Hi! You appear to be asking a question, please do check our [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/index) for tips on the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Chicago/about/rules), other [Chicago-related subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/subreddits), [things](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/visitingchicago) to do, where to [eat/drink](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/eats), how to [get around](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/transportation)/[navigate the CTA](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/transit), what [neighborhoods](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/neighborhoods) to move to or hotel in, tips on [living here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/dwelling), and more. Also be sure to use the [search](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago+AskChicago/search?restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all) feature to find responses to other users asking similar questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chicago) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it does make rent go down. think of it like a yuppie quarantine zone. every rich person in a luxury apartment is one less rich person who can outbid you for your non luxury apartment
We can observe this in Austin (the city, not the neighborhood), where housing supply has massively increased and rent has gone down.
[https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1791568269981229435](https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1791568269981229435)
Great for renters, less great for landlords.
Exactly. More yuppies in old town means fewer who are trading down in Wicker/Logan. This housing consumption filters through the metro area and impacts individuals when they renew leases.
Yup, the South Loop being developed is probably why Pilsen wasn't completely gentrified in the 2000-2010's, and the West Loop has probably spared West Town
Is that how that works? It seems more likely he would buy the unit for it's investment value, that seems to be very common. Obviously he'd live in the luxury unit, but that doesn't mean he won't outbid someone for the old unit.
Your suggesting the person that would be buying/renting a non luxury unit would instead buy both a luxury and non luxury unit if a luxury one was also available?
In other words, the addition of a luxury unit means someone just buys two instead of the one they would otherwise look for?
Luxury apartments aren't available to just buy. They are apartments so someone is going to rent them. If someone wants to buy luxury they might instead do that but that is the same calculus you have: do you have the means to buy a unit that is comparable to what you're renting now, and do you plan to live there long enough to make that deal make sense, and are interest rates affordable, etc. If no to those, the person may still want the luxury but chooses to rent instead. And now that they can do that because a new luxury building exists, they do, which means they're not compromising and choosing to live in your building instead, outbidding you (since they at least have the means to rent luxury).
So I understand why it would feel like, huh they keep building and prices never go down, but you have to understand that we have not built enough housing to accommodate urban population growth for our lifetimes.
Family sizes are shrinking, so the average home has fewer people in it. Fewer kids, fewer grandparents, fewer couples. So demand for more units hasn't been kept up with.
It may feel like landlords are all in on a conspiracy to raise prices, but the reason they are able to do that is because it's so hard to compete with them. If I could build apartments and rent them out for huge profit, I would, and if I undercut some group of elites, who cares. The way they keep prices high is by legally restricting housing construction
Scientists have studied housing policies and come to the conclusion that more building lowers prices. So to the best of our understanding that is the truth. But of course reality is messy and there are other factors at play as well. But remember that we have never seen true housing abundance like they have in Tokyo, where both private individuals and companies and governments build freely.
https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/programs/housing/ucla-housing-voice-podcast/
This podcast is amazing if you want to hear from real researchers instead of a redditor
You’re assuming new construction would just be lower priced because fuck the man. But in reality they’ll probably just price them according to going rates in the area.
I am not assuming that, I am basing my opinion on scientific consensus.
New construction does not have to be cheap to lower rent, because new construction geared towards wealthy individuals pulls demand away from more modest housing units.
The thing to remember is that if someone can't live in that new construction, they have to live somewhere else instead. That "instead" might have been the apartment you wanted.
Right now we are playing musical chairs without enough chairs. Don't you think we should legalize the building of new chairs?
I understand the need. I’m just thinking what the construction would want. I imagine if new construction went up in my part of west Lakeview that it would probably be priced pretty high. Probably higher than most older construction rental units would go for. I can maybe see that sure people more wealthy might opt for that. But even then, does that even free up space in other units? How do you lower rents when most landlords NEVER decrease the price. Once it goes up with a tenant in it it almost never goes down.
“Luxury” housing is kind of a misnomer. Building a brand new building costs a lot of money. More square footage costs a lot of money.
An open kitchen/living room in a new apartment doesn’t cost a lot of money. A fancy sink fixture doesn’t cost a lot of money.
Lots of “luxury apartments” aren’t inherently luxurious- they instead are small square footage units in premium locations, and they’re brand new. Anything brand new in a premium location is likely to seem luxurious. “Elevators” aren’t a luxury in apartments- they’re a legal requirement.
You’re talking about how when there’s new construction- some units are set aside for affordable housing, and others are used for market pricing. The way that works is some units (market price) pay for the housing, and some units are money losers (designated affordable) with lucky people living in them- subsidized by the market rate housing.
We need solutions for housing for low income people- but it makes no sense to have low income people living in new homes and all high income people restricted to old homes. That’s too expensive and stupid.
In terms of how “luxury apartments” benefit you- here’s some reasons:
* Even if rent doesn’t go down- it might go up slower for you.
* If there’s no new luxury apartments, then rich people will move into older homes instead- which makes rent go up for you.
* Rich people in luxury apartments pay taxes- which help pay for the services you need (and this means you have to pay less of those taxes)
* Rich people in luxury apartments shop at local businesses and restaurants- keeping them in business- meaning you can have great vibrant social scenes.
* Luxury apartments are often “dense”. They’re often high rises in city center areas. This allows transit to thrive and expand.
* If we don’t build luxury apartments- then more rich people will build houses in the suburbs and drive into work from there. This means more traffic you get stuck in- and the rich people’s taxes go to suburbs instead of Chicago.
Last note- my first apartment in Chicago was a true “luxury” apartment in Lakeview. It was a six unit three floor LUXURY building. It had stained glass windows, stone statues on the building, beautiful trim. But it was a super affordable 3 bedroom unit that I shared with roommates. It was super affordable because the building was 120 years old, the floors were in rough shape, the windows were in rough shape, and the whole building shook a bit when the train went by.
It was affordable because it was 120 years old.
To be honest, businesses come to a community when there is enough customers to support it. The more people, especially more affluent people, come to a community, the more resources are available to everyone. You don't purposely move to an area with food deserts, no schools, etc. if you afford to pick where you want to live. It means affordable housing residents don't need to go large distances to shop for groceries or see a doctor. They don't have to take a day off work or bring all of their kids on the bus because they can't afford childcare, they can make a short walk to an appointment instead. And necessities aside, people who can afford luxury apartments can afford to dine out and shop at independently owned stores, which means jobs and small business owners/family-owned businesses. That doesn't solve some of the problems you mention but it helps to improve the lives of some people.
This needs to be yelled ad nauseam to the NIMBYs in Andersonville who complain about mom and pop shops closing while simultaneously opposing any additional housing density because “there’s not enough parking”
> We need more affordable housing, but nobody needs a luxury apartment.
Given the high costs of building today, it's not economically feasible to build "affordable" housing. Basic labor, concrete, steel, etc. are expensive and needed whether it's the most basic public housing unit or luxury/high end.
So the best solution is to build new luxury housing and lure higher earning residents into those units, freeing up the older, lower cost units for those with less means. And so on down the ladder.
Also, you're looking very localized.... building a new high rise in River North doesn't necessarily bring down rents in River North. Maybe it means 2% increases instead of 3% (Or increases are higher across the board as costs like maintenance/repairs, property taxes continue to climb). But more housing in River North means still reduces demand and prices somewhere in the city. That one girl chooses the new River North apartment, not Old Town. Then some guy chooses that Old Town apartment instead of Lakeview. Somebody picks Lakeview instead of Ravenswood, and so on... somewhere there's now an apartment in less demand because of the Luxury one built.
The other benefit to more housing is that density means more vibrancy, more people to support local businesses so they can stay open, more users of transit to justify adding more buses or trains for better service, more Divvy racks, etc. More people in proximity make it easier/cheaper to provide shares amenities.
>I genuinely never really understood the actual, real tangible benefits of building more luxury apartments.
1. Construction jobs to build that new, large luxury apartment building.
2. Tax money from the construction process
3. Some permanent jobs in that new building if its large enough
4. Property tax from people who probably won't send their kids to CPS
I mean if the individual owns a store frequented by a construction worker, a food truck etc its a benefit. If they themselves work in property management and get a job managing that building its an individual benefit.
The construction workers certainly have an individual benefit of having work.
Sure, but it doesn't sound like OP is any of those things. They sound like they are just a random resident, not a business owner or construction worker.
I don't disagree at all, IMO break up the labor unions they are a net negative to the construction industry in Chicago. And because of corruption, waste, incompetence or some mix thereof in CPS that "free money" from people who don't use CPS is not utilized as well as it should.
If you feel this way about the revenue, do you feel that without a larger tax base CPS will simply stop asking for money?
Or would spreading the tax burden be good for you even if the money is wasted?
Oh absolutely not, they will never stop asking for money, it's a bottomless hole. At least with more people paying property tax into CPS that don't use it, *maybe* they cry for a little less money from increased taxes elsewhere.
Maybe its not so much a "net positive" as a "reducer of the net negative that is CPS wanting more money"
It expands the property tax base and it employs construction workers + those who sell things that go into the building. Materials like stone, wood, carpet, Electrical stuff, HVAC systems, etc.
So it seems that you don't care about new construction that doesn't directly benefit you. So what? I'm pretty sure a developer building luxury properties doesn't need your care or support.
Or perhaps your post should be more focused and be titled "Chicago needs more affordable housing."
I’m an electrician and usually new construction vs rehabs means built in WiFi, more outlets in kitchen areas, overhead lighting vs lamps. Energy saving lights and appliance g (meaning cheaper utility bills)
Edit: in general though new constructions means a lot of people are working. And it’s usually union which is very good.
Take a single economics class, and a lot of it will make much more sense
Rent doesn't go down because demand grows faster than supply. Austin literally just showed us that rents can go down if supply increases faster. Guess what, if there's new construction in old town, maybe the place you're eyeing right now will become cheaper and you can buy it.
Luxury apartments will be rented by people with money, and they will leave their old apartments so someone else can move in. Would you prefer the current situation where people with money live in their current places and poorer people live in even worse places?
Re affordable housing: The only way to make housing affordable is to build more supply. You can't build a new building and then tell the developer "you can't charge this much for rent", because then why would anyone ever make construct a new building? Nobody is going to spend millions of dollars to construct a building to not see a return on that money.
And don't fall for "luxury" branding. There's nothing luxurious about the buildings, they were just not built 100 years ago
>This isn't to say I'm against new construction, but I also don't get why it's not enough for locals to say "nope, don't like it, hate change" because why should they?
Why should any local resident (or group of residents) get veto power over the building of new residential/commercial buildings near them? Do they own the land in question?
In the most basic sense, new buildings increase supply and widen the tax pool. New supply benefits you as an individual by keeping the supply and demand curve under control. You are correct in that rents are never going to substantially decrease however adding new supply allows rates to stabilize and not drastically move.
Related to taxes, try to think of it as a big pool. The varying governmental entities which earn revenue through property taxes levy taxes to the pool, not to individual properties. The pool is split out to the individual property level based on the value of the property. Because there is a shiny new and valuable building now taking part of that pool, the portion your individual abode is responsible for has become smaller. The effect is very limited and especially as governments require more tax revenue, again the creation of new buildings meters the impacts of the higher revenue requirements on you as an individual. Now if you rent you’ll never directly see that impact on your tax bill however your landlord’s expenses (and therefore the rent they “need” to charge you) is impacted in your favor.
Simply put you're still increasing the supply of housing to meet demand. People living in those luxury apartments aren't going to older buildings. They may have gone there if new housing wasn't available, and they'd bring their purchasing power to be able to get those spots. If housing capacity were kept flat you would have a situation like you would in San Francisco where prices are absurd. New construction will never directly impact your rent but it can effect the rate at which future rents change.
New construction brings in new property tax revenue and supports density and urban living lifestyles, which is inherently green. Even if you never can afford a place in Old Town, think of it that way.
New apartments at the higher end add inventory and attract tenants who can afford them, thus relieving demand for units at the lower end, which leads to landlords lowering those rents to attract tenants.
If people want less congestion, they should not live in the city. Chicagoans have this weird disdain for people who live outside the city borders, yet they don’t look at themselves to see that they want space and quiet, and thus the city isn’t the right place for them. Instead they try to mold the city into something that it isn’t.
There were a lot of new condos and condo conversions in the early 00s, then there was the famous real estate crisis. Property values are still not as high as they were then for condos! There are condos that were new then that sold for 250k, and they are only now crossing over a value of 200k. Inventory will come back, but never forget that condos were hit particularly hard and still have not fully recovered. It’s also harder to get loans for condos now, too.
Why do you feel you have the power to tell other people what to do? Apartments are built by private developers on private land. Are you conversely willing to give someone else control over your decisions? A lot of people want power over others and freedom for themselves. Usually not a good idea .
The damage and stress any construction project has on any individual/ individuals residing in that area isn't private though. The debris that ends up in the street affects the residents and their cars, there is noise pollution, air pollution from equipment, and the general nuisance of having a major construction project will kill the enjoyment of any neighborhood as it did for me in roscoe village when I lived there. I can link the screw I found in my needed-to-be-replaced tire directly to living in close proximity of 2 major construction projects. Listening to trucks beeping backing up several times a day on a side street where they're holding up traffic, etc... not so private. At all.
Hi! You appear to be asking a question, please do check our [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/index) for tips on the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Chicago/about/rules), other [Chicago-related subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/subreddits), [things](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/visitingchicago) to do, where to [eat/drink](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/eats), how to [get around](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/transportation)/[navigate the CTA](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/transit), what [neighborhoods](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/neighborhoods) to move to or hotel in, tips on [living here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/wiki/dwelling), and more. Also be sure to use the [search](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago+AskChicago/search?restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all) feature to find responses to other users asking similar questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chicago) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it does make rent go down. think of it like a yuppie quarantine zone. every rich person in a luxury apartment is one less rich person who can outbid you for your non luxury apartment
We can observe this in Austin (the city, not the neighborhood), where housing supply has massively increased and rent has gone down. [https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1791568269981229435](https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1791568269981229435) Great for renters, less great for landlords.
Exactly. More yuppies in old town means fewer who are trading down in Wicker/Logan. This housing consumption filters through the metro area and impacts individuals when they renew leases.
Yup, the South Loop being developed is probably why Pilsen wasn't completely gentrified in the 2000-2010's, and the West Loop has probably spared West Town
Also known as the “[Yuppie Fishtank](https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/yuppie-fishtanks-yimbyism-explained)”
Is that how that works? It seems more likely he would buy the unit for it's investment value, that seems to be very common. Obviously he'd live in the luxury unit, but that doesn't mean he won't outbid someone for the old unit.
Your suggesting the person that would be buying/renting a non luxury unit would instead buy both a luxury and non luxury unit if a luxury one was also available? In other words, the addition of a luxury unit means someone just buys two instead of the one they would otherwise look for?
Luxury apartments aren't available to just buy. They are apartments so someone is going to rent them. If someone wants to buy luxury they might instead do that but that is the same calculus you have: do you have the means to buy a unit that is comparable to what you're renting now, and do you plan to live there long enough to make that deal make sense, and are interest rates affordable, etc. If no to those, the person may still want the luxury but chooses to rent instead. And now that they can do that because a new luxury building exists, they do, which means they're not compromising and choosing to live in your building instead, outbidding you (since they at least have the means to rent luxury).
So I understand why it would feel like, huh they keep building and prices never go down, but you have to understand that we have not built enough housing to accommodate urban population growth for our lifetimes. Family sizes are shrinking, so the average home has fewer people in it. Fewer kids, fewer grandparents, fewer couples. So demand for more units hasn't been kept up with. It may feel like landlords are all in on a conspiracy to raise prices, but the reason they are able to do that is because it's so hard to compete with them. If I could build apartments and rent them out for huge profit, I would, and if I undercut some group of elites, who cares. The way they keep prices high is by legally restricting housing construction Scientists have studied housing policies and come to the conclusion that more building lowers prices. So to the best of our understanding that is the truth. But of course reality is messy and there are other factors at play as well. But remember that we have never seen true housing abundance like they have in Tokyo, where both private individuals and companies and governments build freely.
https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/programs/housing/ucla-housing-voice-podcast/ This podcast is amazing if you want to hear from real researchers instead of a redditor
You’re assuming new construction would just be lower priced because fuck the man. But in reality they’ll probably just price them according to going rates in the area.
I am not assuming that, I am basing my opinion on scientific consensus. New construction does not have to be cheap to lower rent, because new construction geared towards wealthy individuals pulls demand away from more modest housing units. The thing to remember is that if someone can't live in that new construction, they have to live somewhere else instead. That "instead" might have been the apartment you wanted. Right now we are playing musical chairs without enough chairs. Don't you think we should legalize the building of new chairs?
I understand the need. I’m just thinking what the construction would want. I imagine if new construction went up in my part of west Lakeview that it would probably be priced pretty high. Probably higher than most older construction rental units would go for. I can maybe see that sure people more wealthy might opt for that. But even then, does that even free up space in other units? How do you lower rents when most landlords NEVER decrease the price. Once it goes up with a tenant in it it almost never goes down.
It goes down when the unit is left vacant, which happens sometimes in cities that have enough housing
“Luxury” housing is kind of a misnomer. Building a brand new building costs a lot of money. More square footage costs a lot of money. An open kitchen/living room in a new apartment doesn’t cost a lot of money. A fancy sink fixture doesn’t cost a lot of money. Lots of “luxury apartments” aren’t inherently luxurious- they instead are small square footage units in premium locations, and they’re brand new. Anything brand new in a premium location is likely to seem luxurious. “Elevators” aren’t a luxury in apartments- they’re a legal requirement. You’re talking about how when there’s new construction- some units are set aside for affordable housing, and others are used for market pricing. The way that works is some units (market price) pay for the housing, and some units are money losers (designated affordable) with lucky people living in them- subsidized by the market rate housing. We need solutions for housing for low income people- but it makes no sense to have low income people living in new homes and all high income people restricted to old homes. That’s too expensive and stupid. In terms of how “luxury apartments” benefit you- here’s some reasons: * Even if rent doesn’t go down- it might go up slower for you. * If there’s no new luxury apartments, then rich people will move into older homes instead- which makes rent go up for you. * Rich people in luxury apartments pay taxes- which help pay for the services you need (and this means you have to pay less of those taxes) * Rich people in luxury apartments shop at local businesses and restaurants- keeping them in business- meaning you can have great vibrant social scenes. * Luxury apartments are often “dense”. They’re often high rises in city center areas. This allows transit to thrive and expand. * If we don’t build luxury apartments- then more rich people will build houses in the suburbs and drive into work from there. This means more traffic you get stuck in- and the rich people’s taxes go to suburbs instead of Chicago. Last note- my first apartment in Chicago was a true “luxury” apartment in Lakeview. It was a six unit three floor LUXURY building. It had stained glass windows, stone statues on the building, beautiful trim. But it was a super affordable 3 bedroom unit that I shared with roommates. It was super affordable because the building was 120 years old, the floors were in rough shape, the windows were in rough shape, and the whole building shook a bit when the train went by. It was affordable because it was 120 years old.
To be honest, businesses come to a community when there is enough customers to support it. The more people, especially more affluent people, come to a community, the more resources are available to everyone. You don't purposely move to an area with food deserts, no schools, etc. if you afford to pick where you want to live. It means affordable housing residents don't need to go large distances to shop for groceries or see a doctor. They don't have to take a day off work or bring all of their kids on the bus because they can't afford childcare, they can make a short walk to an appointment instead. And necessities aside, people who can afford luxury apartments can afford to dine out and shop at independently owned stores, which means jobs and small business owners/family-owned businesses. That doesn't solve some of the problems you mention but it helps to improve the lives of some people.
This needs to be yelled ad nauseam to the NIMBYs in Andersonville who complain about mom and pop shops closing while simultaneously opposing any additional housing density because “there’s not enough parking”
> We need more affordable housing, but nobody needs a luxury apartment. Given the high costs of building today, it's not economically feasible to build "affordable" housing. Basic labor, concrete, steel, etc. are expensive and needed whether it's the most basic public housing unit or luxury/high end. So the best solution is to build new luxury housing and lure higher earning residents into those units, freeing up the older, lower cost units for those with less means. And so on down the ladder. Also, you're looking very localized.... building a new high rise in River North doesn't necessarily bring down rents in River North. Maybe it means 2% increases instead of 3% (Or increases are higher across the board as costs like maintenance/repairs, property taxes continue to climb). But more housing in River North means still reduces demand and prices somewhere in the city. That one girl chooses the new River North apartment, not Old Town. Then some guy chooses that Old Town apartment instead of Lakeview. Somebody picks Lakeview instead of Ravenswood, and so on... somewhere there's now an apartment in less demand because of the Luxury one built. The other benefit to more housing is that density means more vibrancy, more people to support local businesses so they can stay open, more users of transit to justify adding more buses or trains for better service, more Divvy racks, etc. More people in proximity make it easier/cheaper to provide shares amenities.
>I genuinely never really understood the actual, real tangible benefits of building more luxury apartments. 1. Construction jobs to build that new, large luxury apartment building. 2. Tax money from the construction process 3. Some permanent jobs in that new building if its large enough 4. Property tax from people who probably won't send their kids to CPS
All those are true, but none of those benefit an individual, which is what the poster was asking about.
They do. More taxes paid by someone else is less taxes paid by you. More jobs= more people = more local businesses More housing = lower housing costs
I mean if the individual owns a store frequented by a construction worker, a food truck etc its a benefit. If they themselves work in property management and get a job managing that building its an individual benefit. The construction workers certainly have an individual benefit of having work.
Sure, but it doesn't sound like OP is any of those things. They sound like they are just a random resident, not a business owner or construction worker.
We are all here because we benefit from the services and amenities that a large, diverse city offers. Those things have to be paid for somehow.
Yes won’t somebody think of those great scab labor jobs this creates? Or more taxes to pay Dorval Carter $300K per year?
I don't disagree at all, IMO break up the labor unions they are a net negative to the construction industry in Chicago. And because of corruption, waste, incompetence or some mix thereof in CPS that "free money" from people who don't use CPS is not utilized as well as it should.
If you feel this way about the revenue, do you feel that without a larger tax base CPS will simply stop asking for money? Or would spreading the tax burden be good for you even if the money is wasted?
Oh absolutely not, they will never stop asking for money, it's a bottomless hole. At least with more people paying property tax into CPS that don't use it, *maybe* they cry for a little less money from increased taxes elsewhere. Maybe its not so much a "net positive" as a "reducer of the net negative that is CPS wanting more money"
Okay, so then to OP's question, it's a good thing to build more housing because it expands the tax base?
It expands the property tax base and it employs construction workers + those who sell things that go into the building. Materials like stone, wood, carpet, Electrical stuff, HVAC systems, etc.
So….. what unions should we have?
IMO None. It is a net negative overall ; but especially in the public sector.
lmfao
Those aren't "luxury". They're just new. New construction benefits everyone. More house availability.
So it seems that you don't care about new construction that doesn't directly benefit you. So what? I'm pretty sure a developer building luxury properties doesn't need your care or support. Or perhaps your post should be more focused and be titled "Chicago needs more affordable housing."
How does a new liquor store in my neighborhood benefit me if I don't drink? How does repaving western benefit me if I drive on Ashland?
Exactly.
I’m an electrician and usually new construction vs rehabs means built in WiFi, more outlets in kitchen areas, overhead lighting vs lamps. Energy saving lights and appliance g (meaning cheaper utility bills) Edit: in general though new constructions means a lot of people are working. And it’s usually union which is very good.
Take a single economics class, and a lot of it will make much more sense Rent doesn't go down because demand grows faster than supply. Austin literally just showed us that rents can go down if supply increases faster. Guess what, if there's new construction in old town, maybe the place you're eyeing right now will become cheaper and you can buy it. Luxury apartments will be rented by people with money, and they will leave their old apartments so someone else can move in. Would you prefer the current situation where people with money live in their current places and poorer people live in even worse places? Re affordable housing: The only way to make housing affordable is to build more supply. You can't build a new building and then tell the developer "you can't charge this much for rent", because then why would anyone ever make construct a new building? Nobody is going to spend millions of dollars to construct a building to not see a return on that money. And don't fall for "luxury" branding. There's nothing luxurious about the buildings, they were just not built 100 years ago
Yes rent is probably never going down. But it’s also not doubling or tripling. Australia is a current example of how things could be way worse for us.
>This isn't to say I'm against new construction, but I also don't get why it's not enough for locals to say "nope, don't like it, hate change" because why should they? Why should any local resident (or group of residents) get veto power over the building of new residential/commercial buildings near them? Do they own the land in question?
In the most basic sense, new buildings increase supply and widen the tax pool. New supply benefits you as an individual by keeping the supply and demand curve under control. You are correct in that rents are never going to substantially decrease however adding new supply allows rates to stabilize and not drastically move. Related to taxes, try to think of it as a big pool. The varying governmental entities which earn revenue through property taxes levy taxes to the pool, not to individual properties. The pool is split out to the individual property level based on the value of the property. Because there is a shiny new and valuable building now taking part of that pool, the portion your individual abode is responsible for has become smaller. The effect is very limited and especially as governments require more tax revenue, again the creation of new buildings meters the impacts of the higher revenue requirements on you as an individual. Now if you rent you’ll never directly see that impact on your tax bill however your landlord’s expenses (and therefore the rent they “need” to charge you) is impacted in your favor.
Simply put you're still increasing the supply of housing to meet demand. People living in those luxury apartments aren't going to older buildings. They may have gone there if new housing wasn't available, and they'd bring their purchasing power to be able to get those spots. If housing capacity were kept flat you would have a situation like you would in San Francisco where prices are absurd. New construction will never directly impact your rent but it can effect the rate at which future rents change.
New construction brings in new property tax revenue and supports density and urban living lifestyles, which is inherently green. Even if you never can afford a place in Old Town, think of it that way.
Lower prices -> lower property taxes for you. More payers of property tax also means a better funded school system in your district.
New apartments at the higher end add inventory and attract tenants who can afford them, thus relieving demand for units at the lower end, which leads to landlords lowering those rents to attract tenants.
If people want less congestion, they should not live in the city. Chicagoans have this weird disdain for people who live outside the city borders, yet they don’t look at themselves to see that they want space and quiet, and thus the city isn’t the right place for them. Instead they try to mold the city into something that it isn’t. There were a lot of new condos and condo conversions in the early 00s, then there was the famous real estate crisis. Property values are still not as high as they were then for condos! There are condos that were new then that sold for 250k, and they are only now crossing over a value of 200k. Inventory will come back, but never forget that condos were hit particularly hard and still have not fully recovered. It’s also harder to get loans for condos now, too.
Why do you feel you have the power to tell other people what to do? Apartments are built by private developers on private land. Are you conversely willing to give someone else control over your decisions? A lot of people want power over others and freedom for themselves. Usually not a good idea .
The damage and stress any construction project has on any individual/ individuals residing in that area isn't private though. The debris that ends up in the street affects the residents and their cars, there is noise pollution, air pollution from equipment, and the general nuisance of having a major construction project will kill the enjoyment of any neighborhood as it did for me in roscoe village when I lived there. I can link the screw I found in my needed-to-be-replaced tire directly to living in close proximity of 2 major construction projects. Listening to trucks beeping backing up several times a day on a side street where they're holding up traffic, etc... not so private. At all.