Nobody lives there anymore. It's too crowded.

Seriously, this is not a problem. The problem is the artificial limits we put on growth. Let us build up higher and in more places, and who cares if someone wastes their unit. That's their business, and it's a short-term decision anyway.

Also, want to know what's a better investment than an empty unit? A unit that you actually rent out to someone.

Also: I wonder if it's the same people that complain about absentee homeowners that complain about AirBnB. Combine the two...

@1:

But how many people are out there who can afford to rent a million-dollar high-rise luxury condo or a $5mm lakeside estate - or would want to?

10X property tax on homes that are unoccupied by their owners > 50% of the year. Boom. Done.

Exceptions:
- Applies only to homes purchased after law passes
- Applies only to homes > 200% of median home value

I would rather the super-wealthy be parking their assets in empty towers than in exotic derivatives or speculative banking. Bit by bit those condos will be sold to people who want to live there as the super-wealthy liquidate assets, and in the meantime they're doing little harm.

@1

You know, the rental market demand for $5,000,000 penthouses might be just a tad thinner than that for $1500 2-beds.

While speculation can exacerbate the problem of artificial scarcity, it is also a consequence of that artificial scarcity.

The whining of long term renters is exhausting. Seattle has been cheap for a very long time. If you had bought something, your housing costs would be stable.

The result: Manhattan has become too expensive for New Yorkers, and London for Londoners.

And those New Yorkers and Londoners who are becoming priced out, likely priced out other New Yorkers and Londoners before them. So now these now-priced out New Yorkers and Londoners can move to where the people they priced out live and price them out of those places.

I remember seeing that Park Ave tower last spring. I think it's too tall, out of place, but, on the other hand, it's slender and graceful. It could have been worse.

It would be interesting to flash-forward a few decades in Seattle. What's it going to look like? Still mostly single-family homes or much more like Vancouver's West End, a forest of tall buidings?

Thanks for this post, you are 100% correct.

@1 the problem is the worlds 1% can pay what they want, causing crazy housings wars. Look at most new housing in Seattle, none of it is affordable. They tear down 1 house and build 4 townhouse, yay density right? Well not so fast, as each of those townhouse go for 600-800 thousand and usually above asking and usual in cash. In 3 years you won't be able to get a house in qa/magnolia/wallingford/ballard/capitol hill/CD for under a million unless there's something seriously wrong with it.

@Charles - another problem is because the lower upper class/higher middle class has to pay so much for rent and the worlds 1% is driving up housing prices so much, it prevents the well off from moving into houses, which then keeps rent high, basically a reverse trickle down effect.

@12: Supply and demand operate independently to influence price. You're right that adding supply does not reduce demand...but adding supply does soak up demand, even if demand happens to be pouring over just at the moment. New expensive homes eventually become cheap homes, e.g. those '60s SF Victorians that the Dead lived in...

Real estate is worth what someone will pay you for it. Show me the cash when the bubble bursts.

@5: Liquidating assets? As long as there's a market for high-rise luxury condos it's more of a return on investment.

A local (Seattle) realtor estimates fully 1/3 rd of house buyers are out-of-area cash buyers. This is surely a market distortion - what 10% down buyer can compete with that?

I realize many , or most here follow politics closer than I do, so maybe you can tell me why the Seattle Urbanist's self sufficient housing plan is doomed to fail or is soon to be realized and beget more of the same.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2015/09/01/p…

Never thought I'd see Charles concerned about Park Avenue gentrification. There goes the neighborhood! At least cash tends to keep the noise down after 9 PM.

There's a lot more to this than the most basic "supply and demand" equation. As anyone who has read more than a sentence of economics knows, the other major force here is opportunity costs. If your market is skewed to one end of the spectrum you lose the opportunity to service the rest of it. Sure, it's great that electricians and plumbers are getting work building empty apartments, but it makes it even more expensive now to build apartments that will be lived in. There's only so much space in the city. If it all turns into financial parking and not useable livable space it changes the very character of the city. Who wants to live in an office park? Who wants to live in a ghost town?
This speculation and increase in rents also hits us on a daily basis even if we already own a place. How many great little bars, restaurants, shops, art spaces have closed because the new owner jacked up the rent to cover their new mortgage? There's a happy spot in the middle of density and value that can sustain a livable and diverse city. I'm afraid we've already gone past that tipping point.