The restrictions, paradoxically, are what cause garbage! when the unit you build is in incredibly high demand, you do not have to build good quality, someone will pay you for it. If you are competing with other people building for the same rental market, you can't get away with that.
Depends on the restrictions.
Not being allowed to cast a shadow on the neighbor’s zucchini garden or having to pay off permit expediters has no impact on building quality, mandating wood vs cardboard does.
Fewer regulatory roadblocks like zoning would lead to more supply, which would lead to more competition, which would lead to better quality and cheaper rents.
At least in cities, it will probably just lead to more high-end housing that's bought up by people who don't even live there. The market doesn't work with so much income inequality.
High end housing takes pressure off of moderately high end housing, which takes pressure off mid end housing... all the way down the line. Housing supply simply takes pressure off the cost of living for everyone.
Well that's what they say, but it seems like there should already be enough competition for people to cause less garbage to be built, and it's not working, they just build it anyway.
My town has a bunch of half empty new buildings that are keeping their prices high instead of competing on price (they're also garbage construction, so they didn't compete on quality either). Apparently it makes more financial sense to the owner to keep empty units instead of competing because of the value of snagging a few tenants at higher rents or something.
Bundling all regulation into a single monolith is a classic mistake.
Some regulations are bad. Some regulations are good.
The abundance types do not want to remove good regulations, like structural integrity or fire safety regs.
They want to remove bad regulations, like parking minimums or building height limits.
Please understand this very important distinction.
The restrictions, paradoxically, are what cause garbage! when the unit you build is in incredibly high demand, you do not have to build good quality, someone will pay you for it. If you are competing with other people building for the same rental market, you can't get away with that.
Depends on the restrictions. Not being allowed to cast a shadow on the neighbor’s zucchini garden or having to pay off permit expediters has no impact on building quality, mandating wood vs cardboard does.
Fewer regulatory roadblocks like zoning would lead to more supply, which would lead to more competition, which would lead to better quality and cheaper rents.
At least in cities, it will probably just lead to more high-end housing that's bought up by people who don't even live there. The market doesn't work with so much income inequality.
High end housing takes pressure off of moderately high end housing, which takes pressure off mid end housing... all the way down the line. Housing supply simply takes pressure off the cost of living for everyone.
The idea is that there will be more competition.
Well that's what they say, but it seems like there should already be enough competition for people to cause less garbage to be built, and it's not working, they just build it anyway.
My town has a bunch of half empty new buildings that are keeping their prices high instead of competing on price (they're also garbage construction, so they didn't compete on quality either). Apparently it makes more financial sense to the owner to keep empty units instead of competing because of the value of snagging a few tenants at higher rents or something.
More realistically: right now it can take years to get approval to build somewhere, only specific builds for specific places.