r/Glasgow Tools

Title
Author	frasmcm
Comment	This is what I mean by shortsighted. Firstly, these homes do not exist yet and there is a severe shortage in the area. Nobody would be directly pushed out. As it stands, poorer people are already being pushed out in popular areas of the city because wealthier people can easily outcompete them during a shortage. If you don't substantially increase supply in the areas people want to live in the most, this dynamic will just get worse and worse. Secondly, the notion that adding more market-rate supply reliably increases local rents is false (see OP). The evidence is overwhelming on this at the metro level and pretty convincing at the hyper-local level. And, again, if you believe the science is wrong about this, I don't understand why you think adding some social housing would change the equation so dramatically because the remaining 75pc would be even more expensive. The social housing wouldn't even be an option for lower-middle income people already in the area, it would essentially be assigned by lottery. I'm extremely pro social housing, for the record. It's just that you don't need to force it into every nook and cranny of market-rate developments, because if it makes some projects unviable you get nothing. That's what the developers have suggested in this case. Maybe they're talking pish and they can get away with adding social units, but it's simply not worth the gamble and the additional time that would take. (Also, there's a difference between displacement and gentrification. Gentrification just means the overall share of wealthier people in an area rises. But this is often necessary to avoid displacement because the proportions change through added supply rather than richer people simply outcompeting poorer ones)
Reddit Link	https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/xjlh7s/organising_yimby_support_for_shawlands_arcade/iplo4m4/
Created	Fri 23rd Sep 2022 3:42pm
Status	normal ()

This is what I mean by shortsighted.

Firstly, these homes do not exist yet and there is a severe shortage in the area. Nobody would be directly pushed out. As it stands, poorer people are *already being pushed out* in popular areas of the city because wealthier people can easily outcompete them during a shortage. If you don't substantially increase supply in the areas people want to live in the most, this dynamic will just get worse and worse.

Secondly, the notion that adding more market-rate supply reliably increases local rents is *false* (see OP). The evidence is overwhelming on this at the metro level and pretty convincing at the hyper-local level. And, again, if you believe the science is wrong about this, I don't understand why you think adding some social housing would change the equation so dramatically because the remaining 75pc would be even more expensive.

The social housing wouldn't even be an option for lower-middle income people already in the area, it would essentially be assigned by lottery. I'm extremely pro social housing, for the record. It's just that you don't need to force it into every nook and cranny of market-rate developments, because if it makes some projects unviable you get nothing. That's what the developers have suggested in this case. Maybe they're talking pish and they can get away with adding social units, but it's simply not worth the gamble and the additional time that would take.

(Also, there's a difference between displacement and gentrification. Gentrification just means the overall share of wealthier people in an area rises. But this is often *necessary* to avoid displacement because the proportions change through *added supply* rather than richer people simply outcompeting poorer ones)