Greater Tokyo Area? Tokyo Metropolis? Previous Tokyo City limits? New York City metro area? New York City? Manhattan? These can be 2 orders of magnitude apart in scale but they've all been talked about like it was the same location A and location B.
At the small scale Tokyo's densest ward is ~22,700/km^2 and Manhattan is ~28,800/km^2 with Manhattan being ~4x-5x the land area of the former (i.e. the core is a lot more dense). At the large scale the Greater Tokyo Area is ~2,900/km^2 and the New York Metropolitan Area is ~2,053/km^2 (i.e. the urban area around Tokyo is a lot more dense).
"Tokyo" is a good example that you can get affordable housing by focusing on how to spread the population over a large urban area but it's not a good example building more housing downtown is a scalable approach.
I'm not sure why you think Tokyo works, it wasn't long ago that it was multiple times the price of NYC. It might be affordable now but only because of a economic slump and Japan's falling population.
New York City already has a significantly higher population density than Tokyo (~11,300/km2 vs ~6,300/km). It's easier to develop more housing when you have more land.
You need to include Newark, Yonkers, Long Island, etc if you want to compare those figures.
Tokyo is 13400 sq km, NYC is 780 sq km. If I rounded Tokyo's land area to the same sig figs as I did for NYC, it would be lowered by half the total area that NYC takes up!
> You need to include Newark, Yonkers, Long Island, etc if you want to compare those figures.
That's just not an accurate comparison.
Live in NYC. Lived in Japan. The difference is transit. It is far easier to get to Saitama or Kawasaki or Yokohama or Chiba than it is to get to Long Island from NYC. You can do the former in an hour at rush hour. Try getting to downtown Manhattan from Bay Shore as a daily commute. You'll go mad.
The gray area of Tokyo on that map is pretty much all considered an exurb of Tokyo, more-or-less feasible for daily commute by rail. Most of the NYC region is inaccessible from Manhattan, except by car. Look at the Seibu Shinjuku line, or the Chuo line on the Tokyo map -- both offer express trains that will take you from the distant western exurbs, right into the middle of downtown Tokyo:
I understand, but that doesn't change my assertion that comparing Tokyo density to only-NYC density makes no sense, especially as an argument that there is no room for to build more. Hogwash! Half your NYC map is pure green, but even leaving that, most of the land area on that map that is housing is SFH.
There's plenty of room to grow up. Just because the reason we don't is shitty government organization and FPTP voting doesn't mean we can just ignore the vast swaths of low-density just outside Manhattan 's borders.
NYC rental vacancy is only a bit over 4% city wide. The national average is closer to 6%. It is very expensive to build in New York, and projects can be scuttled at any time due to angry neighbors or intervention by city council. The EIS process adds a ton of cost to new construction. As a result of this risk banks require high returns in NYC than in most places in order to secure loans. If you take a development loan the rental price for the units is written into the loan.
I think this a feature of accounting practices. Mark down rent means you mark down the asset value of the building on your balance sheet. This reduces the value of your business which means loans secured against the business are in jeopardy and it limits the potential to borrow more money. This is why commercial rents going down is a rare event. Fwiw i am not an accountant and could well be wrong.
IIRC Sometimes some of these units are tied to a mortgage. Renting it at a reasonable price could make the price of the unit to drop making the money lender wanting to renegotiate the mortgage contract.
There's a large (20,000+) volume of empty rent-stabilized units - in those cases, landlords say that a recent tenant protection law (HSTPA, 2019) makes it uneconomic for them to rent due to the expected difficulty of evicting non-paying tenants and the strict limitations on how much repair and investment work can be recouped from increasing rent.
My gut feeling is this doesn't entirely explain it, but any tenant is also more work than no tenant, so they may not want to do the work of signing a new lease and dealing with the work it will trigger for less than you're making per-head on your current tenants.
There's probably also a fear that if you let a new tenant in for lower rent, this might lower the rent other people expect and the problem starts snowballing.
Surely this works in a short timeframe where a landlord can make a tactical decision to let the property sit empty rather than rent it out for less than a threshold. Landlords can even collude on a minimal rent below which they will not rent. (Basically "hold the line"). But how is this sustainable in the long run? The money for the original mortgage has to come from some place. Not all landlords have an infinite supply of money to keep this practice going on for a few years. (There is no VC funding available for them).
With commercial units (eg - downtown San Francisco) it is even harder because with remote work, the jobs are never coming back to the city.
On mobile so don't have a ready link. Iirc a lot of commercial real estate can get into a death spiral if the loan they have which is based on a certain amount of income starts having less income. If I can find the explanation I will add it later.
> Naively, any rent is more than zero rent, so why let a unit sit empty?
There's a substantial cost in having a renter living there, both in dollars and risk. So if the rent isn't enough to cover those, it's cheaper to let it sit unused.
That does not make sense from a game-theoretic standpoint. You would be helping other landlords at your own expense. It would be better to let other landlords make that sacrifice and rent our your own properties for as much as you can get.
that's the thing. They are okay with helping other landlords because they themselves hold other multiple properties. There is more benefits by having the rates high than losing money on a few units.
It totally makes sense for the rental property owners.
Cannot speak for the poster, but the big current issue is that the value of residential units has gone from being strongly linked to wages to residences being an extremely valuable chip for playing financial games. Residences, especially inherently valuable ones like NYC apartments, have sufficient demand from financial game players that wage earners are barely able to keep up. Exactly how things break down is not clear, but there is this idea that demand for residences for financial purposes is competing aggressively with people who want homes.
This is a well studied idea, the percentage of units sitting empty is a round error in the total supply of housing. At the start of the pandemic there were a paltry 4000 vacant condos. For reference there are 2.3 million apartments in the city.
The vacancy rate of apartments is just at or under 4.5% which is considered a very tight rental market. I don't have the total condo numbers readily at hand.
Because I grew up in Brooklyn and Queens and saw what all of the new development did to the demand. The street that my grandmother used to rent an apartment for in the early 2000s for under $1k/month now only has units that go for $5K/month.
As a Californian, if the demand is there, it will eventually bid up trash fire apartments to 2k a month, even if they're still colocated with violence and bad schools, you don't need to induce any demand with development.
You have that backwards. Bloomberg rezoned the queens and brooklyn waterfront for his real estate investor buddies, which gentrified the shit out of these neighborhoods and brought in a ton of people that would have never dared to cross the east river.
Flashback to late 1970s driving through the Bronx with my family - an annual ritual as most of the extended family was still in the NYC area while we had moved to Rochester. We would pass blocks of empty high-rise apartments in the South Bronx.
As a middle-middle-class suburban kid, I just couldn't conceive of how the wealthiest city on earth could have sections that looked like a bombed-out and evacuated European city following World War II.
I asked my father what had happened here. He answer was "rent control".
