I am all for dissenting discourse, but there is no need to be rude or insult anyone’s intelligence.
China’s “Ghost cities” are of a completely different circumstance. They were built and funded with very flawed data that assumed the sites had the demand to fill them. This was obviously not true, and companies like Evergrande are facing the consequences.
The problem is that housing has not been built where people actually want or need to live. You can build an entire city in the middle of nowhere, and if people don’t want or need to live there, then it will remain empty.
Building housing in places like London, New York, Los Angeles, Paris, Tokyo, etc, can only do good for the average person because it brings down demand and people actually want to live there.
The “Ghost Cities” in China do not meet this criteria; they were built where nobody wanted to live, and now they are suffering the consequences. They are stuck trying to sell/rent apartments at rates people simply won’t pay because the area they were built is not desirable enough. The builders made a bad business decision.
The amount of housing in a particular area needs to be proportional to the demand to live in that same particular area.
The other guys started the rude shit, I’m taking no accountability for that.
You are more polite, but have exactly zero data to back up your position.
Anyone who looks at the data can see that, even in high demand places like London, there is no actual shortage of housing.
Yes, the point is that Chinese Ghost cities are absurd, but the mechanics of an artificial real estate bubble also worked through in places like Beijing and Shanghai, and also London.
It would be a societal error to further prop up the bubble by building more without solving the structural issues that have turned real estate into an asset bubble when housing should be a commodity.
I am all for dissenting discourse, but there is no need to be rude or insult anyone’s intelligence.
China’s “Ghost cities” are of a completely different circumstance. They were built and funded with very flawed data that assumed the sites had the demand to fill them. This was obviously not true, and companies like Evergrande are facing the consequences.
The problem is that housing has not been built where people actually want or need to live. You can build an entire city in the middle of nowhere, and if people don’t want or need to live there, then it will remain empty.
Building housing in places like London, New York, Los Angeles, Paris, Tokyo, etc, can only do good for the average person because it brings down demand and people actually want to live there.
The “Ghost Cities” in China do not meet this criteria; they were built where nobody wanted to live, and now they are suffering the consequences. They are stuck trying to sell/rent apartments at rates people simply won’t pay because the area they were built is not desirable enough. The builders made a bad business decision.
The amount of housing in a particular area needs to be proportional to the demand to live in that same particular area.
The other guys started the rude shit, I’m taking no accountability for that.
You are more polite, but have exactly zero data to back up your position.
Anyone who looks at the data can see that, even in high demand places like London, there is no actual shortage of housing.
Yes, the point is that Chinese Ghost cities are absurd, but the mechanics of an artificial real estate bubble also worked through in places like Beijing and Shanghai, and also London.
It would be a societal error to further prop up the bubble by building more without solving the structural issues that have turned real estate into an asset bubble when housing should be a commodity.