[robswc]

Why can't it be both? By moving there, you're effectively signaling you don't have a car. Those without cars (all else being equal, not sure why it wouldn't be) will have extra money. If the place is desirable, what is to stop those with that new "extra money" from using that to outbid those with less money?

I don't at all doubt its also inflation at play. It seems perfectly reasonable tho that a place that generally has car-less renters would have higher prices as those without cars could afford that added price. To an extent of course.

[idlehand]

So the problem is really that regulations have constrained the supply of housing to the point that rents are set as high as people can afford, rather than at the price of replacement.

[robswc]

Well, how much more could realistically be built? I agree, not a fan of housing supply being kept artificially low... but as they say "someone has to have the beach houses."

If there's only 100 units in a car-less block and 500 ppl that want them, what could be done if you've reached the limit of what can be built?

I guess you could go up, making sky scrapers... but now I have to admit I'm out of my element. Not sure if that's viable.

[sokoloff]

Rents in places where demand exceeds supply are like that (and probably always will be).