Of course it is. Everyone in the US who's watched TV in the last few years has seen companies and privileged individuals buying any privately owned property available for any reasonable price.
Are they reselling them? No.
Are they renting or leasing the worthwhile properties for outrageous rates? Yes.
Are they bulldozing lodgings and putting up apartments at every other opportunity? Yes.
Are they aiding the housing crisis by building new single family dwellings? No.
Are they forcing as many people as they can into rental lodging with decreasing prospects of those families and individuals ever owning their own house? Absolutely.
Honest question:
If they're bulldozing lodgings and putting up apartments instead of building new single family dwellings, isn't that helping the housing crisis by supplying higher density housing? Like you can house more people with less land?
They're ignoring supply and demand by keeping rents up in dense areas. That allows them to withstand empty units. Moreover, there are tools created to help them determine the right ratio of empty units to keep in order to maximize profit through reduction in management as well as maintaining an occupancy balance.
Yes in the sense that they are housing but it's not affordable housing and I wouldn't call the massive expanse that these apartment complexes take up "high density." One of the complexes next to me has FOUR connected complexes that take up several entire city blocks. The buildings are two stories tall and most of them are one bedroom so these things are concrete hellscapes and they don't hold the same number of people as European style planned cities, not even close. Plus, these aren't apartment buildings in walkable and accessible areas, they are sprawling complexes built smack dab in the middle of the suburbs with NO amenities or public transport within walking distance. They are just tiny shitty fenced in neighborhoods with nothing going for them other than shelter. I'm sure they are much nicer than a lot of places but as someone that's lived in one for 10 years now, they are soul sucking wastes of space. Some of these apartments on the bottom floors could have been corner stores, boutiques, salons, restaurants, or shops. They could have gotten rid of one or two of the parking lots for a park since it's convenient to walk and you don't need a car. Instead we just get packed in here and hope we can keep up with the rent.
they are sprawling complexes built smack dab in the middle of the suburbs with NO amenities or public transport within walking distance.
One of these behemoths went up near me, after a nightmarish yuppie shopping center had already been established. (It's "walkable" but also "drivable" and doing either makes you feel like you're going to get aquatinted with the other against the will of all involved. But yay amenities?) The only way in or out is via one moderately trafficked road and one extremely congested highway. But hark! A train station! Within walking distance! Except the train station was built decades ago and only designed to be accessed from the other side of the tracks. It's all fenced off. The only way to get to the train station is by driving a quarter mile through the shopping center to the highway, getting on the highway for a quarter mile, going into the shopping center next door, and driving another quarter mile through that shopping center. Then you can park and wave at your neighbors. Theoretically you could walk or ride a bike... but there's no pedestrian lanes on or along that highway.
It's stunningly awful.
You know it was frustrating but not that bad until you got to the bit about the fence. FUCK that's just such poor planning.
Of course it is. Everyone in the US who's watched TV in the last few years has seen companies and privileged individuals buying any privately owned property available for any reasonable price.
Are they reselling them? No. Are they renting or leasing the worthwhile properties for outrageous rates? Yes. Are they bulldozing lodgings and putting up apartments at every other opportunity? Yes.
Are they aiding the housing crisis by building new single family dwellings? No.
Are they forcing as many people as they can into rental lodging with decreasing prospects of those families and individuals ever owning their own house? Absolutely.
Honest question:
If they're bulldozing lodgings and putting up apartments instead of building new single family dwellings, isn't that helping the housing crisis by supplying higher density housing? Like you can house more people with less land?
They're ignoring supply and demand by keeping rents up in dense areas. That allows them to withstand empty units. Moreover, there are tools created to help them determine the right ratio of empty units to keep in order to maximize profit through reduction in management as well as maintaining an occupancy balance.
It's downright insipid.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/new-lawsuit-alleges-price-fixing-at-seattle-area-apartment-buildings/
If it is more "effective" to keep hi rents and hi vacancy, then it is a strong indicator that the market is fixed
Is any large market not fixed in this hellhole of a country?
I can only imagine what the person said. I don't know why average people run to the defense of corporations.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/new-lawsuit-alleges-price-fixing-at-seattle-area-apartment-buildings/
Capitalism will do that
Yes in the sense that they are housing but it's not affordable housing and I wouldn't call the massive expanse that these apartment complexes take up "high density." One of the complexes next to me has FOUR connected complexes that take up several entire city blocks. The buildings are two stories tall and most of them are one bedroom so these things are concrete hellscapes and they don't hold the same number of people as European style planned cities, not even close. Plus, these aren't apartment buildings in walkable and accessible areas, they are sprawling complexes built smack dab in the middle of the suburbs with NO amenities or public transport within walking distance. They are just tiny shitty fenced in neighborhoods with nothing going for them other than shelter. I'm sure they are much nicer than a lot of places but as someone that's lived in one for 10 years now, they are soul sucking wastes of space. Some of these apartments on the bottom floors could have been corner stores, boutiques, salons, restaurants, or shops. They could have gotten rid of one or two of the parking lots for a park since it's convenient to walk and you don't need a car. Instead we just get packed in here and hope we can keep up with the rent.
One of these behemoths went up near me, after a nightmarish yuppie shopping center had already been established. (It's "walkable" but also "drivable" and doing either makes you feel like you're going to get aquatinted with the other against the will of all involved. But yay amenities?) The only way in or out is via one moderately trafficked road and one extremely congested highway. But hark! A train station! Within walking distance! Except the train station was built decades ago and only designed to be accessed from the other side of the tracks. It's all fenced off. The only way to get to the train station is by driving a quarter mile through the shopping center to the highway, getting on the highway for a quarter mile, going into the shopping center next door, and driving another quarter mile through that shopping center. Then you can park and wave at your neighbors. Theoretically you could walk or ride a bike... but there's no pedestrian lanes on or along that highway.
It's stunningly awful.
You know it was frustrating but not that bad until you got to the bit about the fence. FUCK that's just such poor planning.