zlacker

Ah yes, who would want to trade the flourishing real estate utopia of, say, San Francisco for the collectivist hellscapes of New York (some rent stabilization and public housing), Vienna (>50% public housing, consistently scores top in overall quality of life globally), or Singapore (>70% public housing)?

Free markets are great, until they start incentivizing weird behaviors (NIMBYism, bubbles) instead of investments (construction, renovations) and efficient allocation.

Successful cities have walked the balance successfully and stepped in (only) when necessary.

>>lxgr+(OP)
This argument mistakenly credits collectivist policies for successes but ignoring the profound negative impacts of state overreach in places like San Francisco. This isn’t about choosing between so-called utopias and hellscapes but recognizing the failure of excessive regulation that stifles supply and inflates costs. Vienna and Singapore are outliers that succeed due to unique governance, cultural attitudes towards public housing, and centralized planning that meticulously balances supply and demand—conditions that are not easily replicated elsewhere. The real issue is state intervention distorting market incentives, leading to inefficiencies like NIMBYism and housing bubbles. A truly efficient housing market thrives under free market principles, minimally but effectively regulated to encourage development and affordability. Mentioning New York as a paragon of housing policy overlooks its glaring issues with affordability and efficiency—hardly a model of success. In comparison, cities like Chicago, with a different regulatory approach, demonstrate that a more balanced policy framework can indeed foster better housing outcomes. New York’s situation, far from an example to follow, actually underscores the pitfalls of overregulation and the necessity of rethinking housing strategies.

>>alchem+d8
I agree in that the right amount of regulation probably heavily varies between places and over time, but I'd just like to challenge the idea that anything other than complete liberalization of housing investments will inevitably lead to inefficiencies.

> Vienna and Singapore are outliers [...]

A model that has to explain away two historically, culturally, and geographically distinct cities as outliers is not very compelling to me.

Again, I'm not proposing that more regulation is always good, but as soon as e.g. long-term residents are massively getting priced out by outside investors or homeowners start opposing new construction exclusively because of the impact on their property value due to an increase in supply (rather than for actual decreased quality of life), the incentives of the free market start drifting apart from those of the people actually living there.