>>211806616 (OP)
NIMBY
also city residents want their property values to increase more and more construction devalues that

because that's communistic and anti semitic

>>211806616 (OP)
Same thing in Freiburg.
I think retarded leftists just enjoy spending 75 % of their income on rent

I'm assuming the central municipality or whatever of barcelona is simply already fully built up, and that there has been in fact reasonable amounts of new development in its outskirts/suburbs, and that these twitter users are misrepresenting that to support a certain narrative

why build housing when you have okupas promoted by the government

>>211806616 (OP)
these are retarded leftards

>t.i'm from Madrid and i'm going there for partying and don't give a fuck about these tards

FUCK TOURISTS

>>211806616 (OP)
barcelona has no space
I'm sure the towns around it build houses thoughbeit

>>211807925
you redevelop old things and make them denser. Build high rises apartment towers in every crevice, on google maps I can identify several sites that are unused. If there is any deindustrialization at all that takes place, take advantage and redevelop the old factories as dense as possible.

Also, the satellite cities should look like the satellite cities of Seoul. Turn a place with no population into a bunch of extremely dense high rises in the span of a few years. Let the suburban populations bloat.

>>211808123
looks extremely ugly thoughbeit

Here's a nice example. This parcel has remained empty for at least 12 years.

Also, those towers in the back are new and could have been built much denser. If there's a housing crisis, why are you only building 7 stories tall with so much space between the buildings?
>>211808183
It looks fine from the ground level. I've been to this city. Buildings don't need to be a work of art.

>>211808123
it costs a lot of money to buy out and tear town apartment buldings which barcelona is full of

>>211806616 (OP)
Same reason we don't here in Norway, most Spaniards own their own home and thus politics must cater to home owners.

>>211806616 (OP)
These protests are funded by Soros. The same one that funded the Black Lives Matter, the Tesla attacks and many others.

The organizators have been bribed for sure. Soros Open Society is in Barcelona.

>>211808376
Should still be lucrative considering how scarce housing is there.

The new apartment towers will fetch the highest rents in the city due to their age, which will pay for the construction costs.

>>211806616 (OP)
It is so funny people blaming magical forces for apartments not being built
Housing is an investment, if they are not being built it is because developers cant get financing because of weak ROI
Happens all over dense areas where land prices are really high and apartment prices have been stagnating

>>211808635
Well it would be profitable if they didn't have a bunch of retarded laws.

Shit I summoned the Hungarian with retarded views on real estate economics who is going to derail this thread with his fallacious arguments.

>>211808812
Actual real estate developers with 9-10 digit assets agree with me meanwhile your argument relies on social media grifters. None of those people have ever worked in real estate, none.

>>211808890
I work in real estate investment.

But you don't have to work in real estate to understand that "higher land value means less ROI on apartments" is an extremely dumb argument. Anyone who possesses basic critical thinking should be able to understand how dumb that statement is.

>>211808992
Both investment banks and developers want to make a profit on their deal. Higher land value means more cost for the developer which decreases the ROI. How is this not self-explanatory?
Sqm2 prices in Barcelona range from 2800 EUR to 6000 EUR averaging around 4600 EUR
That is pretty close to the 4000 EUR of Bratislava in Slovakia. Assuming much higher land prices, higher or at least equal construction and administrative costs it is very easy to see why real estate development in Barcelona is not a gold mine

>>211809069
Spanish economy has been stagnating since 2008, that is almost 17 years. Real estate developers want growing prices. They like growing markets where land are plenty and cheap. They dont like densely populated areas with stagnating growth

>>211806731
>I think retarded leftists just enjoy spending 75 % of their income on rent
they really do

>>211806616 (OP)
>dude just buy new housing..
where exactly?

>>211806616 (OP)
Access to white people is not a human right.

>>211809183
People will post about places like San Francisco to illustrate how expensive things can get without ever realizing the market there has been stagnating for a really long time
This random apartment in San Fran has increased 20% in 10 years. That is not a good investment. SP500 changed 300% in the same period.

Real estate is a market, it is not stagnating because of magic forces.

>>211806616 (OP)
You ever go to the store and things cost money?

>>211809397
Growth isn't the only way to get ROI. There's also income.

Which you would make a lot of by building apartments in SF where rent is high. The idea that housing needs to outperform the S&P 500 in appreciation for there to be ROI is ridiculous. Even though you make less from appreciation, you get much more rental income than you'd get in dividends from S&P 500.

>>211809676
>in SF where rent is high
Rent is not necessary high compared to construction costs. And rent has been stagnating in San Francisco for a long time. You pay massive premium in these places if you actually want to be a home owner.

Here is a property developer talking about this:
>One of the challenges we face in San Francisco is we need the rent to go back up.
https://x.com/LeeHepner/status/1748427532020642161

>>211806616 (OP)
It can grew any bigger, the last time they built anything was like 2004. there's no space.

Perhaps you are talking about living in bordering areas like Terrassa....

>>211809788
I just looked up on Zillow, average apartment/condo rent is 2800 USD in San Fran. Median salary is 100K USD / year.

>>211809788
Posting some dumb point from a far left account doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your understanding of economics.

You're changing the subject. You were talking about how developers don't want to build because it doesn't appreciate as much as the S&P 500, now you're talking about construction costs are too high.

Developers operate on margins, when you impose additional costs, its going to make it impossible to build at lower rents. If you decrease construction costs through deregulation, it becomes possible to build at lower rents. The problem is that it costs too much to build in SF. Land value being high is a nonsensical reason to give for dense developments not being built.
>Rent is not necessary high compared to construction costs
The entire YIMBY theory is based around lowering construction costs. Obviously interests rates, material costs, labor costs cannot necessarily be controlled by a city council, but costs resulting from permitting, zoning compliance, can be.

The problem is not that SF can't build when interest rates are high, the problem is that SF cannot build when interest rates are low, while cities like Charlotte have no problem doing so even at lower median rents. And Charlotte's new construction are concentrated in the highest land value areas of the city, because that's where you will get higher rent and therefore its where it makes sense to build dense housing.

>>211810314
>You were talking about how developers don't want to build because it doesn't appreciate as much as the S&P 500
I never said that it had to grow as much as SP500, I just said it is a bad investment and housing is an investment for developers. It is not mineral water or a piece of chocolate, it is a financial instrument.

>If you decrease construction costs through deregulation
Yeah and this is why the whole thing is a big grief. There is nothing to deregulate. Administrative costs are absolutely marginal, do not matter. You cannot decrease construction costs because there has been been any improvement in construction technology in the last 100 years basically. The things that got cheaper (TVs, electronics, etc..) they did because of improvement in technology, efficiency and low labour costs in the outsourced countries. Construction has not become any cheaper, energy did not become cheaper, equipment did not become cheaper, labour costs have increased increased massively. People in CA who work in construction have hourly average wage of 45 USD. In San Fran it is probably closer to 60 USD. There is nothing to decrease and optimize here. Land is expensive, labour is expensive. Administrative boogeyman won't cut prices in half, it is absolutely marginal

Why don't they vote to build social housing?

>>211806616 (OP)
It's funny how easy they have it. They just have to aim at the only white folks around them to find the tourists.

>>211810672
Social housing isn't necessarily cheaper to build than market rate housing.

In USA its significantly more expensive.

>>211810774
The point is that housing if a right should not be considered an investment and thus be dictated by the prices of the market. If the government can decide housing codes and permits it can pick winners among home builders where development at scale will decrease prices much like stalinkas or brezhnevkas

>>211810600
Your theory is simply undercut by reality.
If there is no development potential in California, than people wouldn't spend so much time and energy blocking new developments.
>There is nothing to deregulate
There is. Zoning, building codes, parking requirements. In San Francisco, there's still rent control.

>>211809273
>what are suburbs

>>211806616 (OP)
Barcelona should be nuked but everything Cerda and Gaudí did should be left untouched

>>211810872
>The point is that housing if a right should not be considered an investment and thus be dictated by the prices of the market.
Food is also a right that we leave up to the free market for distribution.

Just because something is a human right doesn't mean the free market is unable to provide it.

>>211811128
>Food is also a right that we leave up to the free market for distribution.
We really don't, for staples there are controlled prices such as milk and bread. Water itself is always controlled why it's free to consume. The point is the government will always intervene and thus something which is considered a basic right should be controlled. If they do so with food and water they should do it for housing as well

>>211811086
>If there is no development potential in California, than people wouldn't spend so much time and energy blocking new developments.
There are no new developments to block in San Francisco, there is literally nothing planned there, the real estate guys came out and said it is not worth it with the current prices at the moment.

>Zoning, building codes, parking requirements.
Yeah kek I'm sure these will magically cut prices in half

Look USA is a really rich country with high wages incl in construction. Cant have ultra rich areas with high land value and high wages and expect low rent. You guys are borderline fanatical with this stuff at this point

>>211806616 (OP)
Look its not the millions of Venezuelans colombians and africans that are settling in Barcelona its these dam tourists

>>211811240
>Yeah kek I'm sure these will magically cut prices in half
Cutting rent in half is unnecessary. That's not really the goal. The goal is to remove every unnecessary regulation and have rent decline until it is no longer profitable to build even after the de-regulations. If rent is so low that just construction costs are too high to make a profit even with no zoning and parking constraints, than that is success.

And yes, removing parking requirements will cut construction costs, parking garages are expensive to build.

zoning laws

>>211811240
>There are no new developments to block in San Francisco
This is just wrong
https://sfist.com/2024/08/13/one-nimby-neighbor-has-held-up/

The reason there aren't much more is that developers know they won't be allowed to build. Why waste money on planning a project if its just going to get blocked? California also has CEQA which is another massive barrier.

>>211811576
>The goal is to remove every unnecessary regulation
Its marginal

>and have rent decline
Kek real estate developers are not that morons
Sometimes they miscalculate but they are not going to build until it decreases rent lol
Imagine going into an investment bank and proposing that your goal is to lower your future cash flow. Now pls loan me 200 million USD. Ty

> If rent is so low that just construction costs are too high
Thats already the case basically in San Fran. Just because it seems expensive personally to (You) does not mean that it is a worthy investment

>to make a profit
Its ROI not profit. They have interest payments on loans and they are there to make money. You dont create the job that pays you 100k a year with benefits, paid leave, healthcare and 401k contribution to make a business that might make 105k if everything works out. Not worth it. Real estate developers have a ROI in mind, this idea that as long as they have minimal profit they will continue doing it is so comical to me, literally no business works like that. No one is going to put in 50% more effort to make 5% more money for example. You guys are so funny

>>211811714
*You dont quit the job

>>211806616 (OP)
I have vacationed to Mediterranean countries such as Italy and vastly preferred visiting the UK anyways. So if they don't want my tourism, that is perfectly fine with me.

>>211811714
Cali had the exact same "environmental regulation" in the early 2000s when it built a lot more
What has changed is the financing, not the regulations. Land became more expensive as California is a lot more restricted by the geography. It is finance not regulations

On top of that the demand side has decreased too. You need much higher credit score to quality for a mortgage these days. You basically cannot get a long term loan below 750 these days

>>211806616 (OP)
All the money goes to corrupt refs

>>211811934
Look at the two ends on this graph
If you want to buy an apartment but you cannot afford it and you cannot get a mortgage either then from an economist perspective you are not a "demand"
Demand is a function
Its harder to get a loan than 20 years ago, land is more expensive and labour is more expensive. its not regulations

>>211806616 (OP)
>super concerned with the "environmental toll" or tourism
>encouraging the migration millions of third world niggers to their countries

why are southern yuros like this?

>>211811244
fucking kek this
they deserve everything happening to them

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w8835/w8835.pdf
>Does America face an affordable housing crisis and, if so, why? This paper argues that in much of America the price of housing is quite close to the marginal, physical costs of new construction. The price of housing is significantly higher than construction costs only in a limited number of areas, such as California and some eastern cities. In those areas, we argue that high prices have little to do with conventional models with a free market for land. Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls, play the dominant role in making housing expensive.

A look at causes of housing prices by a Harvard and Wharton economist. They argue that in California, zoning had the dominant role in housing unaffordability.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/to-improve-housing-affordability-we-need-better-alignment-of-zoning-taxes-and-subsidies/
Best way to improve housing affordability is:
1. Better zoning
2. Land Value Tax
3. Vouchers for the poor

https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/effect-zoning-housing-prices

>>211811240
>There are no new developments to block in San Francisco
"Hello, can I get a loan to build a 30 story tower on this parcel 7 blocks away from a BART station"
"Is the parcel zoned for a 30 story tower?"
"No"
"Are you likely successfully have it rezoned"
"No"

>>211806616 (OP)
money

>>211814740
Hermann lange.