Liberals created gentrification

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

false.
capital costs drive construction costs.

No materials or labor? GC is at the mercy of the subs, how busy they are, their ability to perform, and the cost of their labor and materials.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

maybe if we paid bankers more, they wouldnt ruin the global financial system.

Can I use this line? Genius......

[SamInTheLoop]

Written tongue-in-cheek to rile some up........I mean, it's a preposterous premise......(or question)

[fleonzo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Here's how it happened:

Public employee unions + heavy regulations + increased services = higher taxes and fees.

Higher taxes and fees + higher cost of union labor = higher cost of development.

Higher cost of development = higher rents to recoup investment and pay off construction lender.

Higher rents = gentrification.

Gentrification = driving the labor class out of the city.

Liberals blame the "greedy rich developers" for driving poor people out of cities, but the whole process is the result of a domino effect kicked off by their policies.

Didn't you hear? "Liberalism is a mental disorder!"

[llamaorama]

So....is contemporary housing in suburban Buffalo or Youngstown "gentrified"? I mean, you have those union labor cost inputs in those states, right? But when I browse Trulia and check out what you could buy in Amherst, NY or Cheektowaga, NY, it lines almost perfectly how things are here in Texas. Large-ish new build suburban two story homes in good school districts for about $200k.

I think gentrification's causes are simple. Cities have concentrations of prestigious jobs and people with money, and contain only so many desirable neighborhoods which are hard to replicate. Also building more supply just causes induced demand because it catalyzes the urban traits that make these places attractive in the first place.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by CCs77

Obviusly they do. But my point is more toward the phenomenon of gentrification, object of this thread. My point is that the perceived desirability of a place is much stronger than those other factors, at the end of the day. Or are different the regulations, taxes and union costs in the worst part of the Bronx vs the best part of Manhattan? Or was those factore that different that 30 years ago, when NYC was considered as a less deirable place to live, having significant lower rents.

The desirability of a place goes up when other desirable places are filled up. If you enact all sorts of regulations that discourage new housing supply, then the existing supply will become more desirable and the demand will spread over a greater and greater area.

Not a lot of people moved to New York looking to live in Bed-Stuy or Harlem, but those areas are gentrifying because the newcomers can't find an affordable place in the more established neighborhoods they preferred.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The desirability of a place goes up when other desirable places are filled up. If you enact all sorts of regulations that discourage new housing supply, then the existing supply will become more desirable and the demand will spread over a greater and greater area.

Not a lot of people moved to New York looking to live in Bed-Stuy or Harlem, but those areas are gentrifying because the newcomers can't find an affordable place in the more established neighborhoods they preferred.

It's more than this. It's also that Bed-Stuy and Harlem become more desirable as the neighborhood changes.

Parts of Brooklyn are more expensive than parts of central Manhattan now (for instance, Williamsburg is more expensive than Murray Hill). At one point people moved there because it was cheaper, but now they move there because the restaurants are better. It's actually become a more desirable place to live (for a certain type of person) on an absolutely basis, because the newcomers have changed the neighborhood and remade it in their own image.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

So....is contemporary housing in suburban Buffalo or Youngstown "gentrified"? I mean, you have those union labor cost inputs in those states, right? But when I browse Trulia and check out what you could buy in Amherst, NY or Cheektowaga, NY, it lines almost perfectly how things are here in Texas. Large-ish new build suburban two story homes in good school districts for about $200k.

I'm not aware of state-specific union rules for private housing construction, so I doubt laborers building single family homes in Cheektowaga or Youngstown are making any more than laborers working in exurban Texas.

Generally speaking, laborers building single family homes, are Hispanic immigrants these days, making low wages. The electricians and other skilled tradesman are paid more but they probably aren't union nor a major cost consideration when it comes to putting up a new McMansion.

NYC (and probably other cities) have issues with essentially be forced to use union labor on major highrise projects and for public projects. If you don't use union labor, even for small parts of the project, there will be severe consequences. But some random house being built on Staten Island is using the same cheap labor as in Arizona or Florida.