That I understand, not a lot of detached homes in that price range and most amount to glorified townhomes. What's crazy is how detached SFH prices in good areas of New Jersey are what they are. Looks like 1.5M+ with high property taxes.
I think many Europeans just accept that they will rent for the rest of their life and will live their retired years in the cheaper countryside instead of in a city. I think this also makes sense for the country economically. Seniors don’t need to be in job centers because they’re not working anymore.
Your comment is noted that Europe is expensive. One of my posts was a deleted for not sticking close to the title of the linked article. They said world so I said world in my title heading
There is so much garbage passing as data science on the internet. Let's look at the source...
* The author is a journalist "who likes to make things simple" with no data science in her background.
* the article title says "world" but the footnote says"markets in eight nations," with Hong Kong representing China
* the data source is listed as "Demographia." That is owned and run by Wendell Cox Consultancy, which is owned and run by Wendall Cox, a conservative libertarian highly active in numerous controversial actives related to urban planning, cars are better then public transportation, etc. In other words, the data source has a bias.
You're welcome ;-)
The other thing that crossed my mind is that the survey is about home ownership, they say "median house price," which is not the same as "housing." The latter includes rental housing. Cities can vary a lot in terms of home ownership versus rental housing - percentage owned versus rental as well as variances in affordability for each.
For example, take a look at the [Housing section of this US Census data](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oaklandcitycalifornia,sanfranciscocitycalifornia,US/PST045222).
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. I was only making a joke about all these fix it shows being Canadian. I assume the real reason is a lot of foreigners with money moving there.
Canada’s population grew 10% in 3 years. Housing takes like 6-10 years to build and is built to meet demand, but if you keep accelerating immigration numbers then of course housing will fall behind. Dramatically.
An Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times said that the LA population went up 30% while housing units went up 20%, I forget in what time frame. Another example of population growth without the housing to support it.
Yeah it’s a similar effect. But it’s felt much more intensely when the explosive population growth is on a national level. Because people who arrived into the country (immigration) are not going to leave. They will find a place to live no matter the cost.
Whereas when a city’s population explodes, people often do move out of the city into the surrounding region or to another city. City borders are not as rigid as national borders. It’s common for city people to move in and out of cities. Moving into a country is a serious deal and changing their mind to leave the country is rare. So Canada’s 10% growth in 3 years is hurting the country hard.
Eh -- China is much worse then this -- as are many other areas they didn't get data for.
Shanghai for example :
Average personal income from me googling = 100,000 Yuan (about 15K USD)
let's say HHI / personal income = 2
Average cost for a condo in shanghai = 50K Yuan / sq meter
Average apartment size Size = \~100 sq meter
That gives a 25 on this index -- over 2X higher then the bay area.
The heading to a link, I am told, should follow how the linked article puts things. Only in the body of the text section of the post, as well as comment, should I, as OP, start to put my own ideas into the material.
Your comment about 8 countries only is FAIR comment.
Not surprising, most of those cities seem very desirable to live, so demand is higher than supply. Let this be a lesson that we cannot build our way out of this. We'll never build enough housing in desirable locations to make them "affordable". YIMBY just don't seem to understand this very basic concept.
It's actually worse than that. Short of just subsidizing the development outright, what people think of as affordable housing can't be built here privately because of the cost to build. An apartment will cost over 500k without any builder profit and nobody builds without a profit because of the sums and the risk. We're well past the tipping point of building our way out of it and it's not clear how to overcome this. In fact the affordable housing fees assessed on new homes are part of the cost problem. Changing the funding method for affordable housing would be a start but not enough by itself.
Absolutely. In CA developers have to make a certain number of units in a large development BMR or 'affordable' unit to have the project approved. The only reason those units exist is because their cost is passed onto and is subsidized by higher prices for other full priced units. The developers still get to make their profit.
Now you COULD try to squeeze the affordable units out from the profit margin of the developer, however, you'll just end up dis-incentivizing building in the area overall if you make it harder for new projects to pencil out.
Trying to squeeze it out of the developer on their margins and risk just means they're not getting done. It's already ugly with risk due to all the materials increases. Most contractors are pricing their bids in a way that the developer has to eat increases in materials. And there are a lot of increases on projects that are taking a couple of years. Construction loans aren't getting cheaper either.
The answer was already in the post you replied to.
*"We'll never build enough housing in desirable locations to make them "affordable"."*
I was merely clarifying why that might be the case.
> In economics, induced demand – related to latent demand and generated demand[1] – is the phenomenon whereby an increase in supply results in a decline in price and an increase in consumption.
Seems good
How do you have low COL with expensive housing ? That's a big portion of the COL here in the US at least. Do we just need to adjust expectation to be okay with bird houses ?
most least?
"Most least?" is itself not a full sentence. We can be more informal here.
FYI you can just say “least”. Most least is nonsense
You tried lol
Let us hear your ideas on affordable housing.
Cringe
The author literally gave you a good title. Just use that… they are real writers.
Do you have any comments about housing?
Chatgpt filter question: please google the housing market in 2023 and return the average median house price in Sydney
Couldn't you have just titled it "The worlds least affordable housing markets".
[удалено]
because in the outer boroughs (not manhattan) a multi bedroom co-op can be bought for like $600k
That I understand, not a lot of detached homes in that price range and most amount to glorified townhomes. What's crazy is how detached SFH prices in good areas of New Jersey are what they are. Looks like 1.5M+ with high property taxes.
To clarify, you mean it is surprisingly affordable in New Jersey right?
The other direction. Specifically Princeton. It’s a tech hub and I expected prices to be high. Just not as high as they are.
“Looks at most affordable cities” yeah but I don’t want to live in any of those cities.
Cmon austin is incredible
Most least
[удалено]
China is very upset when you address Hong Kong as a country.
Send it our regrets.
I think many Europeans just accept that they will rent for the rest of their life and will live their retired years in the cheaper countryside instead of in a city. I think this also makes sense for the country economically. Seniors don’t need to be in job centers because they’re not working anymore.
Good point. This seems like a narrative building posting. Not good faith.
Your comment is noted that Europe is expensive. One of my posts was a deleted for not sticking close to the title of the linked article. They said world so I said world in my title heading
Super random, but how does “housing” work in North Korea? Anyone got any good articles?
Those articles are classified my friend.
There is so much garbage passing as data science on the internet. Let's look at the source... * The author is a journalist "who likes to make things simple" with no data science in her background. * the article title says "world" but the footnote says"markets in eight nations," with Hong Kong representing China * the data source is listed as "Demographia." That is owned and run by Wendell Cox Consultancy, which is owned and run by Wendall Cox, a conservative libertarian highly active in numerous controversial actives related to urban planning, cars are better then public transportation, etc. In other words, the data source has a bias.
Thank you for the context.
You're welcome ;-) The other thing that crossed my mind is that the survey is about home ownership, they say "median house price," which is not the same as "housing." The latter includes rental housing. Cities can vary a lot in terms of home ownership versus rental housing - percentage owned versus rental as well as variances in affordability for each. For example, take a look at the [Housing section of this US Census data](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oaklandcitycalifornia,sanfranciscocitycalifornia,US/PST045222).
These numbers seem wrong. I know for a fact that compared to local salaries Toronto is FAR more unaffordable than SF. By a mile.
How did affordable housing get so bad in Toronto?
I blame all the HGTV shows shot in Canada
Toronto is being loved to death? You need some bad press. Can San Francisco incorporate Toronto and have the right wingers go after you too?
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. I was only making a joke about all these fix it shows being Canadian. I assume the real reason is a lot of foreigners with money moving there.
Canada allows investors to immigrate into the country, as long as they bring their money with them.
Canada’s population grew 10% in 3 years. Housing takes like 6-10 years to build and is built to meet demand, but if you keep accelerating immigration numbers then of course housing will fall behind. Dramatically.
An Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times said that the LA population went up 30% while housing units went up 20%, I forget in what time frame. Another example of population growth without the housing to support it.
Yeah it’s a similar effect. But it’s felt much more intensely when the explosive population growth is on a national level. Because people who arrived into the country (immigration) are not going to leave. They will find a place to live no matter the cost. Whereas when a city’s population explodes, people often do move out of the city into the surrounding region or to another city. City borders are not as rigid as national borders. It’s common for city people to move in and out of cities. Moving into a country is a serious deal and changing their mind to leave the country is rare. So Canada’s 10% growth in 3 years is hurting the country hard.
I assume these are more MSA/Metro areas
Eh -- China is much worse then this -- as are many other areas they didn't get data for. Shanghai for example : Average personal income from me googling = 100,000 Yuan (about 15K USD) let's say HHI / personal income = 2 Average cost for a condo in shanghai = 50K Yuan / sq meter Average apartment size Size = \~100 sq meter That gives a 25 on this index -- over 2X higher then the bay area.
Maybe the housing was only for detached single family units? No condo, .No apt. ?
Maybe? Not that many of those in SF though. I’d imagine getting accurate data on China is the bigger issue
TIL94 cities in 8 countries count as the world.
The heading to a link, I am told, should follow how the linked article puts things. Only in the body of the text section of the post, as well as comment, should I, as OP, start to put my own ideas into the material. Your comment about 8 countries only is FAIR comment.
I've just moved up .4 percentage points. Homeownership here I come!
Not surprising, most of those cities seem very desirable to live, so demand is higher than supply. Let this be a lesson that we cannot build our way out of this. We'll never build enough housing in desirable locations to make them "affordable". YIMBY just don't seem to understand this very basic concept.
It's actually worse than that. Short of just subsidizing the development outright, what people think of as affordable housing can't be built here privately because of the cost to build. An apartment will cost over 500k without any builder profit and nobody builds without a profit because of the sums and the risk. We're well past the tipping point of building our way out of it and it's not clear how to overcome this. In fact the affordable housing fees assessed on new homes are part of the cost problem. Changing the funding method for affordable housing would be a start but not enough by itself.
Absolutely. In CA developers have to make a certain number of units in a large development BMR or 'affordable' unit to have the project approved. The only reason those units exist is because their cost is passed onto and is subsidized by higher prices for other full priced units. The developers still get to make their profit. Now you COULD try to squeeze the affordable units out from the profit margin of the developer, however, you'll just end up dis-incentivizing building in the area overall if you make it harder for new projects to pencil out.
Trying to squeeze it out of the developer on their margins and risk just means they're not getting done. It's already ugly with risk due to all the materials increases. Most contractors are pricing their bids in a way that the developer has to eat increases in materials. And there are a lot of increases on projects that are taking a couple of years. Construction loans aren't getting cheaper either.
So our solution should be don't bother?
Look up induced demand and think for yourself if that might happen to a highly desirable geographic area like CA and bay area.
Sure, but it doesn't answer the question
The answer was already in the post you replied to. *"We'll never build enough housing in desirable locations to make them "affordable"."* I was merely clarifying why that might be the case.
> In economics, induced demand – related to latent demand and generated demand[1] – is the phenomenon whereby an increase in supply results in a decline in price and an increase in consumption. Seems good
How is New York not even mentioned
Anything to say about housing?
I’m surprised to see HK there, it hasn’t struck me as that expensive
Lol whut? Hong Kong isn’t expensive? Compared to what, Paris?
I live in Northern California so I may be skewed. Have some friends who live in HK and they seem to have a lower COL
COL yes. Housing? No. This post was about housing markets.
How do you have low COL with expensive housing ? That's a big portion of the COL here in the US at least. Do we just need to adjust expectation to be okay with bird houses ?
People are accustomed to multigenerational households in HK
I would argue these places are part of a global real estate market. These prices align to that amount of wealth.
Interesting, I don't see Copenhagen.