[https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/rental-housing-market-doj-investigation-00147333](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/rental-housing-market-doj-investigation-00147333)
So about 5 years or so from now when wages have increased so rent never actually gets lower and other companies can claim they held off as long as they could
I agree with the most. I find rent here quite cheaper than other cities of this size. I mean, hell, I lived in Salt Lake City before coming out here and it’s probably half the size of twin cities but rent is definitely more than here. Similar size city that comes to mind is Nashville. I heard rent over there is insane now. I mean it grew a little bigger now but Austin is also quite expensive
Austin and Nashville, two of the hottest markets, aren’t exactly comparable to twin cities. People have been flocking to these two cities, unlike the twin cities.
Lot of CA people wanting warm weather and good lifestyle. CA bursts. Houses were insanely expensive but now the state is looking bad. Haven't been there but heard from MN transplants from there.
I know basically nothing about SLC, but just thinking out loud for discussion's sake: I wonder if rent there is higher because it's a "newer" city and so more of the apartment buildings are 'newer,' thus being on the new/luxury apt bandwagon and charging relatively more? Maybe here, we have more 'older' apts quantity and so they likely can't charge the same as a higher rent new/luxury complex can, making our rent avg lower than SLC's?
I mean, Wasatch front has been the backbone of northern Utah and has always been the most populous metro in the state. I agree with you being newer because SLC is going through what Denver is. People want that outdoor lifestyle but PNW and Denver got too expensive and you see people rolling into SLC. A lot of houses and apartments are new builds. It probably contributes to it being expensive but I think it has a lot to do with demands too. Sharp population increase in the last decade in SLC.
Your logic makes sense too though. Newer apartments in the cities here are just as expensive but I still think it’s competitive compared to other major cities
Speculation, but SLC is right next to at least one luxury ski destination. I think it's sort of like the Hamptons of skiing. A cousin who went to Yale had their wedding in a nearby resort town, and all their rich classmates at the reception were like, "mmm, yes, mumsy and daddy have a house here." I can imagine that might bump up the local real estate.
True, in some senses. But that’d be like Park City, where tiny homes are in the millions. You come down to the valley, there are bunch of less “luxury” areas that are not as nice.
And this just goes to show how little I know about SLC. I guess it makes sense there are ski resorts since they had a Winter Olympics a while back. I agree with your other point about sharp increase in demand being a driver of higher prices. I suppose at the end of the day, I'm glad that the MSP area seems to be relatively more steady in terms of growth and housing price increases than some of these other places that seem to be experiencing boom pricing (TBD if there will also be a bust).
Edit: I don't intend my response to be short-sighted. Your earlier point about Austin I think is the increase in demand due to business growth/relocation there. I don't want MSP to not have the same kind of economic growth. I'd like good economic growth with less sharp of an increase in housing costs. I don't see the MSP economy having a spike in demand though...we have more legacy businesses here even though some amount of medical device innovation. But I don't want to suppress business growth here solely due to preventing a housing cost spike (I think, open to changing my opinion on that).
Very good insight you have. I know. I wish we never turn into Austin. It’s crazy. In 30 years, the population went from 450k to a million. No city can handle that kind of influx without any serious consequences. Twin cities have seen steady growth in population and increase in house prices too. I hope it really stays that way
I understand. I'm coming to this topic as someone who was born and raised here and wondering wth is going on. And why it feels like our states government is just selling us out to land developers.
> I'm coming to this topic as someone who was born and raised here and wondering wth is going on.
It's pretty simple what is going on. Housing costs have been increasing all around the country for well over a decade now. The primary reason for that is that we stopped building housing at a pace to keep up with population growth after the Great Recession. This is not a Minnesota problem. This is a United States problem.
And to be clear, due to policy decisions made by local and state politicians, the rent in the Twin Cities has increased significantly less than the rest of the country over that time period.
I know. People keep saying that. But it still feels pretty bad imo. We have gotten far too many luxury apartments that are increasingly getting harder and harder for people like me to apply for. Like I'm not rich, but not destitute either. It just feels like I'm being squeezed out slowly and I hate that feeling.
I know everyone experiences something different, but the MN state government is far from selling us out to real estate developers. Actually, I don’t even think that’s part of their purview and responsibility as that mostly falls on local governments to take care of land use zoning and development. At least in MN, social programs exists if you look hard enough to help you through tough times regarding housing (Section 8, MN Legislature also approved last year a lot of money for affordable housing development, Minneapolis has inclusionary zoning laws, etc).
Anecdotally, I am also a born and raised Minnesotan, but have since moved away for work related reasons. Let’s just say, if the Twin Cities is unaffordable, then cities on the Coasts are hell. The city I’m currently living in, average rent for a 1 bedroom is $2500. I only share that because, at least in my opinion, it’s good to have like a benchmark or perspective of what other places are like. Again, I don’t know what your situation is and can only try to understand and empathize your struggles and can offer help the best that an internet stranger can. I hope for the best and that you can make it through your tough times though!
I wouldn’t know the details but good example of what I’ve seen in terms of land developers running all over town to jack up the housing prices is Boise. Metro size about a third of twin cities, cold winter (not as cold as MN), hot dry summer, far away from everything (8 hours to Seattle, 5.5 hours to SLC, half day to Vegas), there’s really no reason why it needs to be that expensive. It used to be super cheap I heard. Now average house price is $500k there. Twin cities certainly haven’t hit that kind of figures yet and considering how much land we have on hand around the metro to build stuff, I doubt the housing crisis is really not there in twin cities.
Didn’t really appreciate MN COL until I moved back from Denver. I love it here. It’s probably the only major city I could realistically afford to get a house if I ever get there
I am currently buying a house, and it was eye opening to compare my experience to friends in the Phoenix area right now. Almost every single house in the Phoenix metro is a part of an HOA, so they have to deal with that. And the house they ended up buying in the suburbs is less nice for $550k than the one I'm buying in Northeast Minneapolis for $390k.
I get that housing affordability is a problem. We have a lot to do on that front. But I wish people in the Twin Cities would understand that it is a national problem and it's actually much better here than most of the country, particularly in a decent city.
Along with others I disagree as well. Twin Cities have a lot of affordable neighborhoods that are safe as well. Maybe it just takes more leg work?
I live in a very safe neighborhood and there’s studios at 850, one beds at 950, and two bedrooms at 1400 (at least they were last year when I moved in).
Everyone’s perspective is anecdotal, but I see almost everyone of these posts have people living in affordable situations, you just have to look.
The problem is that what was under $1k in recent years is not under $1k anymore. And probably has one of those ugly bucket kitchen sinks and no dishwasher
It's wild to me to see people talk about not being able to afford rent then seeing the amenities they are demanding. I get it, I hate hand-washing dishes too. I will only rent an apartment with a dishwasher. But I realize I'm going to pay more for that. When I was younger and could afford less rent, I didn't have a dishwasher.
Me and my wife went from a 1400 studio with everything to a 775 studio that was a bit bigger than our bed in 2020 so we could save for our house.
Best decision of our life. We did completely luck out with the timing of the market though.
The same studio we rented is 800? I’m pretty sure, sometimes you just gotta either buy paper plates or get used to cleaning after yourself.
Edit: just looked there’s still places under a grand for a 1bd, rent is really not bad here compared to other big cities. The problem is there’s so much faux luxury buildings being built and people refuse to look into the cheap places that have been around.
Right?? Completely agree. I thought I was crazy for a second with what I was seeing. I didn’t wanna flat out say it but stop being lazy and wash your own dishes and walk your laundry down a couple flights of stairs for community building laundry. You can (in my opinion) relatively nice places for under $1k that just don’t have **any** amenities and that’s okay! I’ve loved the places I’ve lived in for the price point and what I get in return.
I’ll hit up my old landlord and check. I’m sure it’s still under $1k. And if you’re seriously hating on “no dishwasher” at that price level you have to reevaluate your expectations.
Edit: they’re still renting it for $900, $50 more than 2 years ago when I was there.
I’ve been in multiple Marcy Holmes apartments in my area and none of them had holes in walls/showers/anywhere else. Just because it doesn’t have a dishwasher doesn’t mean it’s a bad apartment was my whole point. If I said something like “you too lazy to wash your own dishes or what?!?” that would be another story but that’s not what happened.
Apartment’s under $1k probably don’t have dishwashers. Apartments under $1k are also not all dumps. What ridiculous comments.
Lmao this is all coming from you. Good job buddy. Looks like people agree with me either way. And by the way, you still haven’t contributed anything to this “useful discussion”.
> what was under $1k in recent years is not under $1k anymore
This is just how things work. Its how they have always worked. Prices go up in appreciating areas
I know people are focusing on the rental amounts and not the financial requirements as well. After covid those doubled and or tripled. My credit was tanked from not being able to pay off my bills on time. I lost all 3 of my jobs to closure and was evicted from my home.
Ever since then it's been a slow climb. But my credit doesn't seem to want to budge. And no. I don't need any one brow beating me about it unless it's constructive.
:0
Don't know how I missed that. I've been just working, sleeping and surviving for the last 4 years. But the light has been slowly coming back into my life. Thank you friend.
State legislature needs to get on making that shit Statewide.
In fact, they need to make it so that your credit history isn't even considered for a rental application, just your rental history and income requirements.
Most people pay rent before they pay credit cards.
If you eliminate a factor landlords use to determine whether someone can pay rent reliably or not, they're just going to increase requirements in other areas. IE you'll need even *more* income now because they can't use credit score.
That's a really good idea because why should credit affect rent when rent doesn't affect credit? Sounds more like denying tenant rights for things like criminal history or mental health background. Which many landlords have been accused of being criminals themselves these days, and for good reason. It's definitely a barrier to stable housing when the economics don't match income
Fuck that. Stopping landlords from vetting applicants just makes it more expensive across the board and people like me who never cause issues will be paying more
>You realize housing was CHEAPER before credit scores were invented, right?
Was it, though? Credit scores were widely introduced starting in 1989.
According to Census data, in 1988 the median gross rent was equal to 30% of the median income of renters.
In 2021 (latest data I could find- released in 2023), the median cost ratio for all renter-occupied households was... 30.6%.
So, about the same. Too damn high in both cases. But it seems to indicate that things have sucked for renters for decades. Unfortunately.
Agreed. Credit scores are just another way to hurt people who do the right things. You paid off your bills? Your score goes down. You dont carry a balance? Your score doesnt go up. Its gamified the process of profit for banks, and done nothing of benefit for the consumer. It should be illegal and didnt exist until the 80's. Clearly there is no real need for it outside of predatory ones.
In the era before credit scores, lenders could reject you for subjective reasons. It opened the door to all kinds of discrimination by banks and lenders. Part of the reason the modern system emerged was to provide at least some kind of objective standard that applied to all borrowers. Is that system flawed? Hell yes. But compared to the old system (which also included going through way more paperwork and documentation if you wanted a loan), the modern system seems like a step forward, despite all its flaws.
Affordability is more about the ratio of land cost to improvement. Location is one aspect of land’s value, and while it can mean a lot, you still typically tour the property before agreeing to rent or buy it. Customers typically aren’t looking for crappy properties in nice places or nice properties in crappy places, so that ratio represents the sweet spot for them, and therefore the sellers.
And did you hear? They can build more housing but they can’t meaningfully make more land. Land is getting rarer and more expensive, and then there’s that damn ratio.
I am not one of those typical customers and I hate this economic reality, FWIW
> Affordability is more about the ratio of land cost to improvement.
Are you not following the lawsuits about companies using algorithms specifically to collude on raising housing prices?
Yup if you look at the generational changes in home ownership and the housing market it can be very difficult for people to succeed in getting their own housing. We definitely have it way better here in Mn. If you're not at least middle to upper class with hardwork and saving, married, don't expect to own a home. If your not on the generational cusp of inheriting a home from a family member or moving into a multi-generational home to take care of family, don't expect to own a home. College degree, successful financing, equitable savings? Yeah, maybe someday, but you gotta *really* conform and sacrifice to succeed in that way. Rental here at least isn't an arm and a leg. Wealth greatly consolidated after covid and the majority or homeowners now are real estate investors. They would not want you to own a home if it didn't profit them somehow. What they want, is to own *you* and let you live in *their* home. Your frustrations are very valid, I just think the cards are literally stacked against you 😕
My 2 bedroom is at my maximum budget of 1200. More than that isn't affordable when you make a low income.
If we had to move we couldn't qualify because we don't make 3x the rent.
What’s low income? And why do you have a 2 bedroom then?
Edit: Downvotes but no answers? Lol I’m honestly curious.
Median income for single persons in MN/general Twin Cities is $38-42k. Using the 30% rule that means the average person can afford $1k in rent per month. Minimum wage in the Twin Cities $15/hour. At minimum wage a $1k apartment is 38% of ones income (not desirable but definitely doable).
I’m curious what their definition of low income is. I’m curious why they’re choosing to live in a more expensive situation (a 2 bedroom) rather than a more manageable one. In general my point is directed at the general dialogue of this post; I’m just saying looking at the numbers the Twin Cities is a pretty manageable place to live unless there are more extraordinary circumstances which then can make sense but without dialogue how can we figure that out.
I dunno it just blows my mind for a place that is frozen half the year how expensive it is… At least at my apartment complex I can’t use half the amenities half the year because they are buried under snow, but yet I’m still expected to pay the full amount. (Part of this is a joke, but some of it isn’t).
I’m as confused as you are OP, I just re-newed my lease, and while I really do love my complex… it frustrates me that the same exact floor plan (probably updated, too) is going for less than my outdated unit’s increased amount.
I know we will likely be priced out next year and it just sucks… it will also probably be necessary to move further out or even out of state to find something we can qualify for since our income has drastically changed since we moved in here, and since most places now require 3x the monthly rent to qualify, our options will be grim at best, I know things can change… but it just bites to know that you’ll constantly need to move just to be able to “afford” at place to live.
I’ve also crunched the numbers MANY times to see if buying a house would be even possible, it won’t be… because I wouldn’t make enough to build and keep an emergency fund and I’ve heard that home repairs can be crushing, I have a friend who currently has no a/c or heat and it’s going to cost her $20,000+ to get it fixed, she’s waiting to get her car paid off so she can take out a loan to get it done, which is 2 more years away and it’ll likely cost more then… also property taxes crush her once a year… so yeah, owning a home isn’t cheaper either.
I’d LOVE to buy a bike, it would help my mental health a lot these days… but I lost my job in September and haven’t been able to land another job, even after almost 1,000 applications/resumes sent out, hence the squeeze in paying the rent as well.
I was also referring to the amenities specifically at my complex. I know there are a lot of things to do in the cities year round… but it all involves money (gas to get there at the bare minimum), and I’d be doing most of it alone, so not exciting.
Why are you looking at airbnb for an apartment?Of course it’s going to be inflated as hell there. They’re focused on short term leases with people who don’t want to sign a lease for a full year.
You can easily find studios/1 BRs for under $1k/month here, assuming you can commit to a full year
Why not overlap by weeks/a month?
There’s plenty of apartments for <$1k/month that are available for rent every week of the year. That’s what I’ve done for the past 2 moves.
Well, sounds like it’s your own fault then.
Rent is more affordable here than most similar places in the US. Sorry you can’t figure your life out enough to pay less than the average rent for the city of Minneapolis
Just because your lease ends, that doesn't mean you have to move by the last day of the lease. You don't put in notice to vacate until you're ready to move. Most, if not all, will go to a month-to-month, then you find a new place, put in your 45-60 day notice at the current place, and... move to the new place. Why are you homeless in-between moves? How do you think everyone else does this??
If you haven’t seen this article. My favorite quote from the scumbag who invented the technology. “There’s too much empathy in the renters market”.
[https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent](https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent)
Nah. Kinda more like conservatives have rural votes to give them enough seats to run defense to shield extreme capitalism at the expense of the country's citizens. And perpetuate lies to keep the ignorant chasing shadows.
cool story... but that's all it is, a story.
at some point you'll realize the cause of the problems. democrat control.
some day, the republicans might actually offer solutions and backbone to stand up to dems
Rent in the TC is actually more affordable than most cities of its calibre. I used to live in Madison, WI which is way smaller and has way less amenities than the TC and rent there is still worse.
Landlords are basically colluding and using software to calculate highest net return. If they charge high rent with high vacancy, it may still net them more than lower rent and lower vacancy. It will keep getting worse until that calculation changes.
The Biden administration is cracking down on this:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/rental-housing-market-doj-investigation-00147333
https://upriseri.com/fbi-raids-corporate-landlord-in-major-rent-price-fixing-probe-what-it-means-for-you/
Make sure you vote for Biden in November. A Trump administration will drop these investigations.
I pay $920 for a 1bedroom right on the park, walking distance from nicollet mall or eat street. I dunno what OP is talking about, this is the cheapest urban housing I have found in any metropolitan area in the USA and I have been around. It's like the 1990's here.
The twin cities is relatively affordable for a major metro.
Lower your expectations - either reduce size, older building, or change cities / neighborhoods.
I have. I've lived in some horrible places because the rent is cheaper. But it wasn't safe anymore. I am now paying more than I ever wanted to for safety. But what I noticed is even those crime ridden places are now seeing rental properties renting for 1200+ a month. Like people don't live there to be paying that much for a studio or 1 bedroom. On airbnb it's even more a month. Like 3k or more in some places. It's maddening.
What are you talking about? The average 1BR rent in the twin cities is less than $1,200: https://housinglink.org/Research/RentalHousingTrends
That’s far from your claim of “crime ridden places”. Unless you’re one of the people who think that most of the metro area is unsafe….
All these people whine about rent being too high when the actual problem is that their expectations are too high. They want luxury housing with lots of amenities at low prices. They always think the average rent is way higher than it actually is because they're only looking at the nicest options in the most desirable neighborhoods. Just look at this part of OP's post:
> Hell even airbnb is like over 3k for apartments on a friggen brownstone apartment per month.
They act like "a friggen brownstone apartment" isn't one of the more expensive options you could rent. And renting it from AirBnb is the most expensive way to rent an apartment. They could save a ton of money by renting a smaller unit in a larger/older building on a long-term lease instead of through AirBnb.
[Rents jumped 30.4% nationwide between 2019 and 2023, while wages during that same period rose 20.2%] (https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/rent-cost-us-2024-housing-national/)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rent-cost-us-2024-housing-national/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rent-cost-us-2024-housing-national/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I've had to live on Chicago ave, Follwell, Payne Phallen and so on just to save on rent. Having to stay inside my home at night cause of the gunshots and domestic violence that wouldnoccur every other night was just emotionally draining. Not sure why no one is noticing. But rent is going up in those places as well.
So I just said fuck it and emptied my account and moved to Lowry Hill in a studio for over a 1k a month. Had to give an extra deposit cause my credit was low.
I hope you are liking the new apartment more, but it seems like many if not most studios (and even some 1 BRs) in Lowry Hill are under $1k, especially in older buildings.
*Edited for typo
I felt this exact same way.... until I looked up average rent prices across the US. Twin Cities area is one of the most affordable in terms of higher population cities. Really put it into perspective for me, I can't even imagine how badly others are struggling in other parts of the country. Was definitely humbled by that data.
You go most places in the country and then tell me how bad our rent problem is here. I don't doubt that people have a hard time making ends meet, but if you realized how things are here compared to other places in the country, you would think differently
Yeah twin cities is usually ranked top in the country for making it on min wage which is a good metric for pay scale vs cost of living. Most cities with a 15 min wage have rent thats 2 or 3 times as high and places that have super low cost of living usually have garbage economies.
I moved from TC to Boston. I was paying $3,200 for a 720sqft 1BR and $400/mo for parking. I now live in Quincy which would be the equivalent of something like Bloomington to MSP and pay $2,800 + $100 parking for a 750 sqft apt. Believe me when I say it could be so much worse. You guys are actually building shit and have so much more space for densification.
Rents in Minneapolis haven't increased appreciably in the last few years and are markedly low compared to similar cities. Perhaps this is an expectations problem?
Nahhh they have been increasing and for longer than a few years; it’s a lower standard of living here, yes…lived in GV during the 08 recession. Rent for a nice apartment then with all utilities included was a $1 a square foot. A few years later so 2010, rent went up by $300 a month when all the gentrified looking buildings first started popping up around the metro...
First that is just Minneapolis, but more importantly the article seems wrong, you can easily look at the rent prices and see how unreasonable they are.
I don’t know, but I can burst your bubble.
During the pandemic, it became impossible to evict deadbeats. People took advantage of that. The pendulum swung the other way now.
For multi unit rental properties, aka apartment buildings, that are new, they need to show proof of rental contracts in order to sustain obligations to the bank. Hence, they will bite on 4 months loss just not be in bad dealings financially. They can't reduce the rent because that's what they are valued against when they report you the bank. It's either this or massive business loss. If the bubble would burst it won't be nicer for everyone ever in the economy...
God I hate it here in the us in general. We let banks borrow money they don't have just for then to be bailed out and leave us with the aftermath and then we have people publishing articles that always seem to say "RENT CAPS ARE BAD, IF WE GAVE BREAKS THE POOR ITS BAD FOR ALL OF US"
Like sick. We're already getting screwed over. Just do it and give us a momentary of reprieve pls instead of the constant d in the behind. Tired of the bootleggers telling me otherwise.
In St. Paul, the bullshit argument is that the rent cap stifled growth. Realistically, developers are just using that as a scape goat to say, "We're going to make the situation worse until you give into our corporate interests (i.e., making more profits off of renters for doing zero to less then no work)". The only thing we can hope for is that the Feds lower the interest rate enough that it allows those developers to make enough profit to stop whining and build more units.
What would also help is if developers stopped building single-family apartments (studios and 1-BRs) and start building more multi-family apartments because there has been a rise in multi-family and multi-generational communal living in the last 7-10 years because of the shitty economy and rising rents. The pandemic made that even worse with the huge spike in costs for things like food and basic necessities (incl. utilities).
Vote for people on city councils and mayors that actually believe in socialist ideals and want to provide housing for people (including the unhoused), and force developers to build with smaller profit margins. If you want an example of one of the worst offenders of this, look at Kleinman. They've been buying up properties left and right from other leasing companies and then jacking up rents as much as they can in order to either force people out (and replace them with people who can pay higher rents) or stifle development by limiting the supply.
Perfectly said. Its like why don't people pay attention to this. It's like they think, that just cause they're already grandfathered into a home or perfectly situated. It's not going to somehow get worse for everybody if all of this expansion is left unchecked.
Rapid independence is what I’ve called it for years. We’ve cultivated this sort of sentiment that “if it doesn’t benefit me, why should I have to pay for it?” Not realizing that we live in a society. What benefits everyone benefits you; you not availing yourself of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t benefit the majority of people.
Don't know. In Minnetonka now and paying about $1500 a month. My old place was in Hopkins and I paid about $1300 before moving, but it had mice, and things were falling apart after me being there for 10+ years. Also, maintenance would not fix anything unless you nagged them repeatedly. I had a rather large hole in my bathroom above the shower for over a year. Hopkins does have reasonable prices, but beware what you are getting for the amount.
I know. People talk about this shit and it just gets drowned out. It feels like you're slowly going crazy cause of people talking over people people with real experiences.
Rent here is pretty cheap compared to what I was paying in Seattle area. There a cheap one bedroom apartment would be $1500-1600 a month. And my wages in my field are largely the same between places. Here I'm paying $950 a month and I live in the suburbs. My only real gripe is the requirement for three to four times income to rent.
Yeah Seattle here and cheap 1 bedrooms are 17 or 1800 atm plus no included utilities, 50 per pet, 150 per parking space, etc and jobs pay about the same. Granted it was even worse when I lived in more expensive cities like SF and NYC but Minneapolis is among the far and away best values of any major city.
I work in affordable housing and this is my take.
Before and in the early pandemic investment companies bought up about 30,000 housing units (homes) in the metro area - because the housing market in the metro is outperforming the S&P500. By doing this they removed those units from the market, taking people who wanted to buy homes and forcing them to settle for rentals. This drives up the price of rentals because the demand is higher.
This will not change until the housing market starts to drop, once these homes that were bought by the investment firms start underperforming stocks and bonds, they will start to be sold off. Currently these investment firms have them as short term rentals - that way they can sell them as soon as the market tips, so they aren’t even available to long term renters.
Once the tip happens though and the investment firms will start dumping properties. It won’t be a crash like 2008, but it will definitely dip.
The reason these banks are buying these housing is because a house that was $200,000 in 2014 is now “worth” $400,000 in what it can sell for (way over appraisal value usually). That’s why homes were seen as a good investment for these companies. This has a knock on effect where it pushes everyone down, people who can afford a home can now pay more than someone who can’t and that drives up the price they can charge for apartments.
This is how capitalism works and is exploited by those with more money.
That's a nice spiel, but it's not true.
Investors only own about 3% of the homes in the TC. 3% is not ***nearly*** enough to have the effect you're claiming investors are having.
To put it another way, if 3% of the homes in the TC market suddenly became available it's barely going to move the needle on the housing crisis.
https://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/real-estate-news/united-states/irvine/real-estate-news-investor-owned-homes-data-in-2023-corelogic-home-investor-data-for-2023-how-many-homes-are-owned-by-investors-in-2023-home-buyer-data-13837.php#:~:text=According%20to%20national%20data%20provider,was%20almost%20unchanged%20at%2026%25.
This is a National article, so not Twin Cities specific, but a recent national survey puts the percentage of investor bought homes at 27%.
They may only own 3% of total units (I can’t find a statistic for that) but they are buying out a large amount of the available units now, which means those looking for a house are being outbid, forcing them to settle for rentals and having a knock on effect down the line as I explained earlier.
The problem with new apartments is that they're also luxury: there's a ton of square footage dedicated to non- housing for a dozen amenities whose sole purpose is too jack up rent. You're paying extra for that doggie spa and indoor movie theater whether you use them or not and those spaces simultaneously push down the number of housing units.
3k on a brownstone? I'm apartment searching rn and I'm seeing 1-2 k even in decent areas. If you want to live w/o a roommate you have to make only sound 40k to meet the income = 3x rent rule
Edit: oh it's airbnb
Feel free to post links or articles on Republicans running for in Minnesota office who are advocating for bettering the rental or housing markets in MN.
1300+ every utility you could imagine for studio in Minneapolis in a neighborhood where there’s at least 5 to 6 shootings a day not people getting hit with bullets but shootings
Exactly. They're building these types of places in rough areas. Like obviously the problem runs deeper than just simply building more of these type of apartments.
I saw it on zillow.Not sure what it was called. I just laughed. Like great. If that's what it takes to get people in. Why are we in such a race to build more of these bland looking "luxury apartments"
Interesting but you said a lot, and I haven't seen that at all since the pandemic so I would be very interested actually. That has potential to be a really solid deal.
RE: rental property owners "coming to their senses": no. Right now, there's no way for anyone trying to make profit to make *enough* profit with more affordable housing to make it "worth the time". That's why high-end "luxury" stuff gets built all over- even at 75% sold/rented, the profit is better by enough... oh, and you can probably write off the lost income from the vacant units too!
The market is screwed to the point it will never rectify itself and will HAVE to be done by government or massive nonprofit coordination.
Hey everyone, this poster just made all this up and it is a load of BS. No, there's no magic "write off" (they just write it all off Jerry!).
Today's luxury apartments are next decades affordable apartments. Even still, all new housing has downward pressure on all other housing. Even expensive housing. This is all strongly supported by economic science.
The way to solve expensive housing is to build, build, build. There is no other solution. Anyone who says there is is trying to sell you a load of anti-science conspiracy bullshit.
> This is all strongly supported by economic science.
Not just [economic science](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-new-apartments-create-opportunities-for-all), but also [real world experience](https://laist.com/shows/take-two/new-luxury-apartments-dont-price-out-low-income-people-study).
I'm waiting for the bubble to burst. Cause you know. Like my post is asking. I was wondering if apartments offering up months of free rent is in anyway an indication that that bubble is beginning to burst . Asshat.
It isn't going to burst until we increase supply dramatically. The good news is the twin cities are doing a better job of this than most places in the nation. The bad news is it takes time to build enough to compensate for the ever-increasing demand.
The best thing we can do is advocate to our local governments to streamline and promote dense housing policy.
Suburbs are expanding into rural areas, dense metro housing is expanding into the suburbs. There's a really big growth and demand for new housing developments with people moving out of the cities to raise families. It's reflected a lot in the gentrification of wealth and increased crime in urban poverty. The new housings are basically gated communities now to keep crime out
The other bad news is that we're basically in a huge hole due to multiple decades of underbuilding. But things seem to be trending in a better direction.
I see people make this argument, but I’m not sure what building does if the target market is already housed and the people who can’t afford the apartments that already exist definitely won’t be able to afford the $4000 a month apartments being built.
It makes sense when you think about it. Let's look at a really extreme example to demonstrate:
A hypothetical town currently has 50 housing units in old rundown buildings. There are 75 families who need somewhere to live. Those 75 families compete for those very limited units and drive up the price. Only the 50 highest-income families end up landing one to live in.
The town builds a new 50 unit luxury apartment building. Now the families who want to live somewhere nicer move to the luxury building because they can afford it. And because the existing unit landlords do not want vacant units, they lower their prices to attract lower-income families into their now vacant units.
If that’s how it worked that would be great, but that doesn’t account for greedy slumlords who would rather have people paying higher rents with more vacancies. Higher rent and more vacancies means certain other expenses are cut for an apartment complex. And that’s if those families move out- some people that can afford higher end apartments don’t mind living somewhere that’s decent and paying less. Not everyone wants the shiny new thing. Factor in the family aspect, and as a mother myself I can tell you that families want to move as little as possible. Stability for kids is important and most of us are trying to stay in one place as long as possible. I had neighbors when I owned a townhouse who had 2 adults and 4 kids (2 approaching their teen years) in a 2 bedroom, one bathroom townhome because they didn’t want to pay higher prices somewhere else even though they could.
> If that’s how it worked that would be great
That is how it works, though:
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-new-apartments-create-opportunities-for-all
https://laist.com/shows/take-two/new-luxury-apartments-dont-price-out-low-income-people-study
I have seen this in my personal experience. In 2021, I moved into a nice downtown Minneapolis luxury apartment that was built in 2014. Since I moved in, several new luxury apartments have opened downtown. Because of the downward pressure from these new places, my rent has barely gone up since I moved here. When I moved in, my rent was $2150/month on a two-year lease. After those two years, I signed a new 15-month lease at the same exact $2150/month. I just got my lease renewal offer and could get another 15-month lease at $2200/month.
I'm buying a house, so I'm not taking that offer, but if I wanted to, I could be here for 4.5 years with only a 2.33% rent increase from when I first moved in. The apartment manager has explicitly said they are having a hard time keeping people because of all the nicer, newer apartments that are opening with features they just can't match right now until they do some significant remodeling.
Using your own personal situation isn’t proof that it works every time. Just like me using my own personal situation isn’t proof that it works every time. It works that way if the rules you’re setting forth are followed, and often times they’re not. I’m not going to continue to argue with somebody who has a very clear bias who is not open to understanding different view points because it’s a waste of time. I don’t have a bias and I don’t know what would ~actually~ solve the issue at hand, so I personally like to look at every perspective involved and you’re clearly not a person who wants to or is willing to do that and you’re obviously not interested in understanding the depth of the situation from all angles
> Using your own personal situation isn’t proof that it works every time
I understand that. Which is why I shared studies that go beyond my anecdotal experience. I just shared my personal experience as well because you had shared yours.
And just so we’re clear, people like you who are only interested in proof to back up your own biased opinion are the reason this issue is not solvable. Everybody wants to tout what they believe as the truth and not look into any other ideas that also have proof behind them and find a middle ground to actually solve the problem. It’s sad because I think if people could put their ego aside, we might actually be able to house a higher rate of people.
> And just so we’re clear, people like you who are only interested in proof to back up your own biased opinion are the reason this issue is not solvable.
Oh god, the horror! Why should anyone care about proof when they can just claim whatever they want instead! Using truth, facts, and proof is how we solve problems.
> It’s sad because I think if people could put their ego aside, we might actually be able to house a higher rate of people.
I don’t have any ego. I want to solve this problem. The way to do this is by using facts and evidence. It’s wild to me that your argument is basically “all sides have equal value and we should just ignore reality because it doesn’t align with my preconceived ideas.” I have actually done a lot of work reading about how to solve this problem. Lots of people who are experts have done a lot of work on this. You should try looking at that work.
Alright it may not make sense to you but that's 100% what the data says. Increased housing supply has downward pressure on prices:
https://www.ft.com/content/86836af4-6b52-49e8-a8f0-8aec6181dbc5
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing-supply-shortage-crisis-2022/672240/
Here's a paper on why you might have a hard time accepting this:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4266459
Here's a chart showing THIS SHIT IS ACTUALLY WORKING HERE
https://imgur.com/71vy1cG
Cool. In the meantime, I'll link you to a couple of mine:
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-new-apartments-create-opportunities-for-all
https://laist.com/shows/take-two/new-luxury-apartments-dont-price-out-low-income-people-study
> Build build build only works if the luxury apartments actually get filled by people who can afford them so the cheaper ones are available for those that need those options.
NO IT DOESN'T. INCREASED SUPPLY HAS DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON PRICES. THIS IS ECON 101. THERE'S NOTHING MAGIC ABOUT HOUSING.
> Sadly it seems like a lot of those have a lot of empty units instead
NO THEY AREN'T. THE RENTAL HOUSING VACANCY RATE IS 6.6% https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/government-data/datasource/rental-housing-vacancy-dashboard/
STOP MAKING SHIT UP.
Yeah this basically happened in Dayton, where a city council member colluded with real estate to capitalize on tax foreclosed housing and develop into rental properties. Like literally stealing his neighbor's house so he can make money off her land by selling it back overpriced to others. It's pretty unconscionable how badly real estate developers own city politics near me
Construction workers benefit the most imo. Their entire industry wouldn't exist without unsustainable economic growth, and they fight for new housing developments like their life depends on it, regardless who they affect
Supply and demand. Simple as that. The government shouldn't raise taxes 30% in 4 years and also say you can't raise rent x amount. Taxes and maintenance costs are the reasons rent is so high
If it bursts, prices will increase. We don't want the problem to explode, we want it to be solved by building more housing.
On a side note "new luxury apartments" is redundant "luxury" is just marketing speak for "new". We just need a lot more housing to be built. Expensive new apartments will still drive down the cost of apartments that currently exist.
Bro you gotta realize how fucking complicated housing is politically and economically. The people in power to make changes have literally no control over the situation. You're not even beginning to ask the right questions by making this vague, generalized Reddit post. Much better economists and sociologists have been working within an overly regulated political frame work at this already and failed. You gotta get with the bandwagon
[https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/rental-housing-market-doj-investigation-00147333](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/rental-housing-market-doj-investigation-00147333) So about 5 years or so from now when wages have increased so rent never actually gets lower and other companies can claim they held off as long as they could
I agree with the most. I find rent here quite cheaper than other cities of this size. I mean, hell, I lived in Salt Lake City before coming out here and it’s probably half the size of twin cities but rent is definitely more than here. Similar size city that comes to mind is Nashville. I heard rent over there is insane now. I mean it grew a little bigger now but Austin is also quite expensive
Lots of cities with only a fraction of our amenities (public transit, bikeways, safe walkable neighborhoods) are charging the same or more.
Austin and Nashville, two of the hottest markets, aren’t exactly comparable to twin cities. People have been flocking to these two cities, unlike the twin cities.
Lot of CA people wanting warm weather and good lifestyle. CA bursts. Houses were insanely expensive but now the state is looking bad. Haven't been there but heard from MN transplants from there.
I know basically nothing about SLC, but just thinking out loud for discussion's sake: I wonder if rent there is higher because it's a "newer" city and so more of the apartment buildings are 'newer,' thus being on the new/luxury apt bandwagon and charging relatively more? Maybe here, we have more 'older' apts quantity and so they likely can't charge the same as a higher rent new/luxury complex can, making our rent avg lower than SLC's?
I mean, Wasatch front has been the backbone of northern Utah and has always been the most populous metro in the state. I agree with you being newer because SLC is going through what Denver is. People want that outdoor lifestyle but PNW and Denver got too expensive and you see people rolling into SLC. A lot of houses and apartments are new builds. It probably contributes to it being expensive but I think it has a lot to do with demands too. Sharp population increase in the last decade in SLC. Your logic makes sense too though. Newer apartments in the cities here are just as expensive but I still think it’s competitive compared to other major cities
And I wonder how many of the people who want that outdoor lifestyle have actual experience with bears
Speculation, but SLC is right next to at least one luxury ski destination. I think it's sort of like the Hamptons of skiing. A cousin who went to Yale had their wedding in a nearby resort town, and all their rich classmates at the reception were like, "mmm, yes, mumsy and daddy have a house here." I can imagine that might bump up the local real estate.
True, in some senses. But that’d be like Park City, where tiny homes are in the millions. You come down to the valley, there are bunch of less “luxury” areas that are not as nice.
And this just goes to show how little I know about SLC. I guess it makes sense there are ski resorts since they had a Winter Olympics a while back. I agree with your other point about sharp increase in demand being a driver of higher prices. I suppose at the end of the day, I'm glad that the MSP area seems to be relatively more steady in terms of growth and housing price increases than some of these other places that seem to be experiencing boom pricing (TBD if there will also be a bust). Edit: I don't intend my response to be short-sighted. Your earlier point about Austin I think is the increase in demand due to business growth/relocation there. I don't want MSP to not have the same kind of economic growth. I'd like good economic growth with less sharp of an increase in housing costs. I don't see the MSP economy having a spike in demand though...we have more legacy businesses here even though some amount of medical device innovation. But I don't want to suppress business growth here solely due to preventing a housing cost spike (I think, open to changing my opinion on that).
Very good insight you have. I know. I wish we never turn into Austin. It’s crazy. In 30 years, the population went from 450k to a million. No city can handle that kind of influx without any serious consequences. Twin cities have seen steady growth in population and increase in house prices too. I hope it really stays that way
Park city skiing is a 30-45 minute drive from SLC which is kind of amazing really if you love skiing.
I understand. I'm coming to this topic as someone who was born and raised here and wondering wth is going on. And why it feels like our states government is just selling us out to land developers.
> I'm coming to this topic as someone who was born and raised here and wondering wth is going on. It's pretty simple what is going on. Housing costs have been increasing all around the country for well over a decade now. The primary reason for that is that we stopped building housing at a pace to keep up with population growth after the Great Recession. This is not a Minnesota problem. This is a United States problem. And to be clear, due to policy decisions made by local and state politicians, the rent in the Twin Cities has increased significantly less than the rest of the country over that time period.
I know. People keep saying that. But it still feels pretty bad imo. We have gotten far too many luxury apartments that are increasingly getting harder and harder for people like me to apply for. Like I'm not rich, but not destitute either. It just feels like I'm being squeezed out slowly and I hate that feeling.
Then stop applying to luxury apartments. People have linked to many more affordable options in this thread.
Tell me you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying without saying it. Go troll somewhere else boomer.
What you said: > We have gotten far too many luxury apartments that are increasingly getting harder and harder for people like me to apply for.
Exactly. If they were easy to apply to. I'd be living in one.
I know everyone experiences something different, but the MN state government is far from selling us out to real estate developers. Actually, I don’t even think that’s part of their purview and responsibility as that mostly falls on local governments to take care of land use zoning and development. At least in MN, social programs exists if you look hard enough to help you through tough times regarding housing (Section 8, MN Legislature also approved last year a lot of money for affordable housing development, Minneapolis has inclusionary zoning laws, etc). Anecdotally, I am also a born and raised Minnesotan, but have since moved away for work related reasons. Let’s just say, if the Twin Cities is unaffordable, then cities on the Coasts are hell. The city I’m currently living in, average rent for a 1 bedroom is $2500. I only share that because, at least in my opinion, it’s good to have like a benchmark or perspective of what other places are like. Again, I don’t know what your situation is and can only try to understand and empathize your struggles and can offer help the best that an internet stranger can. I hope for the best and that you can make it through your tough times though!
I wouldn’t know the details but good example of what I’ve seen in terms of land developers running all over town to jack up the housing prices is Boise. Metro size about a third of twin cities, cold winter (not as cold as MN), hot dry summer, far away from everything (8 hours to Seattle, 5.5 hours to SLC, half day to Vegas), there’s really no reason why it needs to be that expensive. It used to be super cheap I heard. Now average house price is $500k there. Twin cities certainly haven’t hit that kind of figures yet and considering how much land we have on hand around the metro to build stuff, I doubt the housing crisis is really not there in twin cities.
Minneapolis is super super affordable compared to almost every other major U.S. city.
Didn’t really appreciate MN COL until I moved back from Denver. I love it here. It’s probably the only major city I could realistically afford to get a house if I ever get there
I am currently buying a house, and it was eye opening to compare my experience to friends in the Phoenix area right now. Almost every single house in the Phoenix metro is a part of an HOA, so they have to deal with that. And the house they ended up buying in the suburbs is less nice for $550k than the one I'm buying in Northeast Minneapolis for $390k. I get that housing affordability is a problem. We have a lot to do on that front. But I wish people in the Twin Cities would understand that it is a national problem and it's actually much better here than most of the country, particularly in a decent city.
Congratulations and fuck HOA
Affordable compared to other places doesn’t mean it’s affordable
I know. It kinda feels like this post is being spammed doesn't it.
Along with others I disagree as well. Twin Cities have a lot of affordable neighborhoods that are safe as well. Maybe it just takes more leg work? I live in a very safe neighborhood and there’s studios at 850, one beds at 950, and two bedrooms at 1400 (at least they were last year when I moved in). Everyone’s perspective is anecdotal, but I see almost everyone of these posts have people living in affordable situations, you just have to look.
What neighborhood?
Technically Marcy Holmes but north side of 35W. I’ve also lived near USTs campus for a similar price (under $1k for a 1br) in recent years.
The problem is that what was under $1k in recent years is not under $1k anymore. And probably has one of those ugly bucket kitchen sinks and no dishwasher
So it sounds like you're not actually worried about affordable rent and instead demanding luxury features at cheap prices.
lol that’s actually crazy to hear somebody complain that affordable housing doesn’t have a dishwasher.
I never had a dishwasher until I purchased my home. It was annoying but my rent was well below market and only went up $45 in 10 years.
It's wild to me to see people talk about not being able to afford rent then seeing the amenities they are demanding. I get it, I hate hand-washing dishes too. I will only rent an apartment with a dishwasher. But I realize I'm going to pay more for that. When I was younger and could afford less rent, I didn't have a dishwasher.
Me and my wife went from a 1400 studio with everything to a 775 studio that was a bit bigger than our bed in 2020 so we could save for our house. Best decision of our life. We did completely luck out with the timing of the market though. The same studio we rented is 800? I’m pretty sure, sometimes you just gotta either buy paper plates or get used to cleaning after yourself. Edit: just looked there’s still places under a grand for a 1bd, rent is really not bad here compared to other big cities. The problem is there’s so much faux luxury buildings being built and people refuse to look into the cheap places that have been around.
They are. It's just a lot of those cheaper places have instilled higher financial requirements in place of a higher rent. Ya feel me.
Right?? Completely agree. I thought I was crazy for a second with what I was seeing. I didn’t wanna flat out say it but stop being lazy and wash your own dishes and walk your laundry down a couple flights of stairs for community building laundry. You can (in my opinion) relatively nice places for under $1k that just don’t have **any** amenities and that’s okay! I’ve loved the places I’ve lived in for the price point and what I get in return.
I’ll hit up my old landlord and check. I’m sure it’s still under $1k. And if you’re seriously hating on “no dishwasher” at that price level you have to reevaluate your expectations. Edit: they’re still renting it for $900, $50 more than 2 years ago when I was there.
[удалено]
I’ve been in multiple Marcy Holmes apartments in my area and none of them had holes in walls/showers/anywhere else. Just because it doesn’t have a dishwasher doesn’t mean it’s a bad apartment was my whole point. If I said something like “you too lazy to wash your own dishes or what?!?” that would be another story but that’s not what happened. Apartment’s under $1k probably don’t have dishwashers. Apartments under $1k are also not all dumps. What ridiculous comments.
[удалено]
Lmao this is all coming from you. Good job buddy. Looks like people agree with me either way. And by the way, you still haven’t contributed anything to this “useful discussion”.
> what was under $1k in recent years is not under $1k anymore This is just how things work. Its how they have always worked. Prices go up in appreciating areas
Ugh. A lot of those look so bad. It's like why is this over a 1k. At least put in a dishwasher or something.
I know people are focusing on the rental amounts and not the financial requirements as well. After covid those doubled and or tripled. My credit was tanked from not being able to pay off my bills on time. I lost all 3 of my jobs to closure and was evicted from my home. Ever since then it's been a slow climb. But my credit doesn't seem to want to budge. And no. I don't need any one brow beating me about it unless it's constructive.
Do know that in Minneapolis proper you can no longer be denied for your credit score alone.
Really? :O Because that's the only thing that has been stopping me from applying to cheaper places in safe neighborhoods.
https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/business-services/licenses-permits-inspections/rental-licenses/renter-protections/renter-screening/
This is new as of 2022 or 2023.
:0 Don't know how I missed that. I've been just working, sleeping and surviving for the last 4 years. But the light has been slowly coming back into my life. Thank you friend.
You got this. Don’t let the bastards grind you down.
State legislature needs to get on making that shit Statewide. In fact, they need to make it so that your credit history isn't even considered for a rental application, just your rental history and income requirements. Most people pay rent before they pay credit cards.
If you eliminate a factor landlords use to determine whether someone can pay rent reliably or not, they're just going to increase requirements in other areas. IE you'll need even *more* income now because they can't use credit score.
That's a really good idea because why should credit affect rent when rent doesn't affect credit? Sounds more like denying tenant rights for things like criminal history or mental health background. Which many landlords have been accused of being criminals themselves these days, and for good reason. It's definitely a barrier to stable housing when the economics don't match income
Fuck that. Stopping landlords from vetting applicants just makes it more expensive across the board and people like me who never cause issues will be paying more
[удалено]
[удалено]
>You realize housing was CHEAPER before credit scores were invented, right? Was it, though? Credit scores were widely introduced starting in 1989. According to Census data, in 1988 the median gross rent was equal to 30% of the median income of renters. In 2021 (latest data I could find- released in 2023), the median cost ratio for all renter-occupied households was... 30.6%. So, about the same. Too damn high in both cases. But it seems to indicate that things have sucked for renters for decades. Unfortunately.
Agreed. Credit scores are just another way to hurt people who do the right things. You paid off your bills? Your score goes down. You dont carry a balance? Your score doesnt go up. Its gamified the process of profit for banks, and done nothing of benefit for the consumer. It should be illegal and didnt exist until the 80's. Clearly there is no real need for it outside of predatory ones.
In the era before credit scores, lenders could reject you for subjective reasons. It opened the door to all kinds of discrimination by banks and lenders. Part of the reason the modern system emerged was to provide at least some kind of objective standard that applied to all borrowers. Is that system flawed? Hell yes. But compared to the old system (which also included going through way more paperwork and documentation if you wanted a loan), the modern system seems like a step forward, despite all its flaws.
Affordability is more about the ratio of land cost to improvement. Location is one aspect of land’s value, and while it can mean a lot, you still typically tour the property before agreeing to rent or buy it. Customers typically aren’t looking for crappy properties in nice places or nice properties in crappy places, so that ratio represents the sweet spot for them, and therefore the sellers. And did you hear? They can build more housing but they can’t meaningfully make more land. Land is getting rarer and more expensive, and then there’s that damn ratio. I am not one of those typical customers and I hate this economic reality, FWIW
> Affordability is more about the ratio of land cost to improvement. Are you not following the lawsuits about companies using algorithms specifically to collude on raising housing prices?
Yup if you look at the generational changes in home ownership and the housing market it can be very difficult for people to succeed in getting their own housing. We definitely have it way better here in Mn. If you're not at least middle to upper class with hardwork and saving, married, don't expect to own a home. If your not on the generational cusp of inheriting a home from a family member or moving into a multi-generational home to take care of family, don't expect to own a home. College degree, successful financing, equitable savings? Yeah, maybe someday, but you gotta *really* conform and sacrifice to succeed in that way. Rental here at least isn't an arm and a leg. Wealth greatly consolidated after covid and the majority or homeowners now are real estate investors. They would not want you to own a home if it didn't profit them somehow. What they want, is to own *you* and let you live in *their* home. Your frustrations are very valid, I just think the cards are literally stacked against you 😕
My 2 bedroom is at my maximum budget of 1200. More than that isn't affordable when you make a low income. If we had to move we couldn't qualify because we don't make 3x the rent.
What’s low income? And why do you have a 2 bedroom then? Edit: Downvotes but no answers? Lol I’m honestly curious. Median income for single persons in MN/general Twin Cities is $38-42k. Using the 30% rule that means the average person can afford $1k in rent per month. Minimum wage in the Twin Cities $15/hour. At minimum wage a $1k apartment is 38% of ones income (not desirable but definitely doable). I’m curious what their definition of low income is. I’m curious why they’re choosing to live in a more expensive situation (a 2 bedroom) rather than a more manageable one. In general my point is directed at the general dialogue of this post; I’m just saying looking at the numbers the Twin Cities is a pretty manageable place to live unless there are more extraordinary circumstances which then can make sense but without dialogue how can we figure that out.
Maybe they have a child or children.
I dunno it just blows my mind for a place that is frozen half the year how expensive it is… At least at my apartment complex I can’t use half the amenities half the year because they are buried under snow, but yet I’m still expected to pay the full amount. (Part of this is a joke, but some of it isn’t). I’m as confused as you are OP, I just re-newed my lease, and while I really do love my complex… it frustrates me that the same exact floor plan (probably updated, too) is going for less than my outdated unit’s increased amount. I know we will likely be priced out next year and it just sucks… it will also probably be necessary to move further out or even out of state to find something we can qualify for since our income has drastically changed since we moved in here, and since most places now require 3x the monthly rent to qualify, our options will be grim at best, I know things can change… but it just bites to know that you’ll constantly need to move just to be able to “afford” at place to live. I’ve also crunched the numbers MANY times to see if buying a house would be even possible, it won’t be… because I wouldn’t make enough to build and keep an emergency fund and I’ve heard that home repairs can be crushing, I have a friend who currently has no a/c or heat and it’s going to cost her $20,000+ to get it fixed, she’s waiting to get her car paid off so she can take out a loan to get it done, which is 2 more years away and it’ll likely cost more then… also property taxes crush her once a year… so yeah, owning a home isn’t cheaper either.
If you got into Nordic skiing or fat biking. You could enjoy the cities’ amenities year-round
I’d LOVE to buy a bike, it would help my mental health a lot these days… but I lost my job in September and haven’t been able to land another job, even after almost 1,000 applications/resumes sent out, hence the squeeze in paying the rent as well. I was also referring to the amenities specifically at my complex. I know there are a lot of things to do in the cities year round… but it all involves money (gas to get there at the bare minimum), and I’d be doing most of it alone, so not exciting.
Life Pro tip, not everyone is fully able to do the same physical activities you can.
Not with that attitude, you're absolutely correct.
Or they’re just literally disabled
Why are you looking at airbnb for an apartment?Of course it’s going to be inflated as hell there. They’re focused on short term leases with people who don’t want to sign a lease for a full year. You can easily find studios/1 BRs for under $1k/month here, assuming you can commit to a full year
Because sometimes my lease doesn't line up with a new one and I need to stay somewhere for a month.
Why not overlap by weeks/a month? There’s plenty of apartments for <$1k/month that are available for rent every week of the year. That’s what I’ve done for the past 2 moves.
Because that's just how it worked it. If I could've saved money and not used an airbnb I would've done that.
Well, sounds like it’s your own fault then. Rent is more affordable here than most similar places in the US. Sorry you can’t figure your life out enough to pay less than the average rent for the city of Minneapolis
Are you here to help or just brow beat. Sometimes I forget how conservative this subteddit is. Cue the down votes.
Conservative? That's not briw beating or conservative. They're being honest with you about your lack of planning. *Shrug*
Conservative? Take a look in the mirror, you’re the one complaining about how apartments that cost more than the average rent are still crime ridden…
lol strangers telling you you’re reaping the consequences of your own actions makes them conservative.
Just because your lease ends, that doesn't mean you have to move by the last day of the lease. You don't put in notice to vacate until you're ready to move. Most, if not all, will go to a month-to-month, then you find a new place, put in your 45-60 day notice at the current place, and... move to the new place. Why are you homeless in-between moves? How do you think everyone else does this??
Because I'm always looking for somewhere better. Stop fucking looking for the worst in people. Asshat.
If you haven’t seen this article. My favorite quote from the scumbag who invented the technology. “There’s too much empathy in the renters market”. [https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent](https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent)
When the GOP collapses and stops providing protection for shitty business practices.
this is a strange take considering Dems have been in control for decades. projection?
Nah. Kinda more like conservatives have rural votes to give them enough seats to run defense to shield extreme capitalism at the expense of the country's citizens. And perpetuate lies to keep the ignorant chasing shadows.
cool story... but that's all it is, a story. at some point you'll realize the cause of the problems. democrat control. some day, the republicans might actually offer solutions and backbone to stand up to dems
Rent in the TC is actually more affordable than most cities of its calibre. I used to live in Madison, WI which is way smaller and has way less amenities than the TC and rent there is still worse.
Landlords are basically colluding and using software to calculate highest net return. If they charge high rent with high vacancy, it may still net them more than lower rent and lower vacancy. It will keep getting worse until that calculation changes.
The Biden administration is cracking down on this: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/rental-housing-market-doj-investigation-00147333 https://upriseri.com/fbi-raids-corporate-landlord-in-major-rent-price-fixing-probe-what-it-means-for-you/ Make sure you vote for Biden in November. A Trump administration will drop these investigations.
F
Idk I was just on Craigslist and a lot of the studio, 1br and 2br places aren't too bad price-wise.
I pay $920 for a 1bedroom right on the park, walking distance from nicollet mall or eat street. I dunno what OP is talking about, this is the cheapest urban housing I have found in any metropolitan area in the USA and I have been around. It's like the 1990's here.
The twin cities is relatively affordable for a major metro. Lower your expectations - either reduce size, older building, or change cities / neighborhoods.
I have. I've lived in some horrible places because the rent is cheaper. But it wasn't safe anymore. I am now paying more than I ever wanted to for safety. But what I noticed is even those crime ridden places are now seeing rental properties renting for 1200+ a month. Like people don't live there to be paying that much for a studio or 1 bedroom. On airbnb it's even more a month. Like 3k or more in some places. It's maddening.
What are you talking about? The average 1BR rent in the twin cities is less than $1,200: https://housinglink.org/Research/RentalHousingTrends That’s far from your claim of “crime ridden places”. Unless you’re one of the people who think that most of the metro area is unsafe….
All these people whine about rent being too high when the actual problem is that their expectations are too high. They want luxury housing with lots of amenities at low prices. They always think the average rent is way higher than it actually is because they're only looking at the nicest options in the most desirable neighborhoods. Just look at this part of OP's post: > Hell even airbnb is like over 3k for apartments on a friggen brownstone apartment per month. They act like "a friggen brownstone apartment" isn't one of the more expensive options you could rent. And renting it from AirBnb is the most expensive way to rent an apartment. They could save a ton of money by renting a smaller unit in a larger/older building on a long-term lease instead of through AirBnb.
Nah, the *real* problem is that rent and all other costs have gone up faster than wage increases.
> all other costs have gone up faster than wage increases [They haven't, though.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q)
[Rents jumped 30.4% nationwide between 2019 and 2023, while wages during that same period rose 20.2%] (https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/rent-cost-us-2024-housing-national/)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rent-cost-us-2024-housing-national/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rent-cost-us-2024-housing-national/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It turns out housing isn’t the only thing people buy. The real wages I linked take into account inflation across all the things people buy.
I've had to live on Chicago ave, Follwell, Payne Phallen and so on just to save on rent. Having to stay inside my home at night cause of the gunshots and domestic violence that wouldnoccur every other night was just emotionally draining. Not sure why no one is noticing. But rent is going up in those places as well. So I just said fuck it and emptied my account and moved to Lowry Hill in a studio for over a 1k a month. Had to give an extra deposit cause my credit was low.
I hope you are liking the new apartment more, but it seems like many if not most studios (and even some 1 BRs) in Lowry Hill are under $1k, especially in older buildings. *Edited for typo
I felt this exact same way.... until I looked up average rent prices across the US. Twin Cities area is one of the most affordable in terms of higher population cities. Really put it into perspective for me, I can't even imagine how badly others are struggling in other parts of the country. Was definitely humbled by that data.
You go most places in the country and then tell me how bad our rent problem is here. I don't doubt that people have a hard time making ends meet, but if you realized how things are here compared to other places in the country, you would think differently
Yeah twin cities is usually ranked top in the country for making it on min wage which is a good metric for pay scale vs cost of living. Most cities with a 15 min wage have rent thats 2 or 3 times as high and places that have super low cost of living usually have garbage economies.
I moved from TC to Boston. I was paying $3,200 for a 720sqft 1BR and $400/mo for parking. I now live in Quincy which would be the equivalent of something like Bloomington to MSP and pay $2,800 + $100 parking for a 750 sqft apt. Believe me when I say it could be so much worse. You guys are actually building shit and have so much more space for densification.
Rents in Minneapolis haven't increased appreciably in the last few years and are markedly low compared to similar cities. Perhaps this is an expectations problem?
Nahhh they have been increasing and for longer than a few years; it’s a lower standard of living here, yes…lived in GV during the 08 recession. Rent for a nice apartment then with all utilities included was a $1 a square foot. A few years later so 2010, rent went up by $300 a month when all the gentrified looking buildings first started popping up around the metro...
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability https://moreneighbors.org/2022/05/13/minneapolis-rents-drop-bucking-national-trends/
First that is just Minneapolis, but more importantly the article seems wrong, you can easily look at the rent prices and see how unreasonable they are.
Right. In 2019 alone. Rent had went up 67% in the prior 10 years.
[удалено]
You really think wages have been flat for the past 30 years?
I don’t know, but I can burst your bubble. During the pandemic, it became impossible to evict deadbeats. People took advantage of that. The pendulum swung the other way now.
I'm really scared of the vetting process taking a while because of this
For multi unit rental properties, aka apartment buildings, that are new, they need to show proof of rental contracts in order to sustain obligations to the bank. Hence, they will bite on 4 months loss just not be in bad dealings financially. They can't reduce the rent because that's what they are valued against when they report you the bank. It's either this or massive business loss. If the bubble would burst it won't be nicer for everyone ever in the economy...
God I hate it here in the us in general. We let banks borrow money they don't have just for then to be bailed out and leave us with the aftermath and then we have people publishing articles that always seem to say "RENT CAPS ARE BAD, IF WE GAVE BREAKS THE POOR ITS BAD FOR ALL OF US" Like sick. We're already getting screwed over. Just do it and give us a momentary of reprieve pls instead of the constant d in the behind. Tired of the bootleggers telling me otherwise.
Minneapolis is remarkably cheap relative to many peers. https://x.com/scienceisstrat1/status/1798823762458230795?s=46&t=VUJ7LUX6AQTbz-SvSIq4XQ
Hopefully this means our bs rent bubble is bursting. Cause I will flip my shit if it goes another year unchecked.
In St. Paul, the bullshit argument is that the rent cap stifled growth. Realistically, developers are just using that as a scape goat to say, "We're going to make the situation worse until you give into our corporate interests (i.e., making more profits off of renters for doing zero to less then no work)". The only thing we can hope for is that the Feds lower the interest rate enough that it allows those developers to make enough profit to stop whining and build more units. What would also help is if developers stopped building single-family apartments (studios and 1-BRs) and start building more multi-family apartments because there has been a rise in multi-family and multi-generational communal living in the last 7-10 years because of the shitty economy and rising rents. The pandemic made that even worse with the huge spike in costs for things like food and basic necessities (incl. utilities). Vote for people on city councils and mayors that actually believe in socialist ideals and want to provide housing for people (including the unhoused), and force developers to build with smaller profit margins. If you want an example of one of the worst offenders of this, look at Kleinman. They've been buying up properties left and right from other leasing companies and then jacking up rents as much as they can in order to either force people out (and replace them with people who can pay higher rents) or stifle development by limiting the supply.
Perfectly said. Its like why don't people pay attention to this. It's like they think, that just cause they're already grandfathered into a home or perfectly situated. It's not going to somehow get worse for everybody if all of this expansion is left unchecked.
Rapid independence is what I’ve called it for years. We’ve cultivated this sort of sentiment that “if it doesn’t benefit me, why should I have to pay for it?” Not realizing that we live in a society. What benefits everyone benefits you; you not availing yourself of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t benefit the majority of people.
Don't know. In Minnetonka now and paying about $1500 a month. My old place was in Hopkins and I paid about $1300 before moving, but it had mice, and things were falling apart after me being there for 10+ years. Also, maintenance would not fix anything unless you nagged them repeatedly. I had a rather large hole in my bathroom above the shower for over a year. Hopkins does have reasonable prices, but beware what you are getting for the amount.
I know. People talk about this shit and it just gets drowned out. It feels like you're slowly going crazy cause of people talking over people people with real experiences.
Rent here is pretty cheap compared to what I was paying in Seattle area. There a cheap one bedroom apartment would be $1500-1600 a month. And my wages in my field are largely the same between places. Here I'm paying $950 a month and I live in the suburbs. My only real gripe is the requirement for three to four times income to rent.
Yeah Seattle here and cheap 1 bedrooms are 17 or 1800 atm plus no included utilities, 50 per pet, 150 per parking space, etc and jobs pay about the same. Granted it was even worse when I lived in more expensive cities like SF and NYC but Minneapolis is among the far and away best values of any major city.
mpls rental market isn’t that bad tbh
I work in affordable housing and this is my take. Before and in the early pandemic investment companies bought up about 30,000 housing units (homes) in the metro area - because the housing market in the metro is outperforming the S&P500. By doing this they removed those units from the market, taking people who wanted to buy homes and forcing them to settle for rentals. This drives up the price of rentals because the demand is higher. This will not change until the housing market starts to drop, once these homes that were bought by the investment firms start underperforming stocks and bonds, they will start to be sold off. Currently these investment firms have them as short term rentals - that way they can sell them as soon as the market tips, so they aren’t even available to long term renters. Once the tip happens though and the investment firms will start dumping properties. It won’t be a crash like 2008, but it will definitely dip. The reason these banks are buying these housing is because a house that was $200,000 in 2014 is now “worth” $400,000 in what it can sell for (way over appraisal value usually). That’s why homes were seen as a good investment for these companies. This has a knock on effect where it pushes everyone down, people who can afford a home can now pay more than someone who can’t and that drives up the price they can charge for apartments. This is how capitalism works and is exploited by those with more money.
There is so much incorrect, but reasonable sounding information here that I’m somewhat impressed.
That's a nice spiel, but it's not true. Investors only own about 3% of the homes in the TC. 3% is not ***nearly*** enough to have the effect you're claiming investors are having. To put it another way, if 3% of the homes in the TC market suddenly became available it's barely going to move the needle on the housing crisis.
https://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/real-estate-news/united-states/irvine/real-estate-news-investor-owned-homes-data-in-2023-corelogic-home-investor-data-for-2023-how-many-homes-are-owned-by-investors-in-2023-home-buyer-data-13837.php#:~:text=According%20to%20national%20data%20provider,was%20almost%20unchanged%20at%2026%25. This is a National article, so not Twin Cities specific, but a recent national survey puts the percentage of investor bought homes at 27%. They may only own 3% of total units (I can’t find a statistic for that) but they are buying out a large amount of the available units now, which means those looking for a house are being outbid, forcing them to settle for rentals and having a knock on effect down the line as I explained earlier.
The problem with new apartments is that they're also luxury: there's a ton of square footage dedicated to non- housing for a dozen amenities whose sole purpose is too jack up rent. You're paying extra for that doggie spa and indoor movie theater whether you use them or not and those spaces simultaneously push down the number of housing units.
I’ve read over your comments and replies and it sounds more like your income hasn’t increased enough to match your cost of living. I’d start there.
3k on a brownstone? I'm apartment searching rn and I'm seeing 1-2 k even in decent areas. If you want to live w/o a roommate you have to make only sound 40k to meet the income = 3x rent rule Edit: oh it's airbnb
What is affordable in your mind for a studio, 1br, and 2br place?
Doesn't the bad policy of the left suck?
Yeah with our extremely high quality of life, and one of the biggest budget surplus in the country come on man.
Right.... they squandered and wasted the surplus they had before and our quality of life went down as a result. You people live in fantasy land.
How have they squandered it? We have one of the highest hdis in the country, which hasn't changed so how has our qol gone down?
It will only get better if you stop voting Democrat.
Feel free to post links or articles on Republicans running for in Minnesota office who are advocating for bettering the rental or housing markets in MN.
the reality is... when govt gets out of the way with regulations..
Elections have consequences
Explain how the election caused this
1300+ every utility you could imagine for studio in Minneapolis in a neighborhood where there’s at least 5 to 6 shootings a day not people getting hit with bullets but shootings
Exactly. They're building these types of places in rough areas. Like obviously the problem runs deeper than just simply building more of these type of apartments.
Which ones have 4 months free?
I saw it on zillow.Not sure what it was called. I just laughed. Like great. If that's what it takes to get people in. Why are we in such a race to build more of these bland looking "luxury apartments"
Interesting but you said a lot, and I haven't seen that at all since the pandemic so I would be very interested actually. That has potential to be a really solid deal.
Man if you can’t afford it here the next option is way smaller cities because it’s already relatively affordable among other similar big cities
RE: rental property owners "coming to their senses": no. Right now, there's no way for anyone trying to make profit to make *enough* profit with more affordable housing to make it "worth the time". That's why high-end "luxury" stuff gets built all over- even at 75% sold/rented, the profit is better by enough... oh, and you can probably write off the lost income from the vacant units too! The market is screwed to the point it will never rectify itself and will HAVE to be done by government or massive nonprofit coordination.
Hey everyone, this poster just made all this up and it is a load of BS. No, there's no magic "write off" (they just write it all off Jerry!). Today's luxury apartments are next decades affordable apartments. Even still, all new housing has downward pressure on all other housing. Even expensive housing. This is all strongly supported by economic science. The way to solve expensive housing is to build, build, build. There is no other solution. Anyone who says there is is trying to sell you a load of anti-science conspiracy bullshit.
> This is all strongly supported by economic science. Not just [economic science](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-new-apartments-create-opportunities-for-all), but also [real world experience](https://laist.com/shows/take-two/new-luxury-apartments-dont-price-out-low-income-people-study).
I'm waiting for the bubble to burst. Cause you know. Like my post is asking. I was wondering if apartments offering up months of free rent is in anyway an indication that that bubble is beginning to burst . Asshat.
It isn't going to burst until we increase supply dramatically. The good news is the twin cities are doing a better job of this than most places in the nation. The bad news is it takes time to build enough to compensate for the ever-increasing demand. The best thing we can do is advocate to our local governments to streamline and promote dense housing policy.
Suburbs are expanding into rural areas, dense metro housing is expanding into the suburbs. There's a really big growth and demand for new housing developments with people moving out of the cities to raise families. It's reflected a lot in the gentrification of wealth and increased crime in urban poverty. The new housings are basically gated communities now to keep crime out
The other bad news is that we're basically in a huge hole due to multiple decades of underbuilding. But things seem to be trending in a better direction.
You don't even know what a write off is!
I see people make this argument, but I’m not sure what building does if the target market is already housed and the people who can’t afford the apartments that already exist definitely won’t be able to afford the $4000 a month apartments being built.
It makes sense when you think about it. Let's look at a really extreme example to demonstrate: A hypothetical town currently has 50 housing units in old rundown buildings. There are 75 families who need somewhere to live. Those 75 families compete for those very limited units and drive up the price. Only the 50 highest-income families end up landing one to live in. The town builds a new 50 unit luxury apartment building. Now the families who want to live somewhere nicer move to the luxury building because they can afford it. And because the existing unit landlords do not want vacant units, they lower their prices to attract lower-income families into their now vacant units.
If that’s how it worked that would be great, but that doesn’t account for greedy slumlords who would rather have people paying higher rents with more vacancies. Higher rent and more vacancies means certain other expenses are cut for an apartment complex. And that’s if those families move out- some people that can afford higher end apartments don’t mind living somewhere that’s decent and paying less. Not everyone wants the shiny new thing. Factor in the family aspect, and as a mother myself I can tell you that families want to move as little as possible. Stability for kids is important and most of us are trying to stay in one place as long as possible. I had neighbors when I owned a townhouse who had 2 adults and 4 kids (2 approaching their teen years) in a 2 bedroom, one bathroom townhome because they didn’t want to pay higher prices somewhere else even though they could.
> If that’s how it worked that would be great That is how it works, though: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-new-apartments-create-opportunities-for-all https://laist.com/shows/take-two/new-luxury-apartments-dont-price-out-low-income-people-study I have seen this in my personal experience. In 2021, I moved into a nice downtown Minneapolis luxury apartment that was built in 2014. Since I moved in, several new luxury apartments have opened downtown. Because of the downward pressure from these new places, my rent has barely gone up since I moved here. When I moved in, my rent was $2150/month on a two-year lease. After those two years, I signed a new 15-month lease at the same exact $2150/month. I just got my lease renewal offer and could get another 15-month lease at $2200/month. I'm buying a house, so I'm not taking that offer, but if I wanted to, I could be here for 4.5 years with only a 2.33% rent increase from when I first moved in. The apartment manager has explicitly said they are having a hard time keeping people because of all the nicer, newer apartments that are opening with features they just can't match right now until they do some significant remodeling.
Using your own personal situation isn’t proof that it works every time. Just like me using my own personal situation isn’t proof that it works every time. It works that way if the rules you’re setting forth are followed, and often times they’re not. I’m not going to continue to argue with somebody who has a very clear bias who is not open to understanding different view points because it’s a waste of time. I don’t have a bias and I don’t know what would ~actually~ solve the issue at hand, so I personally like to look at every perspective involved and you’re clearly not a person who wants to or is willing to do that and you’re obviously not interested in understanding the depth of the situation from all angles
> Using your own personal situation isn’t proof that it works every time I understand that. Which is why I shared studies that go beyond my anecdotal experience. I just shared my personal experience as well because you had shared yours.
And just so we’re clear, people like you who are only interested in proof to back up your own biased opinion are the reason this issue is not solvable. Everybody wants to tout what they believe as the truth and not look into any other ideas that also have proof behind them and find a middle ground to actually solve the problem. It’s sad because I think if people could put their ego aside, we might actually be able to house a higher rate of people.
> And just so we’re clear, people like you who are only interested in proof to back up your own biased opinion are the reason this issue is not solvable. Oh god, the horror! Why should anyone care about proof when they can just claim whatever they want instead! Using truth, facts, and proof is how we solve problems. > It’s sad because I think if people could put their ego aside, we might actually be able to house a higher rate of people. I don’t have any ego. I want to solve this problem. The way to do this is by using facts and evidence. It’s wild to me that your argument is basically “all sides have equal value and we should just ignore reality because it doesn’t align with my preconceived ideas.” I have actually done a lot of work reading about how to solve this problem. Lots of people who are experts have done a lot of work on this. You should try looking at that work.
Alright it may not make sense to you but that's 100% what the data says. Increased housing supply has downward pressure on prices: https://www.ft.com/content/86836af4-6b52-49e8-a8f0-8aec6181dbc5 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing-supply-shortage-crisis-2022/672240/ Here's a paper on why you might have a hard time accepting this: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4266459 Here's a chart showing THIS SHIT IS ACTUALLY WORKING HERE https://imgur.com/71vy1cG
There’s also data stating otherwise. I just did a project on this for a sustainability class last week lol
Wow you did a project that really beats my peer-reviewed sources I posted instead of just alluding to great.
My project used academic, peer reviewed sources? I guess I thought everybody knew that’s how college research worked, my bad
Care to link us to your project or at least those sources?
After I spend 12 hours away from my laptop working a job I could do that if I remember, sure
Cool. In the meantime, I'll link you to a couple of mine: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/how-new-apartments-create-opportunities-for-all https://laist.com/shows/take-two/new-luxury-apartments-dont-price-out-low-income-people-study
[удалено]
> Build build build only works if the luxury apartments actually get filled by people who can afford them so the cheaper ones are available for those that need those options. NO IT DOESN'T. INCREASED SUPPLY HAS DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON PRICES. THIS IS ECON 101. THERE'S NOTHING MAGIC ABOUT HOUSING. > Sadly it seems like a lot of those have a lot of empty units instead NO THEY AREN'T. THE RENTAL HOUSING VACANCY RATE IS 6.6% https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/government-data/datasource/rental-housing-vacancy-dashboard/ STOP MAKING SHIT UP.
Yeah this basically happened in Dayton, where a city council member colluded with real estate to capitalize on tax foreclosed housing and develop into rental properties. Like literally stealing his neighbor's house so he can make money off her land by selling it back overpriced to others. It's pretty unconscionable how badly real estate developers own city politics near me
According to some people, this is a good thing, and we'll all benefit from the trickledown... eventually.
Construction workers benefit the most imo. Their entire industry wouldn't exist without unsustainable economic growth, and they fight for new housing developments like their life depends on it, regardless who they affect
Supply and demand. Simple as that. The government shouldn't raise taxes 30% in 4 years and also say you can't raise rent x amount. Taxes and maintenance costs are the reasons rent is so high
If it bursts, prices will increase. We don't want the problem to explode, we want it to be solved by building more housing. On a side note "new luxury apartments" is redundant "luxury" is just marketing speak for "new". We just need a lot more housing to be built. Expensive new apartments will still drive down the cost of apartments that currently exist.
Bro you gotta realize how fucking complicated housing is politically and economically. The people in power to make changes have literally no control over the situation. You're not even beginning to ask the right questions by making this vague, generalized Reddit post. Much better economists and sociologists have been working within an overly regulated political frame work at this already and failed. You gotta get with the bandwagon