matthestMar 19

Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2026/03/18/austins-surge-of-new-housing-construction-drove-down-rents

Austin’s Surge of New Housing Construction Drove Down Rents

After decades of explosive growth, Austin, Texas, in the 2010s was a victim of its own success. Lured by high-tech jobs and the city’s hip reputation, too many people were competing for too few homes. From 2010 to 2019, rents in Austin increased nearly 93%—more than in any other major American city. And home sale prices increased 82%, more than in any other metro area in Texas.

Show threadpclowesMar 19

Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just:

Build more housing. Keep law and order.

No it doesn’t need to be “affordable”. Yes rent control is a terrible idea.

Just build more housing.

Note: that the US already has plenty of housing and housing costs basically go up in areas of low crime relative to economic opportunity. If you build housing, but allow crime to rise, you have wasted everybody’s time.

Show threadestearumMar 19

New construction has already decelerated in Austin due to falling prices, which compresses already-near-zero margin on real estate development.

So yes, it really is "just build more housing." The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?

Show threadpinkmuffinere
I'm confused by this objection, if you draw a stereotypical supply and demand curve, you can see how prices settle to an equilibrium point. Of course reality has more complications, but I think your objection is 95% answered by a supply and demand curve. You keep building houses when it is profitable. You stop when it is not. This naturally keeps everything in balance.
Mar 19 at 4:10amWeb
Show threadthrowaway27448Mar 19
Sure, so long as the balance involves not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted
Show threadrayinerMar 19
I don’t understand your sentence. What’s the subject of the verb “housing.”
Show threadmwilliaamsMar 19
The subject is “people”. Parent is suggesting that the equilibrium point of housing supply and demand naturally leaves some people unhoused.
Show threadekkekeMar 19
That is the object of the sentence. He is asking who the subject is, in other words the thing or person that is doing the housing of the people. Is it the government? Is it you? I'm currently responsible for housing myself, which is annoying so I would prefer someone else take on this responsibility.
Show threadRetricMar 19

Which isn’t quite accurate as for example people prefer to move out of their parent’s homes while young adults but aren’t necessarily homeless if they don’t.

Basic housing is a necessity, but people also huge homes and 2nd homes etc. So housing policy should therefore be more complicated than simply subsidizing anything you can call housing. Capping the home mortgage tax deduction at ~median home prices for example is probably a better use of government funds.

Show threadpinkmuffinereMar 19

I think the subject is perhaps an implied "you", "us", or "society". Here's how I read it:

Sure, so long as involves (you / us / society) not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted

Show threadpinkmuffinereMar 19
I never claimed the balance will occur at a point that I like. This is just math, it’s not a political stance. If you want more homes, go build homes.
Show threadestearumMar 19

Then your point is meaningless. I (GP) was also pointing out the same equilibrium mechanic. The specific point I was making is that all evidence points to the equilibrium (in the US and elsewhere) being at a point that does not make housing easily attainable, and so becomes a political liability.

"Go build homes [beyond equilibrium]" is not a solution

Show threadmichaelmroseMar 19

If a minority has most of the wealth then the equilibrium supply may include a lot of supply of second homes, very large homes on large plots for the rich, properties sold at a premium based on how much they can extract from renters, and even investment properties occupied by nobody whilst still having insufficient small basic homes and dense housing.

Capital that could be invested in better serving the bottom half has to compete not only with the use of those resources to further enrich the rich but other investment opportunities.

Show threadzozbot234Mar 19

If you want second homes to be used productively, just allow folks to list them on AirBnb for planned short-term rental. Long-term rentals are a total non-starter politically for second homes, since you obviously can't ethically throw out someone who regards that rental space as their home. But short-term is actually fine.

As for larger homes, people should be allowed to live in there as larger, extended family groups - a common pattern in non-Anglo cultures. Ban "single family" restrictions since they amount to unconscionable discrimination against such reasonable living arrangements.

Show threadsophrosyne42Mar 19

There is more than enough land for everyone, and rich people aren't really competing for the kind of housing that poor people are competing for, e.g. smaller plots with smaller homes. The demand of the rich does not eliminate demand of the poor, so the market produces different kinds of housing for different clientele.

Think about it this way: assume you supply all the housing to all the rich people. Then there still remains untapped demand of others that can be fulfilled by further production of homes for those specific people.

This story fails when land becomes restricted, which is exactly what zoning laws cause. Zoning is a big harm to the poor.

Show threadbaqMar 19

But zoning is required to maintain order. Nobody wants anybody to live in favelas.

As with everything the regulator needs to strike a balance to make the market work.

Show threadbtillyMar 19

Given the choice between being homeless and living in favelas, millions in Brazil have chosen to live in favelas.

The reality of zoning laws in Western countries is to provide a target for regulatory capture by the NIMBY crowd. With the result that we're systemically underbuilding housing, then wonder why we wound up with homelessness.

Show threadbaqMar 19
Favelas are a local optimum which systemically is very difficult to get out of and is a sign that the regulator is powerless. It's a great example of a market failure.
Show threadmichaelmroseMar 19
Rich and poor alike are competing for scarce land near where people actually live and work.
Show threadtsimionescuMar 19

> rich people aren't really competing for the kind of housing that poor people are competing for, e.g. smaller plots with smaller homes.

This disregards basic geometry. Sure, in some rare situations you only have one small plot of land surrounded by existing construction or natural boundaries. But, in the majority of cases, you have one large plot of land, and you can either construct one big house on it, 5 smaller houses, 10 small houses, or 200 apartments in a block. The rich are absolutely competing for this lot with the poor.

And as inequality goes up, the rich can even start contemplating buying up surrounding properties, tearing down construction, and transforming a small plot into a much larger one.

Show threadroenxiMar 19

There's a couple of "ifs" there and the scenario seems implausible. If I look at the prime real estate in a city it tends to be a lot of skyscrapers rather than very large homes (with occasional exceptions like say a Buckingham Palace). But it looks like the economic equilibrium is lots of cheaper apartments rather than large homes for rich people.

> ... and even investment properties occupied by nobody ...

Not much of an investment. Something is wrong if that is happening, probably manifesting as a lack of supply. Otherwise what is the point of an "asset" that doesn't generate income, degrades over time and could easily be rented out at a profit rather than sitting unused?

Whatever scenario there is where it makes sense to have an empty property, assuming a sane policy backdrop, it'd always be better for the owner do what they were going to do anyway but also rent it out.

Show threadzozbot234Mar 19

People don't want to rent those homes out because once you're doing so it's difficult to evict a long-term tenant. You just lose out a lot on flexibility - even if you try and manage that risk by leasing out housing e.g. on a yearly basis, landlord-tenant law often overrides that since there are strong ethical reasons for not evicting someone who has since come to treat that rental space as their home.

Short term rentals are better on that score: no one sensible forms a long-term expectation that they're going to live in an Airbnb that they've rented for a few days. (If you think short-term rentals are "bad" for the long-term market or have negative side-effects on the neighborhood, then tax them to manage that tradeoff. But banning them altogether is unconscionable and just leads to houses sitting empty and unused.)

Show threadgraemepMar 19

There are some places in the UK (mostly new developments in London) that have a significant number of deliberately empty investment properties despite the law here making it easy to evict tenants. They are not being used for short term rentals either.

Although the easiest route (no-fault eviction) is being abolished soon, wanting to sell a property remains a valid reason to evict.

Some people just buy property as a speculative investment.

I do not think it is the main cause of shortages in London - that is people buying holiday homes, which are often large and centrally located. London provides a lot (restaurants, nightclubs, gambling, prostitution, financial services...) that attracts people with a lot of money to spend from all over the world.

Show threadzozbot234Mar 19

> despite the law here making it easy to evict tenants

"Easy" is relative. "Evicting" an airbnb'er once the term is up will always be orders of magnitude easier than kicking out a long-term tenant who regards that as their actual home. There's not even anything necessarily wrong with this! The easiest way to address the issue is literally to slash any remaining red-tape that's making things difficult for those who would want to AirBnb these properties out, while managing the resulting side-effects (including the plausible effect on the long-term rentals market) by levying a special fee if necessary.

As a bonus, easy AirBnb rental provides an alternative for some who might otherwise want a permanent holiday home.

Show threadmichaelmroseMar 19
If we don't have an excess of housing why should we allow ANYONE even one single property to serve as an unlicensed hotel. If we tax un-lived in property extremely punitively nobody will hold them at all and it should soon be sold or rented out.
Show threadzozbot234Mar 19
I'm fine with taxing both long-term vacant properties and AirBnb at fairly high rates, since both have negative effects on the surrounding neighborhood - the latter to a markedly less extent than the former, of course.
Show threadmichaelmroseMar 19
The purpose of housing is not to provide an investment vehicle nor should we optimize for this. Airbnb should just regulated out of existence in most urban markets because we are chronically low on housing and the city doesn't need short term rentals at all.
Show threadzozbot234Mar 19
The purpose of most real estate is to provide shelter for people, not to sit empty and unused. That's exactly what AirBnb allows to those who are only willing to rent short term (because it's their vacation home and they want to be able to use it).
Show threadFuriouslyAdriftMar 19

You are referring to properties held by the already rich (only the rich can afford 'vacation homes').

If they can't afford a 'vacation home' without short term rentals then it should be sold and provide housing year-round and build equity for a new homeowner.

Show threadmichaelmroseMar 19

Housing someone provides a fundamentally different kind of value than offering a second home or short-term stay. A home meets an essential social need, while vacation homes and similar uses provide far less public benefit. On that scale, the social value of housing a person is vastly greater than the value of adding another short-term rental bed.

That does not mean hotels would stop being built, because developers and hotel operators are optimizing for a different kind of value. But it is more than enough reason to oppose turning even a single home into a de facto short-term hotel.

The reality is not simply that people are monetizing unused space. The ability to rent homes short term encourages people to buy more second homes than they otherwise would, because the income offsets the cost. It also encourages investment in housing that would otherwise remain in the long-term market, since owners know unused time can be monetized. Some buyers purchase properties specifically to operate them as Airbnbs, and many landlords convert homes that once served monthly or yearly tenants into short-term rentals because they can charge more, adjust rates freely, and often earn more overall.

Show threadunethical_banMar 19
Some would say that housing is a right (while acknowledging the need for housing construction and its workers and supplies to be paid for) and that it should be funded somehow, even if the free marker profit becomes negative during certain periods. Like any market manipulation, the question then would be how to intervene to keep housing construction going when construction isn't profitable, while not fomenting corruption in the industry.
Show threadkakacikMar 19

... but your own housing isn't any form of basic human right, its a luxury all around the world and always has been. Now I completely understand folks who come out of uni and see the salaries (sans faangs and generally devs and few other lucky positions), the prices and the emotions of missing out come easily.

But it isn't a right, just because you would like it. Same as I don't have a right to a car at price I would like, just because I live, by my choice, in rural environment close to nature. I desperately need one though for work commute, shopping, taking kids to school etc so thats as non-optional as accommodation to existence of my family. I can either suck up car's actual prices, move whole family so I don't need it or do similar choices in life to tackle that.

But car ain't a right. Same as your own accommodation, of course not a modest small apartment but a house, ideally close to work, amenities, schools, and costing peanuts. Literally what everyone else wants. Or am I incorrect in your expectations? Because if yes, its easy to accept cheap remote small old properties, those aren't expensive for above-average earners at all, anywhere.

Show threadbo0tzzMar 19

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.1:

> Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing
and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security
in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Show threadbpt3Mar 19

So if I declare a right to immortality, then no one dies?

It's almost like those words are the product of useless bureaucrats, rather than an actual right.

Show threadunethical_banMar 19
That is a disingenuous counterexample.
Show threadbpt3Mar 19

It's really not.

What happens if everyone takes this declaration at face value and decides to be unemployed? Who pays for all the services that every person is entitled to?

Show threadunethical_banMar 19
Positive rights and negative rights. Societies can and often do guarantee rights that place an obligation on society and others to fulfill. In the US, we have a right to emergency medical care regardless of ability to pay. We have a right to a fair trial and representation. In NYC, the city is obligated to provide shelter for the homeless. Some thing that should be more universal. Not all questions can be answered by me right now.
Show threadRobotToasterMar 19

> its a luxury all around the world

China has a 96% homeownership rate.

Kazakhstan 98%

Laos, Romania, and Albania 95%

Slovakia 93%

Russia 92%

Show threadscoofyMar 19

Housing where? Is housing for me in Malibu a human right? There's plenty of places to live in Texas for basically nothing.

I'm honestly trying to take this seriously, but I really can't square the problem of location and utility. On of the reasons why West Virginia has such a low homeless rate is just that mobile homes and manufactured housing is pretty much legal in many areas around the state. One of the reasons why California is so expensive is that those types of inexpensive housing options are effectively illegal statewide.

Show threadwatwutMar 19

> There's plenty of places to live in Texas for basically nothing.

What are the employment options there? If I move to a cheap house somewhere where there are no jobs for me, I just moved somewhere where I cant afford.

Show threadzozbot234Mar 19
You can always work full remote. Or maybe you're an elderly retiree.
Show threadTimPCMar 19
Elderly retirees seldom move. They’ve long paid off their mortgage and we keep property taxes extremely low so they are pretty much immune to the cost of housing. Once you put down roots in a community it’s hard to leave.
Show threadangmarsbaneMar 19
They also usually don't want to leave their established doctors. This is actually one of the reasons why we need mixed-housing options within neighborhoods so that elderly people can downsize into more manageable one and two bedroom apartments, condos, or duplexes etc without having to leave the neighborhood. Downsize into housing stock without stairs, without a large yard to upkeep, downsize into something smaller that would be more affordable to adapt for someone aging in place.
Show threadscoofyMar 19

>If I move to a cheap house somewhere

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but "where" is "somewhere." There are jobs in Austin, San Antonio, Kerrville, Marfa, and El Paso. They might not all be for me, but they exist in all these places. Where you live and what your commute is, again, is not exactly something that's particularly trivial to define. At what point should I start looking in San Antonio rather than Austin?

These are hard questions. This is what I mean when I ask whether I have a right to housing in Malibu? At what point should I be expected to just move to East LA?

At the end of the day, housing in Austin is relatively inexpensive. There are real options below $300K. Living in SF, it's pretty astounding that that's even possible within the city limits, much less at reasonable commuting distances.

I certainly think incentivizing subsidized low income housing is worthwhile, and I think even incentivizing builders to just target the low income price points is also worthwhile. I just think that focusing on subsidizing the lowest income folks, rather than letting markets actually work for most people has been shown to trivially fail in CA where I live at actually accomplishing anything. A lot of "ugly" 5-over-1's have been built in Austin, and it's working to keep the place affordable for working class people. I'm absolutely fine with that.

Show threadmiyojiMar 19

> At the end of the day, housing in Austin is relatively inexpensive. There are real options below $300K.

This is so insanely out of touch. Most people will never be able to afford a house over $200k, even in Austin. I live here, you apparently live in California. As a resident, let me tell you that Austin is not affordable, and definitely not "inexpensive". Housing here is relatively inexpensive compared to the most expensive metros in the world, it's not relatively inexpensive compared to the US housing market, or more relevantly, the Texas housing market. This isn't the Bay Area, it's the middle of Texas.

> A lot of "ugly" 5-over-1's have been built in Austin, and it's working to keep the place affordable for working class people.

Austin isn't affordable for working class people and it hasn't been for a long time, so no, those new constructions aren't keeping it affordable, they've just stopped the insane rent increases that were coming every year for more than a decade. A living wage in Austin for a single person is $100,000, for a family it's $200,000, and that is well above the median household income of ~$90,000. Working class people are well below the median and aren't making $90,000 per year. These numbers are from an article in our local newspaper from this week. [0]

[0] https://www.statesman.com/news/local/article/austin-cost-of-...

Austin cost of living: How much income you need to live comfortably

From poverty to wealth, here’s how much households need to earn to afford life in Austin as housing, child care and other costs climb.

Austin American-Statesman
Show threadscoofyMar 19

I literally grew up in Austin. I understand the Austin housing market. I understand is not cheap. That doesn’t mean it’s not affordable.

According to your article:

> Based on those costs, MIT estimates the living wage for a family of four in the Austin metro area is $112,866 a year, or $49,322 for an individual.

That’s well below median household income.

> The organization created a “Household Survival Budget,” which includes housing, child care, food, transportation, health care, technology, taxes and miscellaneous expenses. According to the group’s estimates, the living wage for a family of four in Travis County is $102,096 with two kids in child care and $85,356 with no kids in child care. For a single adult, the survival budget is $39,924.

Again. When we are talking about the housing crisis in the Bay Area, we are talking about small condos costing $1M. Just forget having anything be closer to median income affordable for a family of four. In Austin that’s still possible. It’s not Milwaukee, but it’s a functioning housing market.

Show threadvel0cityMar 19

> Texas led the nation in job creation in 2025, adding more nonfarm jobs than any other state and setting multiple employment records

https://www.wfaa.com/article/money/business/everything-bigge...

As someone who has lived here for a long while, it seems like there are lots of jobs in a lot of industries here. We're not all oil riggers and cowboys.

WFAA

WFAA (Dallas–Fort Worth) is your source for breaking news, Texas weather, traffic, and live coverage in Dallas, Fort Worth, and across North Texas. Get the latest updates from the WFAA team — from major local headlines and investigations to severe weather, community stories, and the moments everyone’s talking about. Watch live newscasts, stream breaking coverage, and catch up on the top stories shaping Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Plano, and surrounding communities. Subscribe for: • Dallas–Fort Worth breaking news + live updates • Texas weather forecasts, storms, and severe weather alerts • Investigations and accountability reporting • Community stories across North Texas • Major events, sports, and local explainers WFAA — Dallas–Fort Worth news and weather, live and on demand. 🔗 More: https://www.wfaa.com

YouTube
Show threadFuriouslyAdriftMar 19
Yeah seriously... when I was dirt poor and hurting, I moved to Shreveport and was able to get by on minimum wage. There's plenty of places in the Deep South where one may live a decent life for moderate wages. Not everyone gets to live the life of Riley.
Show threadtaffronautMar 19
I have struggled to understand why houses don't get built and land sits idle for years. I can only assume that it's significantly more complicated. I'm not trying to excuse the complications. I guess if the house prices are forecast to go up, you build some houses, but not all that you can because the longer you wait, the higher the profit will be on the ones you start later. If house prices are going down, even if it's profitable when you start, you're not likely to build houses because you might be left holding houses that will sell at a lower margin. If there was a tax on unused land, that might skew things towards building more even if prices are declining, but I'm sure there are lots of views on that.
Show threadjaapzMar 19

Why would you build on a plot of land when the plot of land itself is already appreciating in value with you doing nothing to it

Building is risky and costly

Having an asset that appreciates on its own regardless of what you do with it is not

Show threadbpt3Mar 19

Holding costs of land are far from $0 in any major metropolitan area. Sitting on it involves its own form of risk.

Vacant land that's desirable is often held back from development due to zoning or infrastructure issues.

Show threadestearumMar 19

> Vacant land that's desirable is often held back from development due to zoning or infrastructure issues.

Nah, it's mostly speculation. Zoning/infrastructure issues get baked into the price. If you cannot build anything on a plot of land, its price falls.

Show threadphilipallstarMar 19
Only at point of buying. If you buy some land and the mayor suddenly implements rent control then the value goes down.
Show threadbpt3Mar 19

Until someone gets the zoning board to wave a magic wand and change the allowable uses of the property, and then it's a lot more valuable.

This happens all the time, and is a major reason why people will sit on land for extended periods of time.

Show threadsocoMar 19
Sitting on it is a predictable cost, while building means a costly chaos which may or may not turn out the wished profitability. So when you are used to "old profits" you maybe rather wait on the predicted do-nothing-cost, and hope for the tide to turn again in your direction.
Show threadjuleiieMar 19

Guys you have no idea about these things and what you are talking about. source: I am a city plot owner.

No land owner will suddenly become a developer to build an apartment block.

A plot owner can sell land to a developer or form a joint venture with developer putting in their land as starting capital (much more risky) most people either keep land as gold or sell it when they need money.

I hope it is clearer now.

The very idea that everyone who owns land should build an apartment block is laughable, it is very complicated endeavour best not to get into it if you know nothing about it. Hell building a single family house is complex, let alone five story building.

So you either keep it if you don’t need money or you sell it if you want to buy something else or need to have liquidity. And you don’t even sell it to buy other investment vehicle because land is already better than gold.

My plot increased 3 times in price in 10 years. Try to beat that with SP500. It’s virtually immune to inflation no matter how the broader economy fares it will always shield from inflation because you cannot make more land hah.

Even in utopia of automation and post scarcity society good location land will be truly lucrative and unimaginably expensive if not outright prohibited to own by private individuals. The question is what will be a “good location” in 30 years.

Show threadpolothesecondMar 19

> Even in utopia of automation and post scarcity society good location land will be truly lucrative and unimaginably expensive if not outright prohibited to own by private individuals.

Indeed, there’s a reason you see silicon valley execs going all in all acquiring land to build fortresses. At the end of the day, regardless of the cold march of technological progress, land remains the root of all real power.

Show threadoblioMar 19

> My plot increased 3 times in price in 10 years. Try to beat that with SP500. It’s virtually immune to inflation no matter how the broader economy fares it will always shield from inflation because you cannot make more land hah.

The GFC says hi :-)

Show threadbpt3Mar 19

> No land owner will suddenly become a developer to build an apartment block.

No one is suggesting this.

> A plot owner can sell land to a developer or form a joint venture with developer putting in their land as starting capital (much more risky) most people either keep land as gold or sell it when they need money.

Most people don't own vacant lots, but some who do hold onto it as an investment. It's a pretty poor one on average over time, just like gold (which is a good analogy).

> The very idea that everyone who owns land should build an apartment block is laughable, it is very complicated endeavour best not to get into it if you know nothing about it. Hell building a single family house is complex, let alone five story building.

Again, no one is suggesting this. The assumption is that a developer would buy a lot to build on, because that's what happens in practice.

> So you either keep it if you don’t need money or you sell it if you want to buy something else or need to have liquidity. And you don’t even sell it to buy other investment vehicle because land is already better than gold.

Land and gold are not better than the stock market over time.

> My plot increased 3 times in price in 10 years. Try to beat that with SP500. It’s virtually immune to inflation no matter how the broader economy fares it will always shield from inflation because you cannot make more land hah.

The S&P 500 beats real estate over time. Congratulations on getting lucky with your plot of land. Land is a good inflation hedge, assuming you are in a growing area. Ask rust belt land owners how things worked out for them.

> Even in utopia of automation and post scarcity society good location land will be truly lucrative and unimaginably expensive if not outright prohibited to own by private individuals. The question is what will be a “good location” in 30 years.

Thanks for highlighting one of the many issues with communism, but we will never reach a post-scarcity society for many reasons, including this one.

Show threadjuleiieMar 19
You have no idea what you are talking about…
Show threadApolloFortyNineMar 19
If you think you do know what you are talking about, do you think you could back it up with a source?
Show threadbpt3Mar 19

What on earth are you talking about?

You know what increased more than 3x in the last 10 years? The S&P 500 index (it went from $203.87 at the start of 2016 to $681.92 at the start of 2026). And your plot of land is a massive outlier to the upside in the US overall during that time.

Historically, undeveloped land basically tracks inflation. Obviously, there are specific plots of land that dramatically exceed that, and there are specific plots of land that don't keep up with inflation.

That's the only thing you got right: raw land is an inflation hedge.

Show threadsalawatMar 19
In Texas, at least, the lack of income tax is made up for in property taxes. Just owning that plot with nothing on it is still going to be a sizable liability.
Show threadchmod775Mar 19

Free markets for housing are likely to settle into an "optimum" where some percentage of people cannot afford housing at all, because while construction/rental of housing for them would net a return, it's not worth the opportunity cost. Plus you should not wait for the market to respond to a lack of housing: people will be homeless in the meantime. Supply/demand is mostly reactive, because building for anticipated future demand years down the line is very risky, so most investors don't like that.

Markets don't optimize for "everyone gets some", yet that's precisely what you need for housing. You'll always need the government to come in at some point to provide for those left behind by the free market.