zlacker

>>halduj+(OP)
It's almost like cities (or more specifically, voters in municipal elections) don't realize that the only sustainable way to reduce prices is by increasing supply: http://www.amazon.com/TheRent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp.... We know what to do, we have the technology, and we only lack the political will to make it happen.

>>jselig+ec
Berlin is a poor city. In fact it's former mayor famously described it as "Poor but sexy". It doesn't have the liberty of increasing supply on it's own to a large extent. You also can't increase supply, no matter how much you want to, in the districts everyone wants to live in. Getting a place outside of it can be accomplished fairly easily.

>>DasIch+oe
It would be rather easy to increase supply of housing. Berlin is full of brown-field sites that could be stacked with housing.

1. Remove density and height restrictions (e.g. "Berliner Traufhoehe").

2. Remove unnecessarily strict building requirements (e.g. "Daemmungswahn").

3. Remove legislation that is too tenant-friendly (e.g. "Mietbremse").

All three serve as breaks to increasing housing supply, the first is a legal impediment, the other two reduce investments.

>>mafrib+af
I guess when you remove 3, you would increase the supply, but only with what you see for example in London: Mostly luxury flats

Doesn't really help getting more affordable flats on the market.

>>thesim+Wf
Berlin has an extremely affordable rental market, unless you want to live in Mitte or nearby. Even Mitte would be more affordable, if 50-100 floor skyscrapers could get building permission.

I'm not sure how familiar with the London property market. London is currently seeing a large amount of real estate being built, mostly studio, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom. Hardly luxurious. Prices are commensurate with London income levels. Otherwise people wouldn't live in London.

>>mafrib+Lg
A part of the problem in London is the strength of rule of law, which means that rich people from everywhere in the world are storing nest eggs there by buying property, even if they don't live in that property. Almost every dictator, oligarch and prince of an oil-rich country puts in a stake, and smaller-scale money - which is still big scale - also finds a safe haven in the London property market.

I don't really think this has much significant impact on the housing shortage and pricing there, but some part of the housing stock there is owned by people who don't actually live there, and who can afford to keep it vacant just in case they need to move in one day.

>>ptaipa+4z
I agree that some property is left empty, but this is extremely rare. There are just not enough lazy Billionaires that can afford this. In most cases empty means unable to sell or rent out. You'll notice that most developments in London these days (e.g. [1]) are mostly small studios, 1 or 2 bedrooms. That's because large luxury penthouses are hard to sell, there is little demand.

Most buyers of such property (whether private or investment funds like Deka-Immobilien or BlackRock Global Property or Brookfield Property Partner or one of the many others) do this as an investment vehicle with a particular risk/reward structure. They will absolutely have to rent out these properties, and indeed, when they fund property construction projects, as they have been on a massive scale in London in the last decade, they do so to cash in on rent.

[1] http://www.themadison.co.uk

>>mafrib+A91
Yes, the billionaires get a lot of blame but in terms of numbers, they are insignificant.

I would imagine that a much bigger issue is old people who are in a care home or a hospital, unable to live in their old place, but not willing/able to give it away either.

At least over here (Finland) this is the major reason for "empty" apartments in central areas of cities.