[greenie_beans]

so you are suggesting that one house is better than two to alleviate supply? this is exactly why market incentives isn't the cure. we would have more housing if we built more housing. if we built double the housing, then we would be in an even better place.

this logic makes zero sense to me.

[tempestn]

As your sibling comment says, there is only so much market for luxury housing. If the land, permitting, etc. exists to build two houses, then two will get built. And if there's only sufficient demand for one of them to be high-end, then only one will be. (In aggregate on larger scales of course, not literally any given two houses.) It's not necessary to force a given developer to build two houses instead of one; if the economics make sense, and are predictable, the developers will come.

[firesteelrain]

What’s considered luxury housing vs upper middle class?

Like there are plenty of houses marketed as “luxury style” in my area and command $500k-$700k easily but it’s just fancy looking. Not built with any better materials, wood, concrete, drywall or brick that you can get any local Home Depot.

[supertrope]

It’s just puffery for new construction. Every single cookie cutter middle class subdivision calls itself an “estate.” “Affordable housing” is a nicer way of saying low income.

[greenie_beans]

the market logic just proves my point. logging off now bc i'm about to get flamed by YIMBYs and georgists! you can go read my comment history for my argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44555384

[SoftTalker]

It's better than none, which is what you'll get if you start mandating what developers can build. They'll just go somewhere else where they can make more money.

[greenie_beans]

love this debate! the market built a ton of houses leading up the the GFC until the market decided it was too risky: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST

this was in a similar regulatory environment we face today. so if you take the market logic, then the market caused the problem as much as regulations.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> so you are suggesting that one house is better than two to alleviate supply?

No, they are saying that building one high-end house still has the slightly unintuitive effect of increasing the supply of low-end homes. They also give their reasons for believing this.

[greenie_beans]

i'm very aware of how filtering works in the housing market. but if your goal is to increase supply, then 2 > 1. therefore, in my opinion, filtering due to market mechanics and developer incentives is not the most optimal or efficient solution.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

I'm just saying that OP didn't say that it was the most optimal or efficient solution. They were really only saying that it had the filtering effect. If your point is that we should offer incentives to build two homes and disincentives to build one home then I'm with you; I was just pointing out that you were putting words in their mouth.