Not quite. From what I’ve been able to gather, housing in the postwar era was made fast and cheap to ensure everyone could have a place in the immediate aftermath of the devastation. Then, in the sixties, they came up with better building standards, more regulations, and evaluated the lifespan of typical housing. I don’t remember the exact number, but they determined a conservative lifespan to be like 20-30 years. With this in mind, they started to constantly update building codes to make new construction safer and more resilient to natural disasters. So, what would end up happening is old homes stay cheap because not many people want to buy at the end of its life, and it’s less expensive to build new to modern standards than rehabbing an old home. Side note: recently the old estimated lifespan was re-evaluated and they determined that housing lasts, again I don’t remember the exact number, closer to 50 years.
Now, while all this is happening they have a different relationship to zoning than, say, America. What’s in America? It’s mostly single use zoning. They have a lot more mixed use zoning that allows for building housing where it would be illegal in America like commercial zones or light industrial zones. Side note: America used to build like that too until suburbs were invented and pushed as THE solution to housing people in our postwar era. Think of the older parts of towns with stores on the ground level and housing being 1-4 floors above them. With this freedom to build, they have built way more housing than is actually needed and in places people want to live.
The last point, which was already mentioned above, is that they don’t view housing as an investment. It’s a place where you raise your family, you store your belongings, and sleep. You don’t buy a home with the idea of selling it to make a ton of money in a few years or even decades. With that, there’s no incentive to buy up housing and leave it sitting empty for the right time to maximize the investment. It’s sort of like we view cars. Cars don’t typically increase in value, and the ones that do it’s because they’re rare, beautiful, or historic. MFers are out here trying to sell the housing equivalent of an '80s Ford Fiesta at 2024 fully loaded Toyota Camry or even Mercedes S Class prices.
Summary: Housing has a shorter lifespan, can be built almost anywhere through more mixed zoning, and it isn’t an investment, it’s just a place to live.
AirBNB/short term rental is likely already illegal in most cities. But no one wants to take it on (can’t piss off the lobbyists I suppose). If you’re renting out a property for a few days or a couple of weeks and you don’t live on site, that’s a hotel, not a BNB. And hotels are already zoned and taxed and regulated — they can’t be in a residential neighborhood for example. You’d think hotel chains wouldn’t want this illegal competition and would sue.
While true, in the USA, there are millions of “investment homes” owned by investment firms, all sitting empty, driving down supply and driving up costs. The solution to the housing market in this instance isn’t to increase the availability of 150sqft slum lord flats, but instead to significantly decrease the number of “investment homes” an entity is allowed to own [and to restrict its use (for example, it must not sit empty for more than 6 months)].
I’d love to see an “empty property” tax. It would drive down the number of empty offices and homes, generate revenue, and drive down realty prices and rents.
Lots of housing is the solution to the housing crisis.
Outlaw AirBnB and corporate ownership of residences or the amount of housing will literally never matter.
Also ban housing as an investment vehicle.
Just ban housing 🙂
Pull a japan and make wooden houses have a lifespan so I’m not paying top dollar for house that wasn’t renovated since 1935.
Most houses in my area are wooden and at least 60 years old. And there are plenty of 100+ and 200+ wooden homes too.
I thought the reason Japan has so many younger homes was all the carpet bombing in WW2. Same with German housing stock.
Not quite. From what I’ve been able to gather, housing in the postwar era was made fast and cheap to ensure everyone could have a place in the immediate aftermath of the devastation. Then, in the sixties, they came up with better building standards, more regulations, and evaluated the lifespan of typical housing. I don’t remember the exact number, but they determined a conservative lifespan to be like 20-30 years. With this in mind, they started to constantly update building codes to make new construction safer and more resilient to natural disasters. So, what would end up happening is old homes stay cheap because not many people want to buy at the end of its life, and it’s less expensive to build new to modern standards than rehabbing an old home. Side note: recently the old estimated lifespan was re-evaluated and they determined that housing lasts, again I don’t remember the exact number, closer to 50 years.
Now, while all this is happening they have a different relationship to zoning than, say, America. What’s in America? It’s mostly single use zoning. They have a lot more mixed use zoning that allows for building housing where it would be illegal in America like commercial zones or light industrial zones. Side note: America used to build like that too until suburbs were invented and pushed as THE solution to housing people in our postwar era. Think of the older parts of towns with stores on the ground level and housing being 1-4 floors above them. With this freedom to build, they have built way more housing than is actually needed and in places people want to live.
The last point, which was already mentioned above, is that they don’t view housing as an investment. It’s a place where you raise your family, you store your belongings, and sleep. You don’t buy a home with the idea of selling it to make a ton of money in a few years or even decades. With that, there’s no incentive to buy up housing and leave it sitting empty for the right time to maximize the investment. It’s sort of like we view cars. Cars don’t typically increase in value, and the ones that do it’s because they’re rare, beautiful, or historic. MFers are out here trying to sell the housing equivalent of an '80s Ford Fiesta at 2024 fully loaded Toyota Camry or even Mercedes S Class prices.
Summary: Housing has a shorter lifespan, can be built almost anywhere through more mixed zoning, and it isn’t an investment, it’s just a place to live.
AirBNB/short term rental is likely already illegal in most cities. But no one wants to take it on (can’t piss off the lobbyists I suppose). If you’re renting out a property for a few days or a couple of weeks and you don’t live on site, that’s a hotel, not a BNB. And hotels are already zoned and taxed and regulated — they can’t be in a residential neighborhood for example. You’d think hotel chains wouldn’t want this illegal competition and would sue.
Almost there… It’s really about ending capitalism.
While true, in the USA, there are millions of “investment homes” owned by investment firms, all sitting empty, driving down supply and driving up costs. The solution to the housing market in this instance isn’t to increase the availability of 150sqft slum lord flats, but instead to significantly decrease the number of “investment homes” an entity is allowed to own [and to restrict its use (for example, it must not sit empty for more than 6 months)].
Edit in []
I’d love to see an “empty property” tax. It would drive down the number of empty offices and homes, generate revenue, and drive down realty prices and rents.
And this tax needs to increase 25% every 6 months until it’s no longer empty.