I've lived here in NYC for decades.

Most of the new buildings that go up are luxury condos, out of reach for mere mortals like myself.

I actually purchased a condo in a new building in one of the neighborhoods this article mentioned about a decade ago but I was never able to move in, even after signing the contract, because the city wouldn't grant a certificate of housing occupancy to the builder (long story). But yes, I've personally lived the red tape issue.

It's not exactly parallel but check out this NYT article from December about why the 2nd Ave Subway was so outrageously over-priced -- while most people aren't tunnelling under Manhattan the issue of overpriced construction applies to all 5 boros: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

Luxury condos reduce demand on other buildings, helping keep rents down. Without them you'd have more rich people bidding on regular stuff.

That said, if the new buildings are less dense than what they replace, it would raise rents.

> Luxury condos reduce demand on other buildings, helping keep rents down. Without them you'd have more rich people bidding on regular stuff.

Luxury condos attract rich people that otherwise might not be in the local market, both directly (to live in the condos) and indirectly (by stimulating a local increase in services catering to a rich clientele, making the area, not just the condos themselves, more attractive to the rich.) This can make the net effect an increase in demand for other existing housing from the rich, rather than relief of such demand.

Attract rich people from where? If the presence of rich people is a problem then solving the "problem" by keeping your neighborhood shitty just means the problem becomes someone else's to bear. It doesn't actually solve it. And notice that if they "solve" it too then you get rich people in your neighborhood driving up your rent and you live in a shitty neighborhood.

Why would you expect that apartments in NYC will be available for mere mortals? There's 7 bln people on the planet and let's say 1% of them would move in if prices were affordable. It's an alpha plus plus city, only two of these, both biting expensive.

NYC is our city. It's for everyone. If the wealth is too concentrated there, split it up. You'd want to turn my hometown into some kind of apartheid disneyland for the rich.

That last sentence breaks the site guidelines by crossing into personal attack. Please don't do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry about that. I misspoke. I should have said, "this concept would".

EDIT: I do mean this sincerely, not in a sarcastic asshole way.

nobody on Earth knows how to "split it up".

You can get preferred treatment for preexisting apartments, but how would you manage that for newly built ones? USSR tried to, they failed and made lifes miserable. China tries and it's not helping.

I'm not saying I have the exact solution but it would look something like a democratic process that has representation for both community members and new entrants. People that want to move into the city can participate in decision making. Once your in, your interests change so then you're eligible to be on the community side.

People buy property for commercial rates just like they buy anything. Do you get to participate in dairy decision making?

So because of the accident of your birth, you have more right to live there than I do? I worked hard (and was fortunate in various ways and was supported by the social system) to earn what I have, but my money isn't good enough?

It's pretty easy to turn that around and say that people with cash can displace and kick around anyone they want. I don't think you have less right to live there, I just think it shouldn't be money that is determinate. For instance, you could apply for placement that is need-blind.

This does preference people that already live there, but that seems elementary that the economic system should not have an inherent tendency to split up communities. People should be able to move when they want to, not when they are forced to. The reason everyone wants to move to NYC is for economic reasons. Maybe if more places weren't destitute, fewer people would need to move around as much.

> It's pretty easy to turn that around and say that people with cash can displace and kick around anyone they want. I don't think you have less right to live there, I just think it shouldn't be money that is determinate. For instance, you could apply for placement that is need-blind.

The bottom line is that there aren't enough homes for everyone who wants to live there, so it comes down to how we allocate what there is. "Auction it to the highest bidder" has its issues but has a lot to recommend it: it's transparent, understandable, nondiscriminatory in a lot of respects, gives people a way to care more or less strongly, and means we get a market price for homes in that area that tells us where we should be building more homes.

We could use something like a lottery but that would mean a) houses would go to some random set of people who wanted to live in NYC, not the people for whom it makes the biggest difference b) we create a bunch of incentives for corruption - both the lottery itself and then people doing sublets/fake family transfers/... if they find someone who wants the place more than they do. Of course it's possible to fight that kind of corruption and for some things the principle is important enough to be worth it, but it's better if we can design the system so that it naturally doesn't happen c) we wouldn't be incentivising developers to build the homes that people most want.

(All that said I do think there should be a land/property value tax, to ensure that people only buy expensive land/buildings if they're going to actually use them, and to compensate the rest of the country who's priced out)

> This does preference people that already live there, but that seems elementary that the economic system should not have an inherent tendency to split up communities.

I did not fit in the "community" of the town I grew up in, and was very unhappy there. The city I moved to has been a lot better for me. So I feel quite strongly that everyone should get a fair chance at that, regardless of where they happened to be born.

> People should be able to move when they want to, not when they are forced to. The reason everyone wants to move to NYC is for economic reasons. Maybe if more places weren't destitute, fewer people would need to move around as much.

True as far as it goes, and I'm all for e.g. building much denser (NYC-like) neighbourhoods in other cities to help them gain the same advantages. But in the meantime we still have the question of who gets to live in the city that a lot of people want to live in.

Best to hedge your bets by trying to own some real estate.

Are there NYC-specific REITs for doing this in < 1 "house sticker price" increments?

"Hometown REITs" could help renters avoid being priced out, around the margins, at least.

That dashboard is misleading. NYC has one of the lowest rates of building permits per population of any area in the US[0]. We're building more, but the population is growing as well. Supply is not able to meet demand.

[0] https://www.renthop.com/studies/national/heres-why-rents-are...

No, whats misleading is using "population per permit" as the sole metric.

Do you really think that NYC and Sacramento, CA are even remotely comparable in terms of the available land, logistics and population density? That's absurd.

Mike Bloomberg was probably the most developer friendly mayor New York has seen in decades. That growth is largely all due to him.

> continuos boom for 20 years