And it's written from the viewpoint of pro-density. Read the linked papers there, the best results of density increases are either extremely indirect ("migration chains") or insignificant (no sale price decreases, and single-digit percentage one-time decreases in rent).
I'm writing an analysis of all densifications in the US and Canada. So far, I have not found a _single_ example of density increases leading to even slowing down of sale prices. Never mind their reduction.
On the other hand, they ALWAYS lead to worsening commutes and shrinking square footage per capita.
Greenaway-McGrevy (2023) showed an increased supply of housing in Auckland reduced rents in 3-bedroom homes by 26-33% below a control.
Mense (2023) showed a 1% yearly increase in housing supply in Germany results in an average local municipality rent to fall by 0.2%.
Asquith et al. (2023) found in NYC, the average new building lowers nearby rents within 250 meters of the new building by 5% to 7% relative to the trend rent growth otherwise would have followed.
Li (2022), looked at new market rate buildings of 7+ stories and found that for every 10% increase to the housing stock that new high rises add within a 500-ft ring, residential rents for the buildings within that ring decrease by 1 percent.
Pennington (2021) found rents within 500 meters of a new project fell by 1.2 to 2.3% in San Francisco.
> Greenaway-McGrevy (2023) showed an increased supply of housing in Auckland reduced rents in 3-bedroom homes by 26-33% below a control.
Read it. Oh wow. That's a fucking propaganda piece with shoddy statistics.
They basically found a statistical anomaly in the data, with the one- and two- bedroom apartments rents showing no significant difference from the historical trend. And to exaggerate the trend, they used an overfitted exponential model.
And in both cases, there were NO price decreases. Rents continued to grow, outpacing the inflation.
> Greenaway-McGrevy (2023) showed an increased supply of housing in Auckland reduced rents in 3-bedroom homes by 26-33% below a control.
I have not read this one yet. Sounds suspicious, though.
The rest are basically what I told: one-time single-digit percentage decreases in rents. This one is also funny:
> Asquith et al. (2023) found in NYC, the average new building lowers nearby rents within 250 meters of the new building by 5% to 7% relative to the trend rent growth otherwise would have followed.
> one-time single-digit percentage decreases in rents
Why would one expect a single increase in supply of available housing units to cause more than a one-time decrease in rent?
> Rents still _increased_, but slightly slower.
I'm not entirely sure why you find this funny. It finds adding housing units reduces surrounding future rents. If you find it funny it didn't lower rent in absolute terms for some reason, extrapolate what would happen to the rent of an place within 250 meters of 20 new buildings.
Density increases actually make cities more popular, so the supply constraints remain or even worsen. They also generate wealth, meaning people earn more, and can bid up housing prices. I think people just like dense cities with good transit, so we should definitely do it, but let’s not pretend that SF would be affordable if only it had HK’s density (it would be as affordable as HK, which means not very).
And it's written from the viewpoint of pro-density. Read the linked papers there, the best results of density increases are either extremely indirect ("migration chains") or insignificant (no sale price decreases, and single-digit percentage one-time decreases in rent).
I'm writing an analysis of all densifications in the US and Canada. So far, I have not found a _single_ example of density increases leading to even slowing down of sale prices. Never mind their reduction.
On the other hand, they ALWAYS lead to worsening commutes and shrinking square footage per capita.