Last month, we talked about how even "luxury" housing can improve overall housing affordability in a market. In that post, we spoke about a recent study that looked at the downstream effects of a new condominium tower in Honolulu. Today, let's look at Switzerland.

I stumbled upon this working paper on Twitter. The authors are Lukas Hauck and Frédéric Kluser, both from the University of Bern. In it, they look at the country-wide effects of new residential housing supply in Switzerland and, more specifically, the "moving chain" that new supply produces.

Moving chains work generally as follows:

• A household moves into a newly constructed home

• Their previous home becomes vacant

• Another household moves into this vacant unit, leaving their previous home vacant

• And the process continues, until someone breaks the chain (which can happen by way of a new household being formed or someone moving in from out of the market)

The authors found that these moving chains are relatively short in Switzerland. Approximately 75% of them terminate within three migration rounds. But this doesn't mean that these chains aren't critical for the market.

Importantly, they found that every new market-rate unit typically results in 0.75 moves for households with below-median incomes. So, that is 75 moves for every 100 new homes constructed.

The reason why new supply ends up also benefiting lower-income households is because there's a clear income and rent gradient across the moving chain:

New housing (migration round 1) is typically priced at the highest end of the market. This makes sense because we know that development happens on the margin. But by migration rounds 2 and 3, median rents fall off noticeably, creating housing opportunities for other people.

New market-rate housing is sometimes criticized for only serving one segment of the market. But once again, we see evidence that it helps to ease overall housing pressures. There are other indirect benefits that shouldn't be ignored.

Cover photo by Henrique Ferreira on Unsplash

Chart from "Country-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains."

One of the common criticisms of new housing is that it's designed for rich people and that it does nothing to help the housing situation of average citizens. The YIMBY response to this is, "Well, yes, it does actually, because supply eases overall housing pressures and because of the filtering effect." This is the process whereby housing becomes gradually more affordable and available to people as new housing is built and vacancies are created. But most people don't like this explanation. It feels slow and indirect.

Here's something that might help.

In this recent study, researchers looked at the downstream effects of a new condominium tower in Honolulu called The Central Ala Moana. Completed in 2021, the building contains 512 units, of which 60% are income-restricted (310 units) and 40% are market-rate (202 units). It was developed under a state affordable-housing program that gave the developer height and density bonuses, plus fee waivers totalling about $13 million in exchange for delivering income-restricted units. (In my opinion, this is directionally preferable to unfunded inclusionary zoning mandates.)

Using address-history microdata, the researchers tracked who moved into the new condominium tower, and constructed detailed vacancy chains across multiple rounds of moves. Here's what they discovered:

Among documented vacancies, the 202 market-rate units produced 87 downstream vacancies (0.43 vacancies per initial unit), while the 310 income-restricted units produced 90 (0.29 vacancies per unit). Thus, market-rate units are more likely to generate a downstream vacancy. The main mechanism is new household formation: movers into income-restricted units are more likely to be a newly formed household, leaving family or roommates at the prior address and thus preventing a vacancy from being created.

In absolute numbers, they found that the completion of the building induced more than 500 local vacancies in the three years after construction, by setting off a chain of moves. Importantly, the researchers also found that the homes being vacated were, on average, about 40% less expensive than those in The Central. So even though a new building may be more expensive than the existing housing stock (which is generally the case or else the development wouldn't happen), it does generate benefits.

It eases overall housing supply constraints and expands affordability in the local housing market.

Cover photo by Michael Olsen on Unsplash

Is this a true or false statement?

"It is through media, of course, that we primarily consume architecture.”

Witold Rybczynski recently spoke about this on his blog. Initially he thought it was a preposterous statement. But then he begrudgingly accepts that it is actually the case today. This in turn leads to an interesting distinction between what it means to experience architecture versus consume architecture.

The former takes more time. You have to do laborious things like actually be in the space, walk around it, and generally just experience what it's like to be there. Consuming, on the other hand, is much easier. Maybe it's as simple as an image in your social feed that you forward to a friend so that they can in turn respond with a single fire emoji. Cool. Consumption done.

Naturally this distinction translates into different ways of thinking about architecture. In the words of Witold, when you're a consumer of architecture, you want to be "amused, titillated, and entertained." You don't have time for subtleties -- things like tactile materials, historical references, light, and shadow. This is about consuming architecture.

Now, I'm not sure if Witold has given any thought to what web3 and a mixed-reality future will mean for architecture, but it's an obvious and interesting question. Intuitively, one would think that the more time we spend with digitally mediated experiences, the less time we will have to experience architecture the way nature intended it. Though maybe that's not the way to think about this.

I tend to be a bit more rosy about the current state of affairs and the future than Witold, but here are two points. One, consumption allows more people to interact with a piece of architecture. In fact, before writing this post I consumed Studio Gang's recently completed project in Hawaii. It was nice, and maybe one day I will also experience it. That, I agree, would be even nicer.

Two, architecture is always a product of the zeitgeist at the time. Part of its job is to reflect culture and, for better or for worse, speak to who we are as a society. And so if architecture has become effective at reflecting our current milieu, isn't it doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing?