even a good one. To some extent, housing has inflexible demand. If you work in a city, you need to find housing at least within commuting distance of that city. Because of this, landlords can build tiny palaces, and people will pay 50% of their income or more to live there, even if they really want affordable housing. In some sense, you could argue that real-estate developers can operate like a cartel and control the supply of affordable housing.

One clear alternative to this public housing. In Vienna, for example, about a quarter of the population lives in social housing. And these are poorly maintained slums, these are nice, well-located and affordable apartments. The city/state can optimize for the actual housing needs of the city rather than for profit.

I would argue that housing, much like healthcare, can function better when managed as a public good, as there are too many perverse incentives at play when there is a profit motive involved.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Have you looked at Marzahn? Or was that too unsafe for you? :)

[skohan]

No I live in a beautiful Altbau in Kreuzkoln, but I wish more of the housing built would be in this style, not luxury shoe-boxes.

[skybrian]

Encouraging businesses to move elsewhere seems like it should help reduce demand. Why not do some load balancing? There are other places that need more businesses.

[golergka]

Isn't that what was happening in the states the last half a year? You guys seem to have a whole respected tradition of rioting.

[rcpt]

Climate change is going to do that to California.

[arcticbull]

I'm sad you got downvoted for that, I really enjoyed it haha.