• robear@lemmy.zip
      7·
      4 days ago

      Are those houses where people want to live though?

      In Japan we have houses in the country you can buy for less than €1000 but there’s no work there.

      • PixeIOrange@lemmy.world
        1·
        4 days ago

        As long as there are strong lobbys (which is part of capitalism) we cant change that. These initiatives and alike make you think you can but you cant.

  • bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works
    29·
    5 days ago

    Ive been saying this since I was what, 6 years old, riding around seeing tons and tons of empty buildings like huh, we should fucking utilize what we have.

    • Airfried@piefed.socialEnglish
      13·
      5 days ago

      Lots of city planners advocate for it. Of course not every building can be converted but most of them can and they’re actually fairly popular.

      • BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk
        5·
        4 days ago

        I guess the vast majority can be turned into dormitory style youth housing with shared kitchens.

        If you provide cheap housing for the young, the price of everything will dwindle downwards

    • nibbs@lemmy.zip
      4·
      4 days ago

      At the moment, the corporate buzz swings in the opposite direction.
      More and more back to office with limited HO days.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    126·
    5 days ago

    “Build more luxury flats” isn’t actually a bad answer either, since any increase in supply (even luxury) applies downward pressure on the price of the existing stock. They should do both.

    • sunnyjim@lemmy.zip
      101·
      4 days ago

      This only makes sense if the large landlord conglomerate that likely owns them isn’t happy to just leave them empty to keep the upward pressure on rents.

      This is also why we’ll continue to have problems unless we get state-owned construction companies - the landlord conglomerates that have the money to get new apartments built will never commission enough apartment blocks to actually drive down prices, instead trickling in supply to keep prices where they are, or higher (regardless of the incentives). These are the problems we face in Amsterdam, anyway.

      • BlaestEgnen@feddit.dk
        7·
        4 days ago

        This only makes sense if the large landlord conglomerate that likely owns them isn’t happy to just leave them empty to keep the upward pressure on rents.

        Introduce pro squatter rules, if a housing unit hasn’t had a person living their for X amount of time - Anyone can live there for free, everything will be rented out asap.

      • ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.org
        5·
        4 days ago

        I live in a city where they buy existing flats and houses and rent the to citizens. City is also buying building ground to tie the sale to investors to conditions like the amount of social housing in the new building area.
        Works like a charm. The rents are okay (even from other landlords since they have to compete) and we don’t have “problem areas” in the newer parts of the city since people live in mixed areas.

        Fingers crossed Berlin works out. It would be a welcome change for a lot of friends of mine to finally have an affordable flat that doesn’t rot away.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        66·
        4 days ago

        “The law of supply and demand isn’t how reality works”

        Sure, buddy.

        • ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.org
          62·
          4 days ago

          Doubling down, when being wrong, doesn’t make it better…

          I live in Germany. A lot of investors like to keep their flats empty to reduce supply in lower income brackets. They use this to force people into flats they can’t afford so the investors can get more money.
          They love building luxury flats, people still have problems finding affordable housing. The way things currently are proofs you wrong. No matter if you like it or not.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            13·
            4 days ago

            A lot of investors like to keep their flats empty to reduce supply in lower income brackets. They use this to force people into flats they can’t afford so the investors can get more money.

            Uh-huh. So by foregoing rent they make more money?

            Let’s actually think this through: let’s say that there are a bunch of landlords who each own multiple properties, and they all rent only half of them in order to, say, triple the rent on the rest (fake round numbers because it’s a thought experiment). Now, what’s the incentive for each individual landlord? If he’s smart/greedy, he’ll realize that he could rent out the rest of his units and get the 3X rent from them, too, because just his action doesn’t move the market that much. So why the fuck wouldn’t he do that?! And why wouldn’t every landlord, acting insolation, come to the same conclusion?

            The only reason that wouldn’t happen would be if there were some sort of vast conspiracy between landlords to collude on the strategy, and if they were doing that they could just collude on the prices themselves and make even more profit!

            The “they’re intentionally leaving units empty to make more profit because reasons” argument just flat-out doesn’t make sense. It’s magical thinking to find a scapegoat.

            And oh by the way, even if it were somehow true, that means your actual problem is a cartel and the solution is antitrust law. Even if you were right, it’s still not a reason not to build more housing!!!

        • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
          21·
          4 days ago

          As long as the luxury flats get hoarded like gold ingots* there is no (significant) increase in supply.

          * ingots with massive value increase because of they’re low supply.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            11·
            4 days ago

            So, what, you think they have infinite money to keep doing that indefinitely? That tactic only works in an environment of artificially restricted supply.

            • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
              1·
              4 days ago

              So, what, you think they have infinite money to keep doing that indefinitely?

              Correct. Compared to you and I they do.

              That tactic only works in an environment of artificially restricted supply.

              Also correct. If you mass check ground titles in Germany you might be surprised how few players own most of the land. Even before you add holdings to the calculation. It’s amazingly obvious.

    • 2pNza@lemmy.worldOP
      9·
      4 days ago

      regulate it, for example some tax for people who dont use it and don’t rent it

      • abc@suppo.fi
        36·
        4 days ago

        The empty homes are situated in areas where people don’t want to live. So if you choose the punishment route, you’ll also want to tax the people who refuse to move to those empty houses.

        Also: the largest German cities already punish renters who leave flats empty for too long. Allowed vacancy around 3-4 months, maximum fine 500 000 euros.

  • datendefekt@feddit.org
    3·
    4 days ago

    In my neighborhood, you can buy a 120m2 row house for a 1mio€. And it’s not even an expensive place. The market value of our house has quadrupled in the last ten years.

    That’s putting families in eternal debt and completely unsustainable. Now way you can pay that off without inheritance or being well off.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
    3·
    5 days ago

    Specialization of development says no. But it’s been saying that repeatedly and no one seems to get it.

  • majster@lemmy.zip
    21·
    4 days ago

    In my country housing supply still hasn’t recovered from 2008 while population increased. So it is supply&demand thing like all the economists are saying. Is there any eurostat statistics for housing developmemt across EU?

    • dropdrip@lemmy.ml
      4·
      4 days ago

      I’m very suspicious of this line. The whole Western-world has the same issue: a housing crisis. It’s more likely a minority are buying everything and leaving houses empty to jack up rents using computer systems. In Australia the real estate agents all use the same system. It’s a software monopoly controlling the whole market. Australia, Canada, USA, europe? All have a housing crisis? Really? Meanwhile China… just fucking build commie blocks.

      Same story everywhere. Here in Australia there’s more than enough empty houses to house our growing homeless population. Housing is a human right.

      I just want to state: it’s a fact asset classes have been over inflated over the decades as a result of asinine monetary policy. This is a disaster. Governments have failed their citizens.

      • majster@lemmy.zip
        1·
        4 days ago

        It for sure doesn’t happen here. Buyers are individuals, and not much is sitting empty. It would also be pretty stupid thing to do. Right now housing is so expensive that it makes no economic sense to buy and rent out, because rents at least have a cap in form of people’s salaries.

        In 2008 whole west had a banking crisis which involved real estate. In my country we had 10 years of underinvestment while population grew due to immigration. Pandemic low interest rates shot everything up. Now we are here. I would rather call this incompetence of those at the helm.

        • dropdrip@lemmy.ml
          4·
          4 days ago

          With software let me phrase it this way: ebay increased the prices of goods domestically because anyone could search up the ‘value’ of an item in a global context. This resulted in sellers demanding ridiculous prices locally. Yes, an American using USD might buy that from you at that price, but no local will. They’re not even listing the item for sale on ebay, just using it as a tool to price. Sellers are all independent, but ebay had a large effect on all those independent sellers. The real estate agencies are likewise being pushed to increase rents in a similar phenomenon.

          In Australia it’s often parroted that 1/3rd own a house, 1/3rd have a mortgage and 1/3rd rent. The mortgaged property didn’t magically appear. The rental property has an owner. that’s 1/3rd that controls the 2/3rds. A minority owns the land and jacks up prices for the majority. Yes, there’s limits on what a market can bear. We’re there. That’s why it’s termed a housing crisis. The homeless population is increasing. The pool of renters is increasing.

          It’s not incompetence in the Australian context either. It’s literally been in the making for decades. Everyone knew what the results would be. It was deliberate. It continues to be deliberate. A minority are getting very wealthy off the backs of the working class.