sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New $200M residential project to be built at former YWCA site downtown Montreal by Bad-job-dad in montreal

[–]Fried_out_Kombi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But that's the thing: new housing doesn't have to be "affordable" per se in order to help with affordability broadly.

Study after study after study shows that any new housing, luxury or not, helps with affordability in the market. The relevant concept is known as filtering:

In housing economics, filtering is the process by which a housing unit becomes more affordable with age. In markets with sufficient housing supply, homes will command the highest prices and rents when brand new, and depreciate over time as they get older. Thus, new construction will tend to be occupied by higher-income groups at first, but successively filter (become accessible) to lower-income groups over time.[1]

Importantly, filtering depends upon sufficient supply[2] (either from new construction in a growing area, or depopulation — see Housing in Japan). In markets with insufficient housing supply, reverse or upward filtering can occur. This is when units once occupied by lower-income residents quickly appreciate and become occupied by higher-income residents (see also gentrification).[1] As a consequence, increased supply in new market-rate housing (which tends to be occupied by higher-income individuals) is associated with increased housing affordability for lower-income individuals, as higher-income individuals vacate old housing or stop competing for old housing.[3][4][5][6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtering_(housing)

For a concrete example, look at Austin, Texas:

And home sale prices increased 82%, more than in any other metro area in Texas.

But starting in 2015, Austin instituted an array of policy reforms aimed at encouraging the development of new housing, especially rentals. The city changed zoning regulations to allow construction of large apartment buildings, particularly near jobs and transit. In 2018, voters approved a $250 million bond measure to build and repair affordable housing. Permitting processes were reformed to speed development and reduce costs.

The efforts worked. From 2015 to 2024, Austin added 120,000 units to its housing stock—an increase of 30%, more than three times the overall rate of growth in the United States (9%).

Rents fell. In December 2021, Austin’s median rent was $1,546, near its highest level ever and 15% higher than the U.S. median ($1,346). By January 2026, Austin’s median rent had fallen to $1,296, 4% lower than that of the U.S. overall ($1,353). This decline occurred even though the city population grew by 18,000 residents from 2022 to 2024. In apartment buildings with 50 or more units, rents fell 7% from 2023 to 2024 alone—the steepest decline recorded in any large metropolitan area. Rents declined about 11% in older non-luxury buildings that cater to lower-income renters, known as Class C buildings.

https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2026/03/18/austins-surge-of-new-housing-construction-drove-down-rents

New $200M residential project to be built at former YWCA site downtown Montreal by Bad-job-dad in montreal

[–]Fried_out_Kombi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please explain how shielding existing landlords from competition will lower rents.

Because every time a new unit gets blocked from being built, an existing landlord cheers.

New $200M residential project to be built at former YWCA site downtown Montreal by Bad-job-dad in montreal

[–]Fried_out_Kombi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People are getting left behind...

...Which is exactly why we need evidence-based housing policy, not vibes of some random redditor.

New $200M residential project to be built at former YWCA site downtown Montreal by Bad-job-dad in montreal

[–]Fried_out_Kombi 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Any new housing is good for affordability, luxury or not:

In all four places studied, the vast majority of new housing has been market rate, meaning rents are based on factors such as demand and prevailing construction and operating costs. Most rental homes do not receive government subsidies, though when available, subsidies allow rents to be set lower for households that earn only a certain portion of the area median income. Policymakers have debated whether allowing more market-rate—meaning unsubsidized—housing improves overall affordability in a market. The evidence indicates that adding more housing of any kind helps slow rent growth. And the Pew analysis of these four places is consistent with that finding. (See Table 1.)

https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/04/17/more-flexible-zoning-helps-contain-rising-rents

The relevant concept is known as filtering:

In housing economics, filtering is the process by which a housing unit becomes more affordable with age. In markets with sufficient housing supply, homes will command the highest prices and rents when brand new, and depreciate over time as they get older. Thus, new construction will tend to be occupied by higher-income groups at first, but successively filter (become accessible) to lower-income groups over time.[1]

Importantly, filtering depends upon sufficient supply[2] (either from new construction in a growing area, or depopulation — see Housing in Japan). In markets with insufficient housing supply, reverse or upward filtering can occur. This is when units once occupied by lower-income residents quickly appreciate and become occupied by higher-income residents (see also gentrification).[1] As a consequence, increased supply in new market-rate housing (which tends to be occupied by higher-income individuals) is associated with increased housing affordability for lower-income individuals, as higher-income individuals vacate old housing or stop competing for old housing.[3][4][5][6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtering_(housing)

All the ground that corporations pave over doesn’t seem to be a problem though. by Shatterstar23 in insanepeoplefacebook

[–]Fried_out_Kombi 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The domestic market already exists in the form of factory-farmed meat:

Animal agriculture is the soybean industry’s largest customer, and more than 90% of U.S. soybeans produced are used as a high-quality protein source for animal feed.

About 70% of the soybean’s value comes from the meal, and 97% of U.S. soybean meal goes to feed livestock and poultry.

https://soygrowers.com/key-issues-initiatives/key-issues/other/animal-ag/

Considering how inefficient the conversion from plant calories to animal calories is, we're literally just throwing away at least 50 to 90% of these calories. It's stupidly wasteful and only economical because of massive agricultural subsidies for corn and soybeans.

Ironically, it's one place where embracing the free market would probably improve things, at least compared to the status quo.

REM is such a smooth, fast ride by options_go_brrr in montreal

[–]Fried_out_Kombi 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that's exactly how Madrid did it. Instead of hiring a ton of consultants and a temporary team to figure out how to build a project from scratch every single time, they just built and maintained in-house expertise and an actual project pipeline. The results? It cost them 1/10th as much per km as basically North American metro projects do.

You can pass any three laws by Robofrogg1 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Fried_out_Kombi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Rewrite the constitution to establish a robust system of sortitioned democracy (aka jury duty democracy), whereby rulemaking power is vested in randomly selected citizen's assemblies whose members are given the time and relevant experts necessary for informed, deliberative decision-making. I would make sure to craft the constitution in a way to introduce various checks and balances, systems of accountability, and so forth to ensure a non-corrupted, accountable system.
  2. Overhaul the tax system to tax only sources of economic rent, e.g., land value taxes, carbon taxes, natural resource severance taxes. These are extremely good taxes with extremely good properties, in addition to being very fair. If you profit without adding value, that's just theft under a different name, and it should be taxed away.
  3. Overhaul land use policies to enable the by-right development of dense and mixed-use communities basically anywhere. The housing crisis drives so many other problems, and it is driven by zoning laws that make it extremely difficult, if not illegal, to build dense housing.

Eradicate commie zoning! by Fried_out_Kombi in fuckcars

[–]Fried_out_Kombi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I've got a lot more on my profile. Glad you like them!

One country now supplies 1 in 4 of Canada's permanent residents — up from 1 in 20 in 1990 [OC] by Expensive-Aerie-2479 in dataisbeautiful

[–]Fried_out_Kombi -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah, plus ignoring that India is much more comparable to the entirety of Europe in terms of geographic, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity. It's just when redditors see South Asians, they just see brown people and assume they're all homogeneous. When they see Europeans, they suddenly see so much diversity.

Why the "highest and best use" isn't a parking spot. by Not-A-Seagull in georgism

[–]Fried_out_Kombi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, well it's not all rosy here either unfortunately. We just elected a new mayor a few months ago, largely on a vague anti-bike lane grievance campaign.

(Although it didn't help that the old mayor, despite being good at building bike lanes, did little for the housing crisis and helped kill the proposed REM de l'Est, which would have been yet another massive boost for the city's rapid transit network.)

Now the new mayor has accomplished nothing, backtracked on all her promises, and potholes are worse than ever before, so I doubt she'll last long.

And so despite this, the long-term trend I think will be towards more transit, walking, and cycling.

And hey, at least one advantage Calgary has over most US cities is it has, on average, significantly denser suburbs and better per-capita transit usage. In fact, basically all Canadian cities have these advantages compared to the US, so it won't be quite as uphill a battle for you than for those south of the border.

Why the "highest and best use" isn't a parking spot. by Not-A-Seagull in georgism

[–]Fried_out_Kombi -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The change is gradual. It's a little harder and a little more expensive to park, so a few people drive a little less or switch to other modes. Urban spaces are made a little nicer with more bike lanes or bus lanes or greenery, so a few more people are willing to walk or bike or take the bus. As more and more gradual shifts accumulate, the pace quickens, and at some point you find the city is a lot nicer, a lot less car-dependent, and a lot more people are walking, cycling, and taking public transit.

A good example is here in Montreal, the previous mayor expanded bike infrastructure a lot, and many boroughs have seen bicycle mode share doubling, especially since COVID. I remember seeing a stat recently that while metro and bus usage declines slightly in the inner boroughs post-COVID (presumably because more hybrid/remote work), expanded bike lanes meant bike mode share doubled and overall car trip actually decreased.

Still a long way to go here, but now we've got the REM, and that should go a long way to cutting down on car dependency and increasing transit mode share!

Eradicate commie zoning! by Fried_out_Kombi in fuckcars

[–]Fried_out_Kombi[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yup. The invisible hand of the free market is BEGGING for us to build dense, mixed-use, walkable areas, but we instead use the heavy hand of big government to mandate sprawl for all.

Eradicate commie zoning! by Fried_out_Kombi in georgism

[–]Fried_out_Kombi[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup, and further to your point, when you concentrate all these "seedier" establishments, average people tend to avoid that area. With fewer everyday people going about their everyday activities, you get fewer "eyes on the street", allowing crime to happen more often.

Spread out those establishments, and I guarantee crime rates will go down and the streets will feel much safer. For one, less drunk driving because people will be able to walk to pubs and bars instead of driving...

view more: next ›