Thread

1. expedition32 · 1789971086 · focus · HN ↗

   After WW2 all European countries had massive housing shortages. It was not capitalism that solved it but heavy government involvement. In a span a few decades millions of people were re-housed. The free market is remarkably terrible at pumping out houses fast.

   1. andsoitis · 1789971679 · focus · HN ↗

      Then the govt. should build new homes; I'm not sure that taking homes from people ("nationalize") creates supply.

      1. usernametaken29 · 1789972625 · focus · HN ↗

         But it does. There’s immense amount of houses that are unused because they’re part of speculation, and it’s easier to leave them empty than to deal with tenants and their rights. This is an extremely well documented, systemic issue in large European metropolis and especially in Berlin. Forcing existing property to be used immediately adds supply, and it also lowers prices. Exactly the things large property developers do not want. But I don’t give a shit what they want. I want affordable rent.

         1. inglor_cz · 1789973465 · focus · HN ↗

            immense amount of houses that are unused because they’re part of speculation, ... This is an extremely well documented, systemic issue in large European metropolis and especially in Berlin.

            Source?

            Deutschlandatlas says that Berlin has whole 2 percent of empty apartments for all reasons, which is less then half of German average [0]

            Some of those apartments are being remodeled, some are just in the period where the previous tenant moved out and the next moved in.

            There are 16 thousand long-term empty apartments, which looks like a huge number, but it is only 0.8 percent of the total. [1]

            Even if those 16 thousand apartments could be all put to market (some have legal barriers, like being part of a complicated litigation), that easing would not last even for a single mayor's tenure. Last year alone, Berlin grew up by 17 thousand people. [2] It was not an extraordinary year.

            ALL that money that the Linke wants to sink into old housing should be spent to build new one, just to accomodate the arrivals.

            [0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.deutschlandatlas.bund.de&#x2F;DE&#x2F;Karten&#x2F;Wie-wir-wohnen&#x2F;046-Wohnungsleerstand.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.deutschlandatlas.bund.de&#x2F;DE&#x2F;Karten&#x2F;Wie-wir-wohne...

            [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.berlin.de&#x2F;sen&#x2F;wohnen&#x2F;rechtliches&#x2F;zweckentfremdungsverbot&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.berlin.de&#x2F;sen&#x2F;wohnen&#x2F;rechtliches&#x2F;zweckentfremdun...

            [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de&#x2F;106-2025&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de&#x2F;106-2025&#x2F;

            1. usernametaken29 · 1789974013 · focus · HN ↗

               Thanks for actually proving my point! 2% of 2.07 million residential buildings is 54 thousand empty buildings. Let’s say an average number of 2 people per building. Hey, we could house 100 thousand people today. I think that would solve the annual 17 thousand growth for the coming years. And you’ve done nothing, spent nearly no money, no planning involved. Just a single law to force people to rent, and everyone will have housing. Hmm, crazy isn’t it?

               1. inglor_cz · 1789975740 · focus · HN ↗

                  It is not buildings, but apartments. And you completely la-la-ed your way around what I wrote and considered them ALL as long-term speculatively withheld apartments, while only about a THIRD of them are. Which means that only about two years&#x27; growth could be accomodated like this. Then, what? Given that the city has spent all its money on buying out old stock?

                  Zero unoccupied housing is unachievable anywhere but in a dilapidated slum, because apartments must get remodeled from time to time. If you remodel an apartment every 15 years and it takes three months (a rather optimistic timeline), you already have 1,6 per cent of the housing stock out of the market inevitably, because 3 months is 1&#x2F;60th of 15 years. If anything, only 2 per cent of the Berlin apartments being out of the market indicates that they already don&#x27;t get enough maintenance!

                  Then you have pauses between tenants. If an average tenant stays for 8 years and it takes about a month to fix the most basic things once he moves out, and find new people, then you have 1 per cent of the housing stock momentarily unoccupied just due to this. Again, Berlin having only 2 per cent of the stock out of the market indicates that the changing of tenants is already overoptimized, with not enough time to vet new ones and fix smaller things: one moves in on the heels of another.

                  Then you have a certain small percentage of apartments being part of litigations, either commercial or inheritance-related. Inevitable. Companies split, people die, and not everyone has their papers in Ordnung.

                  You seem to be claiming that all those mechanisms can be compressed to zero, and that all the apartments that are unoccupied due to them can be put on the market by fiat. How? Will you ban apartment remodeling? That&#x27;s the way to produce - fully occupied - ghettoes.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.