Just across the border from Vancouver, the Seattle Housing Authority is rebuilding modern apartment complexes that are actually intended for low income, disabled and first-gen immigrant residents, not luxury condos that some theoretical rich person maybe might buy someday.
They nearly had me with the developer sponsorship joke too. In this video the point is made that not every new development is geared toward living compared to stretching profit as much as possible within regulations. Overall they make the case that:
subsidized/affordable housing > vastly increasing the supply in any way > doing nothing and restricting any development.
They also take issue with modern shoebox apartments in highrises be called luxury housing, when there is more pushback against high density development compared to single family mansions which should be the real luxury development.
So you turned off the video in the first few minutes I see 🤣
I was wondering if the sponsorship joke was a bad idea since people would bail before the punchline.
They mention that there is also a huge need for social housing. In fact they have a whole other video about it. But the idea that those two approaches aren’t compatible is misguided.
A video sponsored by a housing developer, suggesting that the real problem with the cost of housing is high taxes and the pesky nay-saying public.
They also never mention the high and increasing vacancy rate of newly built luxury housing. Just trust us! Rich people will move in soon!
Just across the border from Vancouver, the Seattle Housing Authority is rebuilding modern apartment complexes that are actually intended for low income, disabled and first-gen immigrant residents, not luxury condos that some theoretical rich person maybe might buy someday.
I think the Westbank sponsorship was a joke as they follow it up with a surfshark sponsorship. But it was a dicey joke to make
Otherwise nice links!
They nearly had me with the developer sponsorship joke too. In this video the point is made that not every new development is geared toward living compared to stretching profit as much as possible within regulations. Overall they make the case that:
subsidized/affordable housing > vastly increasing the supply in any way > doing nothing and restricting any development.
They also take issue with modern shoebox apartments in highrises be called luxury housing, when there is more pushback against high density development compared to single family mansions which should be the real luxury development.
So you turned off the video in the first few minutes I see 🤣
I was wondering if the sponsorship joke was a bad idea since people would bail before the punchline.
They mention that there is also a huge need for social housing. In fact they have a whole other video about it. But the idea that those two approaches aren’t compatible is misguided.