[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

Finally you admit that I didn't say those things, and that you were guessing about families being in the majority.

Excuse me but to what do you think I am admitting? You are a proponent of very high density........I believe you once posted you like density levels of 70-80k per sq mile....which would be Manhattan densities. Bring that up with the average Seattlite and they will look at you in horror. You have claimed that high construction/increased density will keep housing in Seattle affordable when the very opposite is happening. You actually believe that apodments and new apts without parking will result in lots of pedestrians; that these renters don't own cars. Of course you have yet to show any kind of factual study that supports your position.

That's what I have been talking about........and I am not about to admit that you didn't post those things in the past.

As for rents on older apartments, overbuilding makes them a lot cheaper but just keeping up (2014, not 2012-2013) also plays an essential role -- let them stay reasonable.

Seattle rents are not staying reasonable......not so long as the vacancy rate stays under 5%:

10 cities where rents are rising the most

http://realestate.msn.com/10-cities-...ising-the-most

And I repeat.....its not just because of the new construction..........all types of units, old and new, are seeing sizable rent increases.

Seattle's $1,000 apartment from the 1960s or $700 accessory apartment costs $3,000 or $2,000 in San Francisco because they fell way behind.

SF is an expensive city for a whole host of reasons not least of which it is considered to be N. America's most beautiful city, has a great climate, has a growing employment base and has very little land on which to build.

And comparing Seattle to SF is comparing apples with oranges.....literally.

But putting that aside, please explain to me how building more units will lead to cheaper rents if demand remains high? Why would landlords reduce their rents or not raise them if there were people willing to pay higher rents?

We won't ever be a cheap city. That only happens when demand plummets, like a city hollowing out. .

Dallas is growing faster than Seattle and yet its a much cheaper city. Why?

But we'll avoid the big increases that nimbyism would bring

Once again, nimbyism has little to do with why a city's housing is expensive. Sure if the entire metro area decided tomorrow to stop all housing construction and if industry continued to grow as it has the past few years, housing prices would skyrocket. And if that level nimbyism were to happen, market factors would come into play that would significantly alter the current economic dynamics found in Seattle.

Conversely, if you zoned all of Seattle multifamily and gave developers free rein, rents would stall out or decline if there was more units produced than demand required. However, shortly after signs of overbuilding began popping up, the banks would cut off the lending spigot. Construction would stop until the vacancy rate came back down. And once the excess units got absorbed, construction would start back up and the rents would resume their climb.

Nimbyism and liberal zoning policies only effect things short term/temporarily. There are other more important factors in play that effect housing prices long term.

In fact, I believe the whole reason for tying nimbyism with expensive housing is so that its creators can realize the hi rise fantasy they envision for Seattle. The sooner this fallacy gets debunked the better off Seattle will be.