This would be nice, but it's also possible to get cheaper rent by just, y'know, letting people build housing easily. That's how the rent in Seoul and Tokyo is surprisingly reasonable, despite being megacities.
We're now at a point where rent prices are higher in Columbus Ohio than Tokyo (1). Part of this is probably average apartment sizes being smaller in Tokyo, but still, that seems insane to me.
Can we please stop talking about Tokyo housing. It was only a few decades ago that California was cheap and Tokyo was insanely expensive and locals couldn't afford it. 30 years of economic depression has created cheaper houses.
> Tokyo was insanely expensive and locals couldn't afford it.
IIRC that was buying housing, not renting. Purchasing housing is subject to speculation in a way that rent is not.
But if you have data that says otherwise, I'd love to see it. The data I can find shows the expected price spike in Japan for buying condos, but no such spike for renting:
Yes of course buying housing. This is what most households want and what most of them eventually do. Renting is a stepping stone or for people that are mobile, dont want to commit or really can't afford to buy. People who dont own are often subsidized or given public housing so also less relevant.
Certainly Germany, Switzerland, Austria have unusually low ownership rates right now. I think its more likely that will change rather than anyone copying those countries.
Not to mention a declining population in Japan. Over the past 20 years new housing has lagged population growth in the US. it doesn't take much supply/demand mismatch for a non-discretionary item to have exploding prices.
Sure we could spend the next few decades building high end housing and watching as the poor continue to get priced out of our cities, ensuring they have longer and longer commutes, more stress, and shorter life expediencies.
Or we as a society can recognize that all people deserve housing, and that the poor are in most dire need of it. We can build specifically affordable housing, which both accomplishes your goal of "build more housing" while also ensuring that vulnerable people get what they need.
I think there is something to the idea of being a society which cares for those in need, instead of ignoring them and letting market needs serve those with the most money first. Serving those in need not only helps the needy, but it helps all of us center what matters most: our humanity.
Theoretically yes, but they are really two different undertakings and I think it is important to advocate specifically for social housing. If you just advocate for building more, you're really just advocating for gentrification and making things harder for the poor.
Not really. You can't realistically pursue more public housing in the US without major zoning and other building changes anyway, it's just too hard to build anything now, and that includes potential public housing.
You think the NIMBY's who show up at community meetings to shut down both for-profit high-end housing and also 100% affordable housing for seniors are going to hold off on blocking public housing? Without changes that deal with the nosy neighbor problem, we won't get anywhere.
> If you just advocate for building more, you're really just advocating for gentrification and making things harder for the poor.
Nope. This is a common talking point by the left, but it's wrong. If we had more reasonable rents like in Tokyo (compared to similar US major cities), that'd be great for the poor, working class, and middle class.
Now, having renter protections as well would be fantastic, absolutely. I think it's terrible how little protection renters usually have in the states.
We're now at a point where rent prices are higher in Columbus Ohio than Tokyo (1). Part of this is probably average apartment sizes being smaller in Tokyo, but still, that seems insane to me.
1 - https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...