ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.พ. 2022
- How new buildings can actually fight displacement
Subscribe and turn on notifications 🔔 so you don't miss any videos: goo.gl/0bsAjO
When many people look at new housing construction, they don’t just see boxy, modern, and bland architecture. They see new buildings that symbolize displacement and gentrification, or the idea that the construction comes at the cost of pushing existing residents out and replacing them with richer, whiter residents. But as Vox policy reporter Jerusalem Demsas explains, new construction in the US can actually help fight displacement.
There’s a growing body of research on what actually happens when we add units of housing to neighborhoods: market-rate units decrease displacement and rents in neighborhoods, while adding strictly affordable units decreases gentrification. And while people may not love the aesthetics of the new architecture, these buildings all look so similar for a reason: it’s the cheapest way to build, at a time when the US needs more housing quickly.
Watch the video above to find out more from Jerusalem Demsas on what these new buildings really mean for neighborhoods across the country, and how more construction - along with policies like rental assistance - can help the US housing crisis.
For further reading, check out more of Jerusalem’s housing reporting:
www.vox.com/22650806/gentrifi...
www.vox.com/22815563/rental-h...
www.vox.com/22629826/gentrifi...
Along with this video on how zoning laws make building affordable housing so difficult in the US:
www.vox.com/videos/2021/8/17/...
Sources:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...
research.upjohn.org/up_workin...
blocksandlots.com/wp-content/...
www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/de...
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RR...
www.zillow.com/research/metho...
archive.curbed.com/2018/12/4/...
books.google.com/books?id=S0N...
www.desegregatect.org/atlas
www.ctdatahaven.org/data-dash...
www.courant.com/politics/hc-p...
www.livablecalifornia.org/spe...
Make sure you never miss behind the scenes content in the Vox Video newsletter, sign up here: vox.com/video-newsletter
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com
Support Vox's reporting with a one-time or recurring contribution: vox.com/contribute-now
Shop the Vox merch store: vox.com/store
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: / vox
Follow Vox on Twitter: / voxdotcom
Follow Vox on TikTok: / voxdotcom
There’s a ton we couldn’t fit into the video. If you’re curious why, when new buildings do get built, they are so often single-family homes or luxury apartments - check out this video we made about the rules that make it extremely expensive to build anything else: th-cam.com/video/0Flsg_mzG-M/w-d-xo.html
And for a fun, deep dive into one aspect of what makes new construction look so similar, check out Phil’s video on the rectangles that cover these buildings: th-cam.com/video/Ml-ZP-_e_o4/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for watching! -Ranjani
I'm glad Vox is the first mainstream news carrier to actually cover filtering, aka the musical chairs of housing,
But I'm disappointed that you covered the market rate portion with peer reviewed evidence, but went back to dogma and emotions for the affordable housing portion.
"Affordable Housing" does not increase "income diversity" in a way that matters. What you're doing is privledging some portion of the population to immense subsidies for housing, while everyone else pays full price (often inflated by mandatory inclusionary zoning). Contrary to the way everyone thinks about income and the politicians approach it, people do not stay at the same income percentile their entire lives.
12% of the population will find themselves in the top 1% of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5% of the income distribution, 56% will find themselves in the top 10%, and a whopping 73% will spend a year in the top 20% of the income distribution.
People who win the lottery for affordable housing are entitled to stay forever no matter how much money they make, because they qualified when the applied. The end result is that over just a single generation, Affordable Housing, Rent Stabilized Apartments, and the like become prized assets of the wealthy that they never give up. It's not that the evil wealthy people acquired then to be use for themselves, but rather that if you give someone a $500k subsidy for housing, they are now very wealthy the second they recieve the housing, even if they can't technically cash in on it.
Creating two castes of tenants is not the right approach. And moreover the only people I've ever seen care about "income diversity" are politicians. Rich neighborhoods are never going to be friendly to poor people. The local shops and businesses will likely be out of reach. And poor neighborhoods are never going to be friendly to rich people. If you try to build some higher end apartments or businesses in poor areas, increasing income diversity, they freak out.
As you mentioned, the biggest cause of housing unaffordability is the lack of market rate housing, and there in lies the solution to housing affordability in a way that doesn't create 2 castes in society, one that recieved subsidies and doesn't pay taxes, and another that must subsidize the other. If the USA had adequate housing supply, literally everything would be far more affordable, to everyone, and that would massively increase mobility for poor persons to move into more high income neighborhoods.
I don't want apartment buildings with doormen, gyms, elevators, to be considered "luxury apartments". They are luxury apartments because so few of them are available and only the highest income people are able to afford them. Not because they are particularly expensive to build.
I want to live in a world were market rate is much lower, and everyone lives in nice high quality buildings, has the freedom to move whenever they want, sell their homes, rent them out, renovate them etc. A healthy housing marketplace.
Also note that "Affordable Housing" buildings usually get property tax breaks, and need publicly funded renovations decades later (Michael Lama residents who own outright apartments worth millions, recieved 8 digits in subsidies from NYC to renovate their properties). This is not sustainable or fair to those who live in the area that have to pay for the services they use and subsidize others, and are often poorer than the people they are expected to subsidize.
Fire. That's one significant detail you left out. The prevalence of 5 over 1 is entirely due to a change in construction codes over how "fireproof" a building must be. 5 over 1 has ALWAYS been cheaper to build. It just used to be prohibited - illegal. It was prohibited for residential construction before 2000 because of fire risks. Multi-story residential used to require a lot more expensive metal framing and concrete. No longer. The definitions of fire risks in the codes have since changed. "Fire retardant" became good enough. Fire Retardant Treated Wood (FRTW) is much cheaper than metal.
So now 5 over 1 is permissible.
And yet we have been watching 3d printed buildings videos for over a decade now that claim to be cheaper to build.
A deep dive into adaptive-reuse would be really really awesome! Some talk around it promotes the idea that it could be a more affordable way to upscale parts of cities where old, historical buildings that may have been considered for demolition, can be used again, dismantled, or modified to react to different needs of the community!
@@flakgun153 Spot on! You nailed it.
If we are going to insist on hand-outs, a much better way is to give out cash for housing. The cash needs to be based on income and household size, and needs to decrease more slowly than income increases. In other words, a person should be able to increase their income at a faster rate than their housing subsidy decreases.
Further, their housing subsidy should be able to be used in a wide area, so they can use it for cheaper housing, rather than super expensive housing. For example, if I need a housing subsidy, I may choose to live in a low-income neighborhood, rather than a rich neighborhood next door.
The end goal of this is to put the power back in the hands of the people. Entrust people with cash, and allow them the freedom to spend how they see fit. But don't restrict rents or housing availability in any way. This is the best of both worlds: the efficiency of the free market, while still ensuring no one is left on the streets.
"it looks bland, unoriginal, mass produced"
but your house in the suburbs is TOTALLY UNIQUE, right?
this is a straw man people in the suburbs barely know these buildings exist most of the criticism comes from people nearby in the city
@@hughsaskin wrong from my perspective. In my small suburb town our Main Street is getting built up quick with these style buildings. Let me tell you, the townspeople are not so happy - granted, most say they’re concerned about traffic.
@@jakebyday I’m sure they’ll be resistant to building decent mass transit too, even though it would help.
@@jakebyday I’m sure they’ll be resistant to building decent mass transit too, even though it would help.
A two story suburban home, multiple bedrooms, two car garage, white picket fence, even trimmed hedges, every home and family is the same.
Sounds a lot like a socialist nightmare more than the American dream.
Americans: "Such boring architecture! These buildings look bland and artificial! "
Also Americans: * build suburbia *
🤣
Thank God for landscapes!
*build mcmansions*
MACMANSIONS!
😂😂😂😂
“Why do all new apartment buildings look the same?”
Have these people ever seen how single family houses have been looking for like, 100 years?
They say it causes gentrification and that's the reason they don't want when we all know that it's because they don't want their property values to dip, lol. The thing is, the zoning laws, accessibily to services, and many other factors are what's actually preventing buildings like this to be built, but also that there's another reason why and that's because it's still rich people who owns the building as a landlord. either way, the rich still wins.
Why can’t both be bad at the same time?
Single family suburbs are also gentrification. Gentrification of the countryside. All forms of gentrification are terrible, but some are worse than others.
@@burgerman101 people should never move? where are their kids supposed to live when every possible square foot of space is already inhabited?
@@Alex_1400 why can’t we all live in mud huts?
There's a building in my neighborhood with the typical "gentrification" architecture but it was built on land donated by a church which turned it into affordable housing apartments and the bottom level has a school that teaches culinary trade skills to low income folks. It's super impressive and I point it out everytime im walking around with out of towers visiting me. I love this type of project so much and it's so badly needed everywhere.
Nice
Kind of amazing how the land was doing nothing when owned by the church but as soon as the church didn't have control over it the community benefitted. Churches in the US are sitting on some of the best real estate in the country,. They are tax-free and don't contribute anything to the communities they take from when compared to just about anything else that could go in their place.
@@jawaring4367 this means the church wasn’t serving their purpose. Churches are supposed to be assets in the communities they exist in, not just social clubs for Jesus.
@@jawaring4367 that's a really ignorant assumption. You don't know anything about this community.
wow that is really cool, thanks for sharing this!
"Gentrification!"
"Not in my backyard!"
"Too boring! It all looks the same!"
People just don't like change. Even change that fixes a problem. The path of least resistance is to always do nothing, until it's too late.
And then ask for more immigration via open borders to compete for housing
This is life in a nutshell
In DC, these buildings are definitely not affordable. They're cheaply-made expensive apartments.
@@stevencooper4422
Exactly. There would be no housing crisis if it wasn’t for endless, mass immigration-both “legal” and illegal
Who would've thought that the solution to a housing shortage was to build more housing?
Not the sf board of supervisors as I’ve learned from living here my whole life 😒
Not alone but yeah
I mean another solution is freeing up the 27 homes sitting vacant for everyone homeless person...
Oh no, people know it's the solution. But they also know the solution will tank their property values because now they can't sell their houses as monopoly prices.
@Tinselfect That's only a problem if supply doesn't meet demand. You can't sell/rent at higher prices if you have competition.
Imagine complaining about a building looking "artificial." When was the last time you saw a brick growing on a tree? Every building is artificial, that's why we build them instead of finding them lying around.
you can have elegant looking buildings and architecture without it looking like a cheap imitation of the 70s apartments, trying to pass itself off as "luxury".
You're either failing to see or purposefully ignoring the contextual distinction here. Most people aren't referring to the literal components of the construction when they're dismissing this new style of architecture. It is _culturally_ and/or _socially_ artificial, as in, the basis of the architectural style is not rooted within the culture of the area. It's representative of a cosmopolitanisation of town/city culture, diminishing the unique architectural identity of the place in question. For people who have grown up in a city or town with a rich cultural identity, it's an understandable reaction to want to preserve what they feel makes their city so unique. This isn't to make any judgement calls on affordable housing or 5-over-1s as a whole, just that this particular architectural style can warrant some legitimate and nuanced criticism.
Yeah when's the last time y'all see new building using actual bricks and not stick on plastic and foam.
@Smirks Well in times like this. A brutality house is better than no house
Brick and cement would be better and look alot better. Destroying trees over reusing rock
A lot of those buildings are affordable housing and I’m glad y’all are shedding light on it cuz I know from literally just apartment shopping. I noticed a similar style between all of these buildings and affordable apartments. I think it’s kind of annoying that so many people will jump onto a hate train just cuz and without actually doing research.
It is annoying. But I can also see why the building's style can cause concern at first glance. At the end of the day the problem is gentrification its self. I feel like the better we get at addressing that problem then the more people will be open to this type of housing.
Go look at the rental rates in these "affordable" buildings. They're affordable in name only.
@@freebobafett did you not read the part where Kalysta say they noticed it from apartment shopping? Meaning it is likely they did see the rental rates of specific buildings like this.
@@nicokelly6453 like it only probably 5-10 apartment that are truly affordable with a salary 30-60 . The bulk of the lottery is indicated for people who make over 60 k. They just use buzz words
Even in the comments here, people are repeating the cliche that these buildings are displacing people, that they’re “gentrification architecture”… it’s wild how obstinately some people cling to their preconceived notions
The only problem I have with the modern constructions is how thin the walls between units are. Living in one of these currently, and I can hear every conversation my neighbor has. I really wish they'd increase the minimum sound dampening requirements between units.
i had the same issue in my apartment in nyc, i had to sound proof my wall when new neighbor moved in. it cost a fortune. i found out my wall construction was a box made out of 1/2 inch drywall. they call it drywall, but it's really just a plaster-board.
i used to live in england where walls are usually 6inch solid brick construction. i dont understand how 1/2inch walls can be legal, in US.
In the country i live we dont use sound dampening in those sort of apartments but they have brick wall so yeah.
Lol so true almost motel like.
American walls are made of papier mache lol
Its the opposite for me. The new construction i lived in had half a meter thick walls. Never did i once hear my neighbour
I moved into a massive one of these with my girlfriend. We as Americans really need to start accepting more buildings like these in our cities, as it encourages mass transit use, limits urban sprawl and helps reduce skyrocketing rents by increasing the housing supply. It also helps reduce dependency on cars, as these types are almost always built with essentials within walking distance. The one we moved into has a grocery store in the bottom level, bank and dentist as well. Those would have normally been time wasting trips in a car, but now don’t have to contribute to congestion and pollution. These buildings are a win win over all
Our apartment complex has an on-site brewery, two gyms, two pools, two dog parks, two game rooms, a hot tub/sauna, an on-site brewery, food trucks every weekend, lots of community events, a grocery store and library within easy walking distance, and a big park right next to it. Although we're very close to the city (my boyfriend has an 8-minute commute to his job downtown), we're surrounded by tree-lined streets and it doesn't have that crowded urban feel. Our buildings also have nice thick walls so it's very hard to hear our neighbors and it doesn't feel like we're in a building full of other people. Yes it looks like the buildings in this video, but when we moved in we were told that the goal of these apartments was to make it so residents wouldn't have to go off-site for much, and it's great. We pay a bit more for rent than we'd like, but we love it here.
i wanna move into one too!
Think bigger
I am Indian living in a city Far away from my home town
We don’t have buildings back home and all he have is individual homes
Living in apartments is the worst thing for me
I mean I feel like it’s caging people .
You don’t have your own lawn
You don’t have your own place to grow some vegetables or fruits that you want
It can be cheap but It’s crowded and it can be irritating at times
you can hear some noises .
People can drop some things from above .
And I think it’s lack of privacy too .
@Zaydan Naufal traffic jam dude..
lets get something straight here. its not "RICH" people moving into lower income, high poverty areas, its middle income households kids not being able to afford 'middle' income areas when they move out of their parents homes and can still afford better housing than what is currently in the poorer areas, so newer nicer buildings get built as a affordability compromise.
so yes, some displacement does happen when these people move into those neighborhoods, but those same people who are moving in were displaced themselves from where they grew up and their families have lived for decades.
Yeah, it's definitely the inverse of what happened during the Suburban Experiment.
DING DING DING!!! The solution to prevent poor people from being displaced should be government intervention (social housing and such). It should be easier to build in these areas where gentrification is feared than in more affluent neighborhoods.
@@PASH3227 sounds quite ignorant, and your solution sounds like we should displace “poor” people to places that we deem as undesirable 😒. People should be able to live where they want you sound snobby
@@tonyog3540 here in Long Beach, Cambodiatown (a working class neighborhood) residents are afraid of gentrification and are pushing for new dense affordable housing. New projects have come online to satisfy their demand. I personally think market rate and affordable housing should be spread throughout different neighborhoods in cities, but affluent neighborhoods oppose affordable housing and working class neighborhoods oppose market rate housing.
I want more public and affordable housing to help those who are having trouble paying rent.
It's upper mid class drunk tech kids
I wish you had emphasized stronger the need for more mixed use zoning locations.
Single family zoning prevents this type of development from being allowed to exist in most places. That makes the neighborhoods where it can be built more expensive and exclusive than they might be than if the same complex was placed somewhere in Tokyo or Amsterdam.
Rep Not just bikes and strong towns!!!
"Single family zoning prevents this type of development from being allowed to exist in most places."
Dude go work on your English before you get on the Internet and pontificate about zoning.
And then just keep your mouth shut about zoning because whatever you say isn't going to always be the case everywhere. If it's actually true anywhere.
@@touristguy87 gee I'm really sorry I didn't run a frickin youtube comment through an editor and proofreader before hitting post.
Nothing I said was untrue though.
@@touristguy87 Go outside. Touch grass. Socialize. Please, do us all a favour.
@@Aninjacow100 you first
I'm in NY and I see a lot these new buildings being built. I didn't need a video to tell me these were made with cost in mind. Personally, I see it as a sign that a neighborhood is improving. More housing=more people=more businesses. It's the dead neighborhoods that are dangerous.
Could you say more about dead neighborhoods?
Yet, gentrification is about putting the prices so high it actually stops certain crowds from being there. Specially if you’re black and poor
@@lindseyclair921 dead neighborhoods are neighborhoods that havnt in a way been modernized they are in a stale mate where nothing new is being built or New buisnesses being built
@@arielpuma4512 What is good about being poor?
I’m FROM NY, more housing? Where?
These are going up everywhere in Gainesville, FL. Traditionally, students lived in big suburban apartment complexes and rode Vespas to school. Now, they walk to campus from downtown 5 over 1's. It was a lightning quick transformation, and it really brought my social group together because everyone was in walking distance of each other's homes.
Same up here in Tally-Town, though to a smaller extent. You guys have been a lot bolder and brasher in the execution, it's right in yo face! And I love it. Ugh, so jealous of you guys!
Idek, from the point of view of both someone who was raised in Gainesville and a UF alumni, I cant really get behind them man. They bought out a lot of the smaller businesses all around Gainesville and really threaten to push poorer residents out. Paying $800 for a room in a 4 - 4 and buying out local long time spot really isn't it. It also doesn't it really help the housing supply for ACR's. Plus, despite all of the arguments about lowering rent because of more supply, that really hasn't happened at all.
@@shanekeenaNYC And by "you guys" you mean, unscrupulous profit-driven developers, some of them from South Florida and therefore not even local? Gee thanks.
Awesome more people should do that.
gainesville has a massive gentrification problem. look into seminary lane. plus those buildings right in downtown are massive high rises that anyone without money can barely afford. it isn't affordable housing. it's gentrification. you may benefit from it but what it's doing is rising apartment prices all throughout the city and causing a real housing issue here in gnville
I always use the litmus test of "what's this replacing" if you're replacing an apt with a fancy condo, that's displacement, but replacing a single family home with townhouses and multiplexes, then it's increasing the supply.
As you point out, the issue is that housing is frequently framed as a commodity, where an increase in value is always good. But when there's not enough supply (e.g. because of an over-regulated market) then you end up creating crime (e.g. vagrancy).
It would be replacing condo with apt, since condos are individually owned and apartments are typically owed by corporations.
@@robharmon8224no it's not they're replacing low dense regions its the opposite of gentrification
The one in Oakland replaced a parking lot. It's part of a huge new complex by a BART stationthat was built between 2014 and 2020, but all the commercial spaces have remained vacant.
I think you would need regulations to make sure affordable and at market housing is built rather than say a Toyota Dealership
You clearly have never been negatively effected by gentrification & I am assuming are a white upper middle class individual. Never once has the rent for these 5-1 luxury apartments ever been affordable enough for nearby natives to afford where I live the houses have cheaper rents than the luxury apartments. The issue with housing is no more older courtyard style apartments or ACTUAL affordable styles of living get built which can also have some sense of community which is lacking from a 5-1 not to mention its yt washed architecture. Any ethic neighborhood you put those in would be white washing
As a european I've always been shocked traveling in the US (mostly CA) by the dimensions of single family houses, the dimensions of the neighborhoods, it was just hard to assimilate and to move around. It was interesting to watch this because for us is just the most obvious housing to build. Of course Im not saying that's the best way and we definitely have housing problems in Europe but I don't think we'd have that strong reaction looking at a massive building, it's the norm
It has a lot to do with Americans being indoctrinated into seeing single family housing as the american dream. to the point that people still wanta house with a yard in it. I dated someone like this before, if I can get a house in the city I live in I would, but likewise, I am unwilling to move to a small town to obtain it (even though cost of living is lower my career doesn't exist in these places, and being black american small towns in America aren't the idea place for me to live, it's all basically Trump country.)
@@lordblazer lol the ignorance
@@lordblazer they voted trump because they work in fields that will be shut down due to net zero and climate policy, not because they are racist
Detracting from @lordblazer 's comment, it's all because except for the largest of cities the average american believes in horizontal scaling of cities.
Need 100 more homes? Build 100 houses instead of a massive one.
It definitely depends on the country in question. In Denmark where I'm from I often see conflicts scarily similar to those of the US appear regarding urban design.
To be honest, these structures aren't even that separated from American vernacular architecture, wood construction and panelling with small balconies etc, is a common enough thing in the history of the USA for it to have become a trope of north American architecture that is not seen much outside of the context of Anglo America, much like bricks housing in the UK or Kruschevskayas in eastern Europe, they might be characterless in a way but they are still clearly an excitation of American culture and in all honesty they could be a lot worse than what I am seeing here, at least they are building something useful, affordable and pragmatic where there could have been nothing, the more people push the gentrification narrative the more nothings there is going to be.
my problem is they build them cheaply and in so many quantities yet most of the time they’re sold as luxury condos or houses etc when they’re not luxurious at all
I kind of like this style of building. It often looks real clean and shiny and sometimes colorful in my experience
Longest sentence I've ever seen
@@blancavelasquez9859 They aren’t but ok
@@SlickBillByron If they're built in desirable areas they are tho
Am I the only person who actually likes the minimalist, modern design? I find it comforting.
People are going to lose their minds over the style in fifty years when some other style takes over.
Me too man. I love minimalist, modern design, like it says I'm nice, efficient, low maintenance.
I'm busy at work all day, I just want to go home to a place where it's nice and easy to clean.
I think it looks bad i wouldnt wanna live in any type of appartement anyways
There's nothing minimalist about the design of these buildings.
I personally love it. Looks quite elegant, in my opinion
I personally think these buildings look beautiful, modern and cozy. People should take a walk around their cities and see how disgusting were all the cheap and affordable buildings from the 60's to the early 90's.
New buildings pretending to be victorian or just vintage style are the true gentrification, they are impossible to be build in a cheap way. And people never complain about them. Lookfor example at abandoned industrial buildings turned into rich people lofts..
They’re minimalist and clean. For a lot of people, a clean environment means a less busy, more peaceful mind.
It’s doesn’t normally match the aesthetic of the neighborhood so it is an eye sore
No. Literally people in the community love them. I bet you gentrified where you live now
Also, new buildings with victorian facades are often times symbolic of the values that came with the era they are mimicking. There's a reason that a large section of conservatives lean towards traditional architecture - it often times (not all the time) represents the "better" values that were held during that era. For many politicians, traditional architecture symbolises their policies - classicism and racial divide.
traditional styles are way more beautiful than the new modern tho
What has not been talked about enough and must be taken into consideration is the fact that too many North Americans especially North American families have not known any other form of housing other than Detached single family homes with a front yard and/or backyard. There are so many ways to live a good quality of life that don't involve living in suburbia driving everywhere in an automobile to get to your intended destination.
My dear urban planners, and anyone that lives in densified communities for that matter: too many North Americans have been isolated / ignorant from the truth that their desire for single family homes is not sustainable from an environmental/land use perspective and economic perspective as there is only so much land to accommodate such a lifestyle.
I agree with most of what you said. But however, I live in Canada and we use barely any of our land. We put out a relatively small carbon footprint. So for some more dense major cities I could see this definitely being the most eco friendly, and cost effective.
So the person who works hard to buy their house with a backyard and front yard and three car garage is wrong for wanting to live like that?
What if they don’t want to live in an apartment of 200 people?
@@zerokool-2058 Exactly, im sick of people acting like inner city living is something everyone is meant to do
@@dopaminedreams1122 I think its unsustainable to be living in a city, period. One bit of infrastructure fails and the whole city is crippled. I'd rather live rural than urban any day
@@pneumaticbear8881 unsustainable is the incorrect word to use here, mate. Suburbia is a nightmare for climate change in any department. Also: ever lived in a city? It doesn’t have to be New York automatically. There’s cities which aren’t that dense. It’s so funny how America is like 50 years behind compared to the rest of the world. The majority of earth’s population is already living in cities and the rate is growing immensely. Rural living will be a thing of the past in a few decades already, if you like it or not.
You’re telling me TikTok had an unnuanced and American centric view of a social issue? *Shocked Pikachu*
What? Shut up
Bruh. This IS an American issue.
@@theobuniel9643 Lack of housing is not just an american issue.
@@theobuniel9643 *cries in million dollar London studios*
To be honest, I actually like the design of the so-called "gentrification buildings." Watching this video has made me like it even more. Made cheap but affordable.
@Hugh Morley as an architecture student, I wouldn’t go as far as to say I like it, but they’re generally better than like 80% of buildings out there
@@shaneperreault I’m not saying it’s bad at all. Saying it’s better than 80% of buildings means that it’s quite good
And myself, coming from a frugal background, find it fascinating to search for new innovative ways to cut costs whilst not sacrificing the design of homes
@@thatpersonsmusic ik you probably didn’t mean it this way, but 80% of buildings happen to be not designed by architects, that is to say that vernacular architecture makes up most bldgs in the world, and only 20% are designed by “real” professional, architecture school educated architects. That makes it more sad imo when professional architects put out bad buildings, considering vernacular buildings have been designed to meet the needs of their occupants and environment in economical ways for thousands of years. It’s not just an architect’s problem though, ridiculous clients and predatory zoning are to blame for bad buildings just as much. We have a lot we should learn and incorporate back into our practice from vernacular, local, traditional, indigenous, etc. architecture.
If you’re interested in “good” architecture, that is designs that are economical, high performance, suited to a site, etc. definitely recommend reading up on vernacular architecture. See if your architecture library has “Vernacular Architecture,” by Christian Schittich. It’s a big book but it’s got beautiful drawings and photographs of vernacular design from around the world. A smaller, less detailed but great pocket version of a similar concept is “Handmade Houses & Other Buildings, The World of Vernacular Architecture” by John May. I recently got this one online for like ten dollars with shipping, it’s a nice little book!
-a fellow architect. Good luck in getting your degree! You can do this.
@@cel7691 thanks for the advice. I have been interested in trying to recognize the local culture in designs, but haven’t yet really started on studying how to do it. I’ll definitely try to check out those books when I have the chance
Yeah, I always thought they looked neat. Maybe they clash with older buildings, but they're nice buildings in their own right.
As someone living in New York's Hudson Valley, the only issue I take with this is that such a high proportion of these buildings designed to be affordable to build are not being marketed and sold/rented affordably. They're marketed as new luxury dwellings, and are often strategically located near waterfront access or entertainment/commercial districts with access to mass transit to New York City. These units are badly needed for workforce housing, but are 1-bed and 2-bed apartments going for 2-3k per month or 500k+ as sales. That's just not sustainable.
That's... Not that expensive for the NY metro area though? Especially not for well-situated infill TODs, like the places you're describing were probably already just as expensive if not more. They don't exactly sound like they're gentrifying anything.
Obviously you need regulation to set minimum amount of affordable housing in new developments, which is already helping *a lot* in parts of Europe, but these developments put brakes on the rent hikes, they don't cause them
@@domesticcat1725 but we're not the New York metro area. We're 50 miles from the most generous edge of the New York metro area. 3 years ago the average sale price was 250-275. 1BR apartment rentals were going for 1k. It's well above that now, especially for new construction.
@@greghudson6861 well imagine how much it would be without the new construction. Wouldn't be surprised if it had been 1.5x as much for both rent and sale.
Also, a third of Hudson Valley is solidly within the metro area and the rest is still the metro area's commuter zone, and I don't really care for pedantic distinctions
@@domesticcat1725 not really much of a fan of "imagine how much worse the problem would be" when the "solution" hasn't made the situation much better.
And there are ancillary issues in play here too: traffic and utility infrastructure are strained, with more cars on the roads than ever and no new roads or highways. So it's not just the cost of these new units it's also the quality of life issues they raise.
@@greghudson6861 You dont need as many new roads or highways as much as better public transit. Which is there with the PATH and bus lanes.
“affordable housing” these buildings popped up in my town and their like 500-1000 dollars more than old apartments 🗿
Well new things tend to be more expensive than old things
@@Ricardowieringa they don’t last nearly as long though
New apartments are almost always more expensive than old ones, but the point is, if we dont build new stuff, the price of everything goes up because the population goes up
As an eastern European every building showed looks really good and above average. I'd be really happy to see one coming up in my town lol
You’re missing the point
That's americans for you
Soviet blocks be stronk
they are considered cool here too like a sign of development and also they tend to have nice club houses too
@@seankoons2023 You're missing his.
I'm an urban planning student in a medium-sized city in Canada and there's an interesting pattern that happens here. We build affordable housing that is supposed to be rent-capped by the city council to ensure it is affordable, then the landlords in charge get high bids for units and realize that they can get more than the rent cap, they raise the rent from say, $600 to $1100 per unit to meet that new demand, the city does nothing to stop this, the buildings stay forever at 1/3rd occupancy because not everybody can afford that, and affordable housing is considered a failure.
We are just finalizing a revolutionary transit system and have selected several business lots along the routes to be turned into low-income housing, capped again at $610/month. My profs assure me that this same pattern won't repeat with this new housing, but I think it will. I guess we'll see in 5 years.
Wow thank you for sharing
So your government is literally letting the landlords openly and brazenly break their agreement?
@@Outwardpd Um, yeah. The diplomatic way to say it is our city planning department is very factional. The land-use planners don't talk to the transit planners, who hate the zoning people, who hate and don't talk to the watershed planners and all of them would rather be taken prisoner than be delegated to by city council. So, it's not surprising that this happens. I mean, we've built and populated entire suburbs before learning that the transit planners refuse to adjust the bus route, leaving people stranded. But, it is disappointing.
This is exactly what's happening all over Ohio. Columbus has a ton of the 5/1 buildings, yet they barely have 30% occupancy. That doesn't make the rent any less.
What?
$600 x 100 units = $60,000
$1100 x 33 units = $36,300
I find it hard to believe that any property manager would rather collet $36k instead of $60k a month for the same building. Plus the liability of empty units. Doesn't happen.
They keep mentioning yet affordable, yet all of these apartments always seem to have rates ~30% higher than market for that type of housing.
Rent vouchers for older apartments is more cost effective because new construction is just expensive. Even tiny little units cost a mint to build
because they aren't enough. There is a huge shortage of housing. Build much more of these and watch prices drop
It always kills me that they call these “luxury apartments” despite them being built as cheaply as possible
@@alexmorse6484 "Seattle's Best Coffee" is also probably not Seattle's best coffee. It's just marketing and people know to ignore that with most products in life but with housing this marketing is weaponized as a political tool to stop any new development.
Just because we’re building new apartments in the cheapest way possible does not mean that the cost savings will be translated to lower rent for tenants and features that enhance quality of life. When it comes to new development, we also need to consider who owns and profits from the cost savings, and what ownership models actually translate the benefits to members of the community.
Exactly. Where I used to live, they put up a ton of these, but they were all "luxury" units and the rental cost was at minimum 1.5 times all the places around them. Then, once they were built, all the cheaper places started using them as a "comparable" and raised their rent too
There are some requirements associated with these buildings. If they are built using affordable housing tax codes, they usually have a price ceiling they need to abide by such as the 60% of median prices in the area like mentioned here. Of course, if they don't use government assistance or take those tax breaks, they can charge whatever they want, but that does separate the target demographics.
@@jakemaxwell3810 good points, and being in the industry I understand the distinction. I agree that some jurisdictions do set their own terms, however I’m really only familiar with this in one particular state and region. The direction of my comment was criticizing Vox’s simplistic assumption that cost effective building necessarily creates lower barriers to entry for tenants. Reality of the tax and law structure is much more complicated as you allude to.
Precisely. All the new construction apartment/condos by me charge MORE than older buildings in the same neighborhood and advertise "New Construction" as an added benefit regardless of how cheap it was to construct the building. I'm sure the developers are saving money in their methods of construction, but they charge MORE not less, for the finished product than what housing used to cost in that area.
They addressed this in the video.
I don't know... New housing in Europe, Spain specifically, is not very artsy, but still looks good. Basically same as shown here.
Just another thing that seems odd in American mindset.
You're not entitled to force people to build pretty things for your own tastes. Housing and profits are more important than looking nice.
@@pseudonym3396 you didn't get my point at all
there's no need to expect aesthetic standards that high from residential buildings while there are cars lining the roads looking as disgusting as cars look today.
I think the reason people are upset isn't because of how the buildings look but what they represent. In the US, neighborhood important usually means building and bunch of luxury condos, then raising the rent till only upper middle class people can afford to live. These buildings usually charge more for rent than is common for the surrounding area, so they are seen as the beginning of the end.
@@jimbo1637 yet this video explains why that isn’t the case, so hopefully people can realise that all building is good building - the only way to combat demand is to supply
"This looks mass produced". Mass production of buildings (and for buildings) began over 150 years ago. A lot of "classical" or "baroque" decoration on our buildings in Europe (like door or window frames) are actually mass produced and were just put on metal hooks in the wall. In the Berlin of 1900, the fashion of decorating buildings with those elements really became ridiculous.
The difference is mass produced things back then actually lasted and had aesthetic appeal. They were also built with Hugh quality materials and craftsmanship
But we know when ppl say "mass produced", they are talking about mass production that held after industrial revolution... when modern approach start. Something that cheaper than production in renaissance era ofc.
look at amsterdam, mass producing started well before. People would build the same houses to save costs
Berlin:
Although these houses were sometimes, especially after 1900, also built by large companies in a similar style, they are still quite individual and built with traditional masonry also the ornamentation.
@@HattieMcDanielonaMoon this argument is purely subjective. The snobs of back then would’ve complained that it look bad but hey they’re still here. And ultimately these aesthetics arguments hold little to no validity when it comes to buildings made to be affordable towards less financially stable people/families. The government’s prime priority for making affordable housing is to make a house, just like any other, but as cheap as possible, not to be a beauty guru for buildings.
These buildings are nicer than most suburbs. Here in Brazil I would love to see more buildings like this. Unfortunately, when affordable housing is built here, developers often forget to reserve a space for commerce.
This is only “affordable” for developers. They still charge an arm and a leg for these budget properties. Check Dallas for example
But if they make more of them than the price will decrease with higher supply
Brownstones were designed to avoid the terrible “great fires” that rampaged major cities constructed of wood
Blegh, I live in a single family home and would totally live in a multi family building if it meant I didn't have to own a car to drive for 15+ minutes to get to any destination. Suburbs are so bad for the environment.
I think the main problem of Suburbs is the lack of efficient public transportation to theses areas. Honnestly when I compare NA public transportation to european one, it's almost stunning to see this.
I find it really really strange for example the lack of high speed trains in such a big empty place. I find it disturbing to see so little options of public transportation so that you need at least almost 2 changes of bus, or a 45 min trip in one who does almost all the town... How is that even efficient ? Especially when the only available bus is once per hour... I lived in a remote village in when I was young, but there was bus to almost everywhere every 15 to 30 minutes, I could literaly go anywhere. in any direction when I wanted without having to wait, or take more time than in car.
I'm not sure that putting more bus would be the answer in NA tho. This is a cultural change, it would require almost 5 to 10years of improved offer to get people starting using it efficiently (almost one generation, usually thats the youngest who use public transportation the most, and then keep this habit). But in our short-termed society, this is almost impossible to put because you would need some politician to make moves that will profit to the ones in place when he/they will retire. Not an option.
@@cantloop9589 Right. What people say they want, is different to what they choose to use. Theres nothing wrong with suburbs, people need a variety of housing. Many working class people like plumbers, builders, drive a truck for work, they need space to put their vehicles and equipment. A city apartment isnt going to work for millions of working people. People need choice of housing.
@@feuby8480 The U.S. intentionally sabotaged public transportation in the 1940s to encourage white Americans to move to newly built suburbs that were dependent on car ownership. Cities stopped investing in maintaining buses and making it a convenient form of transportation. If buses were reliable and more bus routes extended into the suburbs at convenient times, more people would take them. Outside of the American South and parts of the Midwest, most people would be open to public transportation.
@@tubester4567 you are going to tell me suburbs are predominantly plumbers and builders and people who need the space, and not mostly people who like the idea of a house with a lawn
@@cantloop9589 one bus line does not efficient public transport make.
What's missed in the comparison to the old Brownstones is that those materials (brick, stone) age well; usually they get more beautiful the older they are. Sadly, the materials used in these new buildings will not age well.
New buildings are more durable and modern. Try upgrading electric, plumbing, heat and ac in a brownstone. Very hard and expensive to do. They are beautiful tho I agree. People pay extra for stone and brick
@@MrKongatthegates More durable in some ways... The new buildings' exteriors may need to be replaced, whereas with brick they can last many hundreds of years. Not sure about floors or roof, but real wood floors are environmentally friendly and can also last hundreds of years. And of course retrofitting old brownstones for modern appliances is a pain, but that's not an argument against building new high quality brick/stone buildings with modern appliances!
@@sumthinelse5790 First off concrete is stronger and more environmentally resistant than brick… second off spill literally any liquid or move furniture around even once ever few weeks on a wood floor and see if it lasts more than 10 years. You are not fr telling me brick and wood is a stronger and more long-term alternative to concrete and steel I refuse to believe anyone can think like that.
@@TheFakeGooberGoblin you had him fam
@radio hitman what are bricks and concrete made out of my chance radio hit man
I mean, where I live there's a ton of those buildings being built, and literally none of them are affordable. They set high prices and, even when half of the units aren't being rented, they keep those prices high. These places are small, they don't have w/d in-unit, they typically don't even have parking, but they're still priced at the top of the market
The point at 5:20 is really important - more higher density housing in an area reduces local housing prices.
That being said, some new housing is constructed as part of broader redevelopment schemes for local areas, which may include amenities and transport links. In _those_ cases, I imagine you do see an increase in prices - even before the new housing as built, as people speculate on the future desirability of an area. This happens a lot in London whenever there is an extension to the Tube planned.
It's rough, because the solution really _shouldn't_ be to leave run-down areas without amenities, transport links or general investment. But as soon as you do, people get priced out - which is why high-density affordable housing everywhere is so important, it's the only way to address geographic deprivation without running people out.
That can be directly linked to our zoning problem.
An enormous percentage of the land in and around US cities is zoned exclusively for single family homes, often with additional requirements like minimum lot sizes. In those areas, any housing that can legally be built is neither affordable, nor high-density. As you rightly stated, "high-density affordable housing everywhere," is "the only way," to solve our housing problem, but it's literally illegal to try that solution due to our zoning problem.
Just another example of how the problems in this country are so convoluted and interconnected that solving them one at a time is nearly impossible.
Truth, here in Philly huge portions of neighborhoods are controlled by just one to a few developers, and often these redevelopment schemes as you mentioned will come with a website and rebranding of the neighborhood, under some new name, and typically some industrial building converted into 'luxury apartments', breweries, etc. but without additional public amenities like additional transport, making the city even more car reliant
Theres a great article on Slate which discusses this. It describes several studies that show that these increased amentieies actually tend to lead to lower turnover in people who rent in an area.
For the most part, people want to live in "gentrified" areas. Gentrified usually means low crime, well maintained, well serviced, good school, good transport, etc. These are things all people generally want, and when they come to a previously decaying part of town, people who lived there already become less likely to move out.
@@krombopulos_michael though this assumes that those carryover residents are home owners (therefor not subject to rent increases) and can still afford their increased taxes, in my experience not often the case
Except none of these buildings ever do that. Here in Seattle all the gentrification apartments are full of Amazon managers and programmers
It's funny how americans see this as negative when in other continents is the only option... but I understand from the point of view of having a so larga country. Nevertheless the problem resided on making cities more and more important and keep pushing urban areas and not rural...
Plus this will be more and more common due to the same reason there is no houses supplies and prices so high, the only option available for those who are looking for a home: “apartments” or what funnily Vox says: “gentrification buildings”
man america is weird
@@itrevinoz Vox is defending the housing, did you even bother to watch the video bruh?
It’s almost as if the same action can have radically different effects on different cultures
Only poor blacks and white poor black enablers think like that. They hate it because it means they would have to work harder to continue living in the neighborhood they don’t deserve to live in the first place. Welfare doesn’t cover nice apartments and Starbucks so when they pop up in their “hoods” they call it racist and gentrification… They want to hold back development because they are too lazy from being fed by white liberals and have no idea or desire to stop.
The problem with the 5 on 1s is that they tend to command higher prices due to being "luxury apartments" because of them being new builds. Just because your poorly built apartments are new, doesnt make them luxurious.
I'm skeptical of the complaints against the brownstones. Stone has always been a premium building material. It was beautiful 100 years ago, it's beautiful now, and will be beautiful in 100 years. Just look at Europe!
I'm glad to see a video educating the public on why this construction style helps lower housing costs and provides the opportunity for struggling families to avoid displacement.
@Scott Leo Lets not
@BasicSquare I was reading and I was like bots.
Ugliness will sap the soul of everyone in the vicinity of these buildings. Social decay will follow.
Or we could actually give low-income people quality housing, even if we need to pay more for it. Yes, that's very possible; we're just not willing to spend money on really improving the quality of life for low-income individuals. Not everything needs to be an "investment."
The rent and cost of these apartments will skyrocket without any permanent caps. And lack of space when living is detrimental to mental health.
I'd love to be able to afford to live in one of those 5-over-1's. Unfortunately, whenever I see them, they are always new "luxury" apartments, and we'll put of my price range. I am already expected to spend 60% of my monthly take-home pay on rent. It's ridiculous.
That's because not enough are being built. The only way to reliably lower the price is to vastly increase supply. Luxury is a marketing term that just means its a new building. Your experience shows your area still has a massive shortage of housing and probably needs to increase housing density.
Exactly, went apartment hunting and these so called "affordable housing" were the more expensive ones
Affordable housing equals low property values. Low property values equal low property taxes. Low property taxes equals Government: "We No Want!!"
@@mxplixic think the income taxes generated from homeless people being in subsidized housing and able to have a job would make up for that
@@UberOtaku001 I'm not sure there are available lots to build enough of these in my area to decrease demand immediately! Maybe if row homes and SFH were demolished to make room, but the owners of those homes would never agree to it.
The heart of the problem is that “homeowners” are trying to justify the interest they paid on their homes. They believe that since they overpaid for their home, they want to see the price go up, while people who can’t yet purchase, they are victim of the artificial shortage that is created by the unwillingness of certain neighborhoods to zone for affordable housing.
Exactly for that reason I feel like the federal government should be the one handle zoning because when state or local government have power they always use it to discriminate against minorities
If you put 300k into a house, you would hope that your investment would gain value over time. If house prices always stayed the same or steadily decreased over time, most people would never buy their own house. The vast majority of all housing would be owned by big investors that rent it out, adding fuel to the rental pricing dumpster fire.
@@areoladan5580 I know this is a year ago but in Japan houses lose value overtime because of depopulation and natural disaster risks. After 30 years, houses are more likely to be abandoned than sold. Japan has a 55.04% housing ownership rate (only about 10% less than the US). Instead of treating housing as an investment, they treat it as it should . . . a place to live.
I'm not sure your argument makes sense. Building 'cheaply' implies that the cost of a new unit is the cost of construction. However, since rents and sale prices are going up everywhere, even in older units, the cost of construction is a smaller and smaller part of the overall unit cost. What we're actually getting is cheaply built housing, that will not last very long. If these units were better constructed and lasted longer they would contribute more to the community without being particularly more expensive. Affordable housing is not about cheap construction.
Cheap does not always mean low quality. When you build 250 single houses you need 250 projects, general contractors, sewer, electricity, etc. When you build them in one project you lower the costs majorly. Single homes can also be made very poorly but people buy them because they have to.
You propose an argument from the premise that "what we're actually getting is cheaply built housing... will not last very long". I disagree with this premise. I will lay down some premises which I can work on, you are free to agree or disagree with my premises. Inexpensive does not always mean poorer quality. Building something 'to code' should be enough to keep a building around for many years if not decades. Let's define 'cheep' (in quotes) as something which is made of poor quality. Now, imagine I have a million dollars to build a new building. Lets say I want my rent to pay me back in 10 years. If I were to use the million dollars to build something with expensive materials that could hold 10 people, I'd need to charge each of them $833.33 a month for 10 years to make back my million dollars. If I use the million dollars to build something with inexpensive materials that could hold 20 people, I'd only need to charge them $416.67 to make back my money in 10 years. You could consider these prices the 'minimum' price that I'd need to charge. A building that costs less to build *can* charge less rent and still turn a profit. It doesn't mean that landlords *will* charge less rent, but it means that they *can*. Theoretically, *if* the city's building codes are good, a building built to code should last a long time and should contribute to the community no matter if they built it out of wood or stone or concrete. Not to say what you're saying doesn't happen, sometimes inexpensive buildings are 'cheep', but again, I do not think that these new buildings are as 'cheep' as you consider them to be. Your conclusion of 'affordable housing is not about cheep construction' is correct, but that also assumes that spending less on construction necessitates 'cheep' construction. Being efficient with the monetary resources you have does not *always* produce 'cheep' results. QED
Dont forget about the climate impact as well. A dense neighborhood produces less emissions than the same number of people spread out across an entire suburb. If non-displscement gentrification is part of the climate solution that's a very small price to pay.
Preach!
@Zaydan Naufal what’s your point?
Not only that, but car dependency is terrible for the economy. Poor workers are saddled with the burden of maintaining a car to get to work, and the scale of infrastructure required for spread out housing is the cause of America's crumbling infrastructure today. It's too much to maintain.
The building that looks like this in my city charges $3,000-$4,000 for a two bedroom
That’s what I’m saying? This isn’t affordable lol
@@Bliv285 Affordable is relative, prices will trend downward when supply overtakes demand.
@@cccspwn in a perfect world, I would agree with this statement.
@@Bliv285 In the real world his statement is true.
The real problem is everyone who are using housing as an investment, and therefore want too keep the prices high even at the expense of others.
We definitely need more housing in the USA especially right now with historically low inventory. That being said, I have not seen any new apartment buildings/condos or single family homes that are "affordable". Even if they were constructed cheaply, the often advertise "New Construction" as an added benefit and charge MORE for rent or home price than an older building in the same neighborhood. Housing is not becoming more affordable even with new construction. The price of rent and home ownership is only going up, and going up exponentially.
Maybe we shouldn't have let China buy up all our real estate
I'm a multi-family developer and it always blows my mind how neighborhood groups fight me on development. They would rather have dirt lots than mixed use communities.
Just explain to them how many people won't have a place to live otherwise and let them know that they are basically causing people to be homeless.
Ugh my parents are some of those that fight you on that. They don't see themselves as greedy, but they can only think of themselves in that situation.
The sad reality is that the value of their asset is at risk, so why would they support something that goes against their best interests? This video didn't touch on it at all, but we all know that if you increase housing supply then prices will go down. This goes against the interest of current homeowners. Whether you agree or not, this is the mindset of a lot of people.
Another issue is that some towns don't have enough land to build affordable housing even if they wanted to. This is driven largely by single-family zoning laws, but we can't just retroactively re-zone entire neighborhoods to fix it. It's a complex problem.
California: *sees mostly middle to low income people leave because of not enough housing*
Livable California: Yeah, but building new housing is bad bc displacement!
as a californian i can confirm this comment as accurate
as a californian who knows many displaced people, this comment isn't accurate. Where I was born and raised near a "project" afforadable housing and section housing, there has been built 4 nearby housing projects similar to what's discussed here. All are luxury/higher income based. Guess what happened to the non-protective previously affordable housing and locals whom couldn't afford to move out their parents home to nearby rental units?
@@osvaldopulido2553 dang where i live the housing just goes up
depends on the area
Rich Californians seem to be the most hypocritical in all of US.
The video literally says that gentrification and displacement is still happening.
If these apartments are affordable, why was I priced out of my apartment as soon as they were built? $750,000 condos aren't affordable housing, at least not for me.
$750,000 condos? If you can afford that. You can afford something else and as nice.
Or am I not understanding
@@zerokool-2058 I had to move and get roommates. It's not affordable.
Sounds like you were going to get priced out of that apartment regardless and were simply hit with an unfortunate coincidental timing.
Location probably. As a city grows, the lower income people get pushed to the edges
The price of everything went up in your city. There was not enough new construction for the demand. That new building got built because demand was very high in your area.
My grandmother said that during the Depression, the occasional unemployed man would stop by the window of their kitchen and ask if they had any food to spare. And of course, they did. She said that we didn't have community like that anymore. She also said this while sitting in a newly built 3 story mansion in the suburbs, and then got mad a few years later when she would see people from the new apartment complex walking their dogs in front of her house.
As an European it's always weird to me that even houses in cities are built of wood. No wonder you can even hear your neighbor whispering.
Nah, that's on the cardboard walls, not the wood structures 🤣
@@sabikikasuko6636 Wood construction is a big factor in it compared to European housing. You can mitigate noise by using sound dampening drywall, thicker insulation, or double later drywall but that's more expensive so that option is typically not uses. Part of my decision for where I live was based on the fact that it's a concrete building and therefore much quieter.
Wooden construction is not uncommon in Europe either. Insulation is what impacts noise, not whether the frame is wooden.
We can’t ignore all the environmental benefits of wood-frame construction just because the builders didn’t put good insulation.
I'm living in a modern (built in 2020) building in Canada made from mass timber (as opposed to stick frame), and the sound insulation is the best I've ever had. I literally cannot hear my neighbors on either side or above me. Downside of mass timber is it's still in its infancy, and the economies of scale aren't as developed yet, meaning it is more expensive than lighter stick frame construction.
If we want more affordable housing we need to have less single-family homes zoning.
Checkout the video of Notjustbikes!
Vox also had a video about this
You're exactly right, and this is alluded to in this clip. The problem is that for the older generations, the ones in the higher socioeconomic demographics now, owning a single-family home was engrained in their psyches as the true "American Dream", so from their perspective zoning and housing contrary to that is viewed as threatening or destroying that dream and America itself
Unfortunately, because single-family zoning is so ubiquitous, people who prefer SFH are led to believe the free market is working as intended and their preference is the majority. This simply isn't true. There would be more housing options if zoning was less restrictive. Not everyone wants a McMansion on an acre of land!
On the flipside, if we want more peace and quiet and pleasant places to live and raise families we need more single-family homes zoning.
"can look artificial" well that's because it IS ARTIFICIAL, it's a BUILDING which is something that you can't find in nature
are you being purposefully obtuse and reductive or is this what you really think
I love these kind of videos. very informative.
A complex of this kind of construction went up in 2007. The target market was young new college graduated professionals. It had all kinds of locally owned small businesses at the bottom floors. restaurants parties etc It was amazing. It wasn't long before the rent went up by $300 and many people were forced out. Many of the small businesses downstairs left also.
If you found this interesting, please check out the channel "not just bikes"
This video explained this issue extraordinarily well, saving this to show to others. Thank you :)
Wow.. thanks.
Had to check myself.. pretty good.
Great channel been a fan of his channel ever since I watched it.
spread the anti-car centric city agenda
@@penguinpingu3807
its not haha
@@penguinpingu3807 it's not beneficial i hate unnecessary car usage
People: "not enough housing!"
*builds housing*
People: "Gentrification!"
100%
Apartmenting
@@Paonporteur i mean but how will you be able to keep getting voted
Because this is literally gentrification. I live in an area where these are being built and rent literally went up this month. I fukcing hate these.
Adult men and women seldom complain about gentrification. Adolescents (of all ages) complain about it.
I'm a real estate developer and this is the most accurate video I've seen today. Spot on!!
okay but am I the only one that likes the look? they're much better looking that single family homes for the most part, and seeing as little as 2 to 3 apartments in one building rather than one makes it feel more dense and alive
A huge issue with housing is renting vs owning. Renters have so little control over where they live, they are subjects to the what of the landlords next lease agreement. That a big reason that single family home owners have so much power. Because renters have essentially none.
yup. I agree. strangely enough, in a few years I would like to buy a townhouse, but whenever I see new construction in my area, and I see townhomes that I'd like to live in, they turn out to be apartments and not small town homes I could buy. 🙁 that's another dimension to this problem, the only homes to buy in my city are single family homes.
You’d have to be born yesterday to not understand that chronic status as a renter comes down to poor personal choices. You can’t force people to pay their bills.
@Bob Smith I think what stops a lot of people from buying a home isnt so much the mortgage..cause in my area, rent for apartments is often times more than a mortgage...I think what stops people is the upfront cost associated with buying a home...if you dont have 10k in cash up front or you arent a Vet, you wont even be able to get into a house
One big thing to note is that (at least in NY) while these buildings are new and in the affordable housing program or lottery, they're actually just better priced then some other places. And only really "affordable". For higher incomes.
Helloooo thank you!
ohh
If they are built using affordable housing tax credits then you literally can't live in them if you make a higher income.
@@Outwardpd only a portion of the apartments are required to be 'affordable'. The rest are market-price. Even the affordable apartments are still quite expensive, just lower than market rate; how much varies depending on the building. And, of course who is enforcing it? There have been investigations which showed that the 'affordable' apartment was basically $100/less than the market price ones. The quality of the buildings are overall imo worse, so many listings where it's basically a studio apartment but they put up a couple of walls so it's x bedrooms for marginally lower rate. It was maybe a decent idea but developers have found the way to game it.
@@ttttyyyty911 thank you. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain this to ppl
I recently moved back to upstate New York, into one of those higher rent 5 on 1 buildings. The city recently demolished an old abandoned building to put up new affordable housing unit, which is good to see. The building I’m in does clash with the surrounding architecture but honestly it was a lot with an empty bank building on it before.
I agree with all of this, except would have added that "affordable housing" often is a misnomer. All in favor of increasing housing stock, but also think we need to make more of it accessible to all, not only the middle class and above
Poor people are going to be living in older buildings. Its common sense you cant charge as much for an old run down place
I live in an area where the middle class cannot afford any of the new apartments being built, so clearly my area has no concept of affordable housing. All the people who decided to move out of NYC during COVID has jacked up our rents and housing costs something awful. Our average rents went up by around 600$, and our houses went up by around 250K on the LOW end, so thanks for that.
You're welcome.
Deal with it.
Loser.
@@TheBatugan77 Says the kid who has never earned his own money.
Building more apartments will help bring those costs down
@@TheBatugan77 are you even old enough to have a TH-cam account?
That blows. Sounds like they aren't building enough !
Other key factors this video does not point out
The sq ft of units are shrinking across the board as developers try to squeeze more units in the building
The word affordable gets thrown around and ends up being within 5-15%of the market rate which is already high
Most are not rent controlled/stabilized so rent goes up higher than income year over year
Many of these buildings force value by adding amenities with little to no maintenance.
Rooms are shrinking because people are desperate for a room, and they'll pay as much as they can afford. You can sell two 1-bedrooms for more than a 2-bedroom because most people simply don't have any extra money to pay a premium for a 2-bedroom anymore. They buy whatever's cheapest.
Another thing this fails to mention, is the reason they’re built cheap is not for the affordability of the tenant, but rather the bottom line of the the developers margin. as well as built cheaply as possible, because 99% of the time, they own the land it sits on, and in turn when the structure eventually breaks down, it’s cheaper to tear down, and rebuild. Thus being able to legally evict and raise prices back to market rate
I think there’s something missing here about how many of these buildings are being bought up by large corporations and being rented out. I would love to hear more about how much gentrification if effected by large corporations like the Irvine corporation that own entire cities worth of buildings
Or you could go to the bank yourself and take out a loan for 100 million and build whatever building you desire and rent it to whomever you please 🙄
Thank you
Less than 2% of houses are bought by blackrocks. It's all about zoning.
@@adwaitnaravane5285 investors in some zip codes own over half. average its about 25%.
we don't need more apartment buildings, we need more home we can own. That's most of the construction. These apartments are still not affordable and goes up fast and have strict rules, needs great credit/large deposits. These newer building are usually at the higher end of the "market" rate. Older building will try to match it when you search for vacancy.
true but more unit there are the more values or cost to rent will drop at least that's what the law of supply and demand say, as for owning a house not everyone wants to have a 30 year mortgage some people like the flexibility on renting and able to move to another city/state
Thank you for making it obvious to the pseudo-affordable housing aDvOcAtEs that affordable housing has to be somewhat monotonous in design to take advantage of the economies of scale. One of my favorite TH-camrs, Adam Something, did a video on Soviet affordable housing in Eastern Europe, and one of his main points was that the housing was affordable because it was mass produced, but still a considerable improvement in standard of living for those who called it home.
glad to see adam getting some recognition ahah
can u send me some zillow links of these affordable apartments i've never seen a new studio sell for less than 2000 a month i'm so confused
@@Jack-nx1si OG poster is missing the fact that the Soviet Union also guaranteed housing at scale suitable for the worker which seems like a minor detail but is actually a big difference in approach to housing in general. A lot of the hate for these is actually class resentment, they’d be far more popular if they were an accessible option for the majority of the general population. They aren’t they’re the symbol of system that wants the appearance of problem solving without the actual underlying issue of the problem being addressed in the slightest.
@@Jack-nx1si I live in a Studio in Seattle and it's only $800 per month. A lot of other studios in my neighborhood are under $1,000.
The point this video fails to address (and “pseudo advocates” like YOU, haha) is that these types of buildings are generally poorly built and have an extremely short lifespan. Five to ten years after they are built, they will start to seem rundown and falling apart, and another ten years after that, they will be dangerous and uninhabitable. This means that they will end up needing to be replaced constantly, become a massive health and safety issue, and end up costing more money than higher quality developments (although many expensive buildings have these problems, too). This means that in the long term, low income people not only get pushed out, they’re also living in dangerous conditions. If you cut corners by making the cheapest possible buildings, of course they will perform as cheap and poorly constructed products do. The government needs to invest a little bit more now to save a lot in the future and provide safe, stable, comfortable housing for lower income people. THAT is the problem with these developments. (And of course the environmental impact but that’s a whole other issue).
These types of buildings can help neighborhoods stay affordable if enough affordable units are provided, but most developers only include the bare minimum as required by the City. Most Cities’ minimum requirements are only a drop in the bucket. We need to reform zoning laws & affordable housing requirements to help people not be displaced; these buildings aren’t necessarily the issue.
This 100%
It's really funny how they picked an example that's full of single family homes. A lot of the new buildings going up around me are primarily full of one bedroom/studio apartments, and less than 15% are set aside for people making less than 70% of AMI (area median income), which is simply not enough housing for the families living in the city. This kind of property is definitely geared towards yuppies moving into the city for tech jobs, who else can afford $2k/month for a studio?
And all of that ignores the deep flaws of AMI -- where I live, data from suburbs just outside the city where all the wealthy ($200k median household income) live is contained in the same set as the data from people living in impoverished areas (
Bottom line: Affordable housing is at long-term lows, while homelessness continues to increase.
The people who construct these buildings can't afford to live in them, while the rich get richer.
It's like you didn't watch the video. The people who construct these buildings could afford to live in them moreso than most other buildings.
I actually kinda like the look of those buildings. I don’t think they’re bland at all, they have interesting structure and they’ll use like pops of color instead of just brick or a similar drab material. I don’t really understand the complaints.
I live in one of those. There are many around here in north Jersey.
1) It's NOT that affordable.
2) They're very cheap and falling apart 4 years after they were built.
Finally a video that makes sense. I never understood why people are opposed to progress and development
it might help you understand if you learned some history. in a nutshell, since day one you can follow along as cities were originally the desired residences of wealth and white folks, with people of color and poverty banned to the outskirts. then with the rise of civil rights and the interstate highway system, white folks abandoned the city life for the now more desirable outskirts, pushing the black and brown and poor people into the abandoned cities.
all bringing us up to now, when wealthier white folks have regained a new taste for city life, pushing people of color and the poor from neighborhoods for a third time in a few generations.
i have watched one midwestern city neighborhood go from all wealthy and white, morphing to almost all black, then to totally hispanic, and then 'renovated' back to wealthy white folk, all over a 60 year span.
Most wealthy white folks don't have a new desire for city life, they still greatly prefer suburban life as it's more isolated and quiet. I'd say more middle-class and rich young adults are beginning to prefer more dense and urban environments and that is what's causing these areas to become gentrified.
I quite like how the solid colour panel cladding buildings look, especially when the panel colours are picked to make patterns
Never understood the hate of the aesthetic of new apartment buildings, I actually enjoy them
The frustrating part is that these new buildings are being built affordably, but the vast VAST majority of them are raising rent. Yes they’re built in a way that could make them affordable, they’re not. In the Bishop Arts district in Dallas we have these huge monolith buildings that are built with cheap materials and cutting corners, they still cost substantially more than they could. You get the white walls landlord special with a cheap sliding barn door, and it’s $2k for a one bedroom after tearing down smaller multi family buildings, and single family homes that were occupied by Hispanic members for generations.
Guy from eastern europe from duplicated late-soviet concrete coffin: Don't see any problems with design here! Looks awesome!
The video came out just at the right time when everyone is worried and wondering about the current housing market madness.
You got to admit that it’s way more efficient to stack people on top of each other than to spread em out.
honestly it came out 20 years too late.
Hard to call it affordable when every building like that charges $1300 a month.
I wish it was $1300 a month by me! Rent in buildings like that run anywhere from $3000-$6000 a month in Boston.
@@DebsFan101 as a born here Bostonian.. ya... You're VERY correct.... These kinds of apartments are all over here
Someone commented how these "affordable" midrises go for $1800-2500 / mo in Denver. My guess is that's common in other mid-sized cities.
Even where I live (102K population college-retiree-ag town), pre-Covidflation the developers of such an infill project in the newspaper speculated they might charge $1000-1300 / mo for a 1 bed / bath unit. That figure sounded like it was pulled out of the air from elsewhere, guided by the idea how "nobody is forcing anyone to pay this" or "let's see how much we can get." Plus the usual buzz-phrases about walkability, etc. The developer was just early, got mocked by long-time residents on how the numbers don't crunch for local demographics, and at opening charged then-market rate of $600-700 / mo for that 1 bedroom unit or $800-900 / mo for a 2 bed / bath unit. 6 years later and with Covid-flation, rent may be like their original aspiration, or more.
In Oakland there is a city mandate that any new housing be built with a specific number of affordable housing units, yet with a median income of about 80,000 a year, affordable isn't affordable. Coupled with the fact developers can pay extra taxes if they choose not to build any affordable housing units. What does affordable actually mean in this video?
When there’s a negatable tax where the incentive doesn’t change, clearly there’s an issue with how low the “luxury construction tax” or “carbon tax” is. Or with how money is distributed to people who use unsustainable and greedy practices.
The people who live in other types of buildings hate gentrification building, the people who can finally afford a roof thanks to them slightly disagree. Slightly.
For me I can't understand, well at least relate... I live in suburbia... we all have bland and boring looking buildings! :D
What😭gentrificación literally prices Poor ppl out
@@vontai4553 did you watch the video?
@@melunz8138 The video never showed pricing, and just looking for apartments myself the "gentrification buildings" aren't any more affordable than the ones they're gouging you with normally
@@melunz8138 i did Nd my point stands they build these building in Harlem and the rents jump in the immediate area ..
the issue with gentrification actually stems from the years, often decades of divestment in the community before the new buildings arrive. with new buildings come new forms of policing which previously did not exist and often long time residents are treated as outsiders and harassed.
Renters are undervalued compared to owners and residents of the area don’t have the capital to own homes or start businesses in their area which is the most insulting part of the deal because you’ve suffered the quirks but can’t stay to sample the harvest.
@@FreyaEinde Property owners treating renters as subhuman is so disgusting. I pay taxes and I have rights as a citizen, same as they do. They CHOSE to buy a home and pay additional property taxes, which implies the trade-off was worthwhile to them.
@@caranich23 I don’t disagree, but in terms of negotiation power owners have quite a bit more leverage than renters do which is why a bulk of society only being able to rent or unable to afford to rent is a huge problem because it leaves none owners vulnerable to exploitation without the means to effectively reassert their ability to negotiate terms because what option do they have but give in to demands or be homeless? In terms of choices, choice is only as good as the actual options available.
The worst part is if these neglected “blighted” areas were built pre WW2 they are still vastly more economically reliable and stable than any new fancy development ever will be.
Developers are looking to maximize profit, so distinguish the types of "gentrification buildings". Most are not affordable and are causing displacement in more urban areas. Let's focus on rehabilitation.
At least in NYC these tax credits that are going to these buildings for low-income housing have a good portion (or completely!) are made for people make 130-200% of the AMI. Resulting in ‘affordable housing’ where you minimum income to qualify is actually $86-242k a year. I wish I was joking.
The signs of gentrification still harm the neighborhood and displace people.
It's the missing middle finally appearing in America. It's about time you guys get apartment buildings, low density single family housing is awfully inefficient.
There are more apartments built than what this video portrays. The true missing middle in America would be duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and condos that aren't high rises. I happen to be in a condo community where each building has 2-4 units and each unit will share at max only 2 walls. It's extremely space efficient for housing families and still gives enough space to where each family feels a sense of privacy and belonging. Not to mention there is a far more organic community that grows from having this sort of proximity as we all have to walk to the parking lot and mailboxes.
@@WingsOTWorld exactly missing middle shouldn’t be renters it should be beginner homes. Places where young families or individuals can begin to build their wealth. Duplexes and such are places where a people can invest and grow within a community.
I can tell you as someone in London this is not the answer it’s just more rent for less
@@imputinandihaveasmallpeepe9165 I think that's more a problem with London being London, a single city that's treated by the media as if it were the whole country, or as an island of civilization surrounded by empty wasteland. There's plenty of room for people in the UK, but if every single company worth working for insists on clumping up together in the same city, it becomes infeasible to live anywhere else if you want a decent job, and the supply/demand imbalance drives prices into the sky. The US has a similar problem with New York and various west-coast cities, but it's mitigated by the country being big enough that New York is too far away for most people to justify moving to.
@@stevethepocket well there buying the new build across the uk, the number of houses sold to foreign investors has risen from 4 to 14% in the last 20years BUT
yeah a city that hold 1/7 of the population hold 40% of the uk jobs market mean rent is £1000 (before council tax 3-400 rougly and living travel expenses) and change and monthly salary is around £2,300 so it’s 1 travel hours every mounting 2 find cheap accommodations 4/5 day and travel to an throw or 3 partner up and pinch and scrape.
You have two faces of the same coin the London poor and employed (growing everywhere USA I see) or the poor and unemployed outside London.
It’s unemployed vs underemployed.
The developers use the low income housing tax credit but then also build cheaply so they can make more money. The point of the low income housing tax credit is to help build regular buildings by bringing the cost to the developer down. Instead we get cheaper construction AND have to pay for it as tax payers.
If there wasnt the credit, the developers wouldn't build it. So either we get housing and taxpayers to pay for it, or we get nothing. The real enemies are nimbys not developers.
Nice video. Wished they had touched on the environmental impact more. The greenest house is one that’s already been built. We need to also create affordable housing in buildings that already exist. So many run-down large buildings that could be restored into housing. Not sure why they didn't bring up any of these preservation points.
That’s a good idea but we also need to build more housing
Large buildings -- especially modern commercial offices with mostly interior spaces served by central air and lights instead of operable windows -- are often uneconomical to refurbish. It's usually better to tear down completely and build skinnier towers with more outside-facing walls and ensuite bathrooms that residents need.
I just want to say this is an awesome video. Really makes you appreciate the value of new housing developments.
It would be nice if the middle income builds were not also built in the cheapest way possible. Here in Toronto, such condos are going for north of $1mil (hardly even middle class affordable) and start having major issues like leaking ceilings within the first year.
I don't think that construction flaws like tht are inherent to any o e construction type, but rather they are a product of very bad construction work. obviously you shouldn't cut so many corners that the roof leaks.
@@Ass_of_Amalek Yeah, I guess that's my point. Residential buildings are being built cheaply not to make them more affordable, but to increase the builder/investor's margin.
Been to Toronto 3 years ago and learnt about the Margaret Atwood/The Annex/Nimby issue. This video reminded me a lot to that. Greeting from Montevideo, Uruguay. Loved your city
Toronto rarely see wood frame residential buildings, especially not for the 1m places. It’s pretty much entirely concrete.
but it also would be nice if developers and house flippers didn't use the MOST expensive less functional materials to build. crown molding, expensive countertops, fanciest fixtures rather than a more reasonable costing piece, etc. You'll see 30-something house flippers take a perfectly livable home, a bit outdated but safe to move into, and add all the most modern fixtures possible to meet a certain aesthetic. Rather than taking an unlivable but still salvageable home & making it livable, these people just keep increasing the cost of homes without actually adding true value to it, but perceived value (i.e a bidding war lead by someone who fell in love with the aesthetic of the home)
watching this video and seeing people in the comments talk about how this type of housing is the only opportunity many have to avoid being homeless makes me feel like im missing something. when i look up the rent prices of these kinds of buildings in my city of san diego, ca, they can go for 2,500 just for a studio, and up to $4,000 for a 2b! where i live, these are by far not the most affordable places around, so i feel disconnected from this idea that theses buildings are providing affordable housing. is there something im not taking into account? is this a san diego problem?
Nope, these are almost always the most expensive units even here in the rural northeast. They are even actively marketed to higher earning folks from cities and their expensive suburbs looking for cheaper rents and housing costs, often by selling the “quiet New England charm”. They also exert upward pressure on the old outdated and rundown renting stock as smaller landlords see an opportunity to raise their not great units up significantly while still being cheaper than builds like this.
Vox also cherry picked their literature, there’s existing literature in economics that varies widely or outright disagrees with the assertions made in this video.
Yes, this. IF they really were solving the problem of affordable housing, then it might help the fact that they are cheaply-built eyesores feel less painful for the communities and areas they are built into. But they aren't affordable. They are horrible to look at and common people cannot afford to live in them. They are going up all over the place in Europe as well. There will be a sweet old building, which will be torn down, and then these things put in... with lots of cement, covering the ground in stones instead of greenery, grass, trees, yard - no nature. They are awful and I hate them with a passion. It does not cost that much more to make a facade more appealing... while providing healthy new affordable living spaces for HUMANS. (Humans... community, humanism. sigh) It must be a problem everywhere.
The problem I think is that you can’t see the affordable prices unless you qualify. The buildings are going to rent units at market value which means that the units that are affordable are being subsidized by credits. So unless u qualify those numbers aren’t know. Don’t know for certain but what others have told me.
These people are being manipulated by a liberal youtube channel lol I reading these comments in shock! Like you people are literally agreeing with building more APARTMENTS and luxury condos!? Over say nice single family homes we can afford?
The affordable housing prices aren't usually listed on the building's actual site. Usually have to go to a site that lists only affordable and/or low-income/income based rent options. That said, the min income for affordable housing is sometimes a bit high (depends on county where I am) and sometimes the rent is still too high to be considered affordable. My income is enough for affordable housing now, but the rent price is cutting it a lil too close. Last one I looked at would be just under 1k.
When it comes to affordable housing, why so little focus on homeownership? (i.e. condos vs apartment buildings)
When you own the condo, you don’t have to worry about yearly lease increases and your property will appreciate in the long run.
On a side note, I wish I had the solution to the problems associated with HOAs and the inevitable lawsuit with the builder. 😢
You can call them bland, but I kinda like the simple, and minimal modern design. And they're affordable. I think it's cool.
People: We're running out of housing!! Prices are sky high!!!
Also people: New buildings being built!! GENTRIFICATION!!!
I'm really wondering what people imagine would increase housing to bring down prices that doesn't include, you know, building MORE NEW houses
Some people would think like, would you rather, be homeless due to unable to pay increasing rental costs, or live in gentrification areas where you would be racially abused...
american moment
So what you're saying is that we can either get luxury condos and not be able to afford it or no luxury condos and not have enough housing. There's a middle ground there that most ppl want. It's called affordable housing.... You're either being malignant or ignorant cuz there's no way you saw this video and thought that
The problem has always been one thing: Wealthy people don’t mind where poorer people live as long as it’s not anywhere near them. In Ireland we call this the “but not in my backyard” mentality. So in the end nothing is done and people continue to suffer for the snobbish attitude of the wealthy.
In America we say NIMBYs, also as in “Not in my back yard!”
We don't need so many people.
True, we can do without you.
I think people would be a lot friendlier to these if they built them with better facades and colour. I would love to see towns filled with rainbow coloured houses and apartments in terraces, balamory style.
I love this look
I agree!
Generally it's the local architecture boards that tell them what colors they're allowed to use. For example where I live the architecture board likes Spanish colonial style so everything has to be done in earth tone stucco.
The average rent for a one bedroom, 600 foot apartment in on of these type of buildings is going for around 1400 to 1600 dollars in my area. Nowhere near affordable. Remember rent or mortgage should be no more than 30% to 35% percent of your family income....
I literally live by one of the building that you showed as a sample. This is in no way affordable. Over $2000 for a 1 bedroom in PITTSBURGH?! Developers are using these buildings and cheap materials to maximize their profit. Not make affordable housing.
I don't think you watched the whole video or at least didn't understand it. In the video they mention how construction of housing for higher-income people AND housing for lower-income people helps lower housing prices. The main cause of the housing crisis is lack of supply.
Google LIHTC housing
@@jameslongstaff2762 the video doesnt cover whats happening near bigger cities though. People are moving from chicago to areas within an hour and its taking all the new housing so no one actually moves around. I live in one of these cities. New luxury housing is being built so people who work from home or choose to commute to chicago can move into them. Also theres a college so a 2 bedroom place is almost always 1000 or more because 2 college kids split it for 500 a month plus utilities.
@@jameslongstaff2762 You mean like the lack of supply caused by the rich building these huge complexes and then only renting units so that no one can ever own their own home like them?
I wouldn't pay any mind to what is said in the above - it's just an advertisement for Vox style analysis & their regular contributors. I don't think they're serious about the problems they discuss, it's just another paycheck in their Vox sized world.
Of course people make hasty judgments based on the appearance of a building. But if someone developments are misjudged, we still have a displacement crisis all over the nation. I’ve been pushed out of decent and affordable apartments _twice_ since the ‘90s due to condo-izing them. Affordable apartments in my city (Louisville) are vanishing. Shelters, including family shelters, are overflowing. The problem is the abject economic inequality. Trying to fix the housing crisis while maintaining the massive income gap is futile.