Fighting Gentrification (with Luxury Condos)

Gentrification is back as a hot topic. High income people of various stripes (in San Francisco it is tech workers, in New York it is bankers) are ruining nice, bohemian neighborhoods by moving into the area and driving up the rents.
At least, that’s the word on the street.

While it is understandable how people would interpret the situation this way, this idea is misguided and counterproductive.

Did you hear about the twenty-year-old used Geo Metro that just sold for $100,000 because of nearby wealthy people buying Ferraris?* You didn’t hear about it because it didn’t happen. It didn’t happen because wealthy people buying Ferraris doesn’t drive up the price of used Geo Metros. We all know this. Suggesting that the sale of luxury autos drives up the price of economy cars strikes most people as utterly ridiculous.
Yet when the same suggestion is made about housing, we tend to take it seriously. After the success of the recent referendum campaign to block the 8 Washington condo project in San Francisco, Supervisor David Chiu said “Tonight, San Francisco said we stand for affordable housing and not luxury condos.”**

Last month, protesters blockaded a Google bus in San Francisco, complaining of evictions, rising rents, and other problems supposedly brought about by an influx of high tech workers. (While most of the Bay Area’s tech firms are located in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, a huge number of their employees prefer urban living and thus reside in San Francisco, and areshuttled to work by private busses).

The 8 Washington opponents, Google bus protesters, and other anti-gentrification crusaders seem to be operating under three assumptions that are completely and utterly false: The presence of rich people inherently drives up prices; we can keep rich people out of good places by banning luxury condos and harassing them; it would be good to be rid of techies and other rich newcomers.
Pursuing these concepts will do nothing to achieve anti-gentrification activists’ goals nor will it make better cities, and here is why.

1. Shortages, Not Wealthy Tech Workers, Cause Out of Control Prices
I don’t want to sound as if I’m discounting the pain caused by skyrocketing housing prices. I get it. However, we must accept the fact that if there is a sufficient supply of homes, there is absolutely no reason why the presence luxury housing should drive up the price of other housing types any more than the sale of new luxury cars drives up the cost of economy cars. Sure, some blocks or neighborhoods will be ritzier than others, but entire sectors of cities, or entire metropolitan areas, should not be unattainable to people with average incomes. Luxury condos don’t cause that kind of crisis, shortages caused by restrictive zoning and anti-development NIMBYs do. Bidding wars and waiting lists are the real enemies of affordability.

There has been a lot of talk lately about income inequality and low service worker wages, and how that affects people’s ability to afford housing. Some have even suggested that each city adopt its own minimum wage to reflect the wide variation in housing costs from community to community. The merits of minimum wages aren’t something that I will get into on this urban planning blog but I will concede that, all else being equal, higher pay makes it easier to afford housing. However, in reality the extra income only helps when there is an adequate supply of housing. When it is a seller’s (or landlord’s) market due to a scarce supply, prices will simply rise as people out bid each other until income gains are eaten away, leaving people no better off.

This isn’t theoretical. We’ve seen it over the past 40 years. While wages for individual workers have stagnated, household income has risen dramatically due to women entering the workforce in large numbers during that time. Yet these same households are having a harder time affording their housing than ever. Why? Because when bidding wars have resulted from low housing supplies, these higher household incomes (and easy credit) have simply been used to outbid competitors, driving prices higher and higher. The extra income only helps when there are no bidding wars. The bidding wars won’t go away unless there is enough supply to satisfy the demand.

2. You Can’t Keep Wealthy People Out of Nice Places
Wealthy people tend to like nice things. Most of them are also risk averse, at least when choosing a place to live. They don’t usually come to rough areas and make them nice. Rather, they come to areas that are already nice; either because they have always been nice, becauselocal government improvements made them nice, or because risk-oblivious artists and others moved into a rough area and improved it. Therefore, the only way to keep high income people away is to make the place undesirable. Clearly, this is not a viable strategy. We need to make our cities better, not worse.

Like it or not, wealthy people have the luxury of being able to live wherever they want. When they decide they want to be someplace, they can and will pay whatever it takes to get in there. Blocking luxury condos won’t help. If they can’t get new luxury condos, then they will buy up rowhouses and other older, smaller, more modestly equipped housing types which weren’t designed for the wealthy and which ought to be affordable for average folks. If there are enough luxury units for high income people that want to live in an area, then you don’t have to worry about them driving up the price of non-luxury housing.

Wealthy people don’t necessarily prefer to overpay for housing, but if there is a bidding war for something that they want badly, then they will bid the price up until they win.
Rich people bid up the price of things they want. The rarer it is, the higher the bidding goes.
Sorry. That’s just the way it is.

3. There Can and Should Be Room for Everyone
Hating rich techies for changing the bohemian character of a city is ridiculous. Every healthy city has a wide spectrum of people; bohemians, intellectuals, artists, craftsmen, bankers, rich, middle class, and poor. All of them should have a place in our cities.
I’m not plugging for the rich here, but having them in our cities and neighborhoods isn’t such a bad thing. For one, they pay a lot of taxes, which can help provide public services and civic facilities for everyone. Wealthy neighbors have disposable income to eat in area restaurants and buy goods in local shops, which can support jobs for service workers and profits for small business owners. And, decry it as we may, rich folks have connections and know-how. Wherever they live, they will make sure that it is well-patrolled, well-cleaned, and well-maintained. They donate to campaigns and host fundraisers; whether you think it is right or wrong, they are sure to be taken care of. When they move into your neighborhood, it will be taken care of, too.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *