this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
113 points (98.3% liked)

DACH - jetzt auf feddit.org

8713 readers
1 users here now

Diese Community wird zum 01.07 auf read-only gestellt. Durch die anhäufenden IT-Probleme und der fehlende Support wechseln wir als Community auf www.feddit.org/c/dach - Ihr seid herzlich eingeladen auch dort weiter zu diskutieren!

Das Sammelbecken auf feddit für alle Deutschsprechenden aus Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg und die zwei Belgier. Außerdem natürlich alle anderen deutschprechenden Länderteile der Welt.

Für länderspezifische Themen könnt ihr euch in folgenden Communities austauschen:

Eine ausführliche Sidebar findet ihr hier: Infothread: Regeln, Feedback & sonstige Infos

Auch hier gelten die Serverregeln von https://feddit.de !

Banner: SirSamuelVimes

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Guten Morgen aus Deutschland, wo der Markt für Bürogebäude den stärksten Rückgang seit zwei Jahrzehnten erleidet, da höhere Finanzierungskosten und schleppende Trends bei der Rückkehr ins Büro den Appetit der Anleger trüben: Der Abschwung beschleunigte sich im vierten Quartal mit einem Rückgang von 13 % gegenüber dem Vorjahr, wie aus veröffentlichten Daten hervorgeht vom Deutschen Bankenverband VDP. Im Gesamtjahr sind die Preise um mehr als 10 % eingebrochen, der stärkste seit Beginn der Aufzeichnungen im Jahr 2003, und es wird mit weiteren Rückgängen zu Beginn des Jahres 2024 gerechnet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

So what you're saying is

Housing is about to become a lot more available in Germany? Guten Morgen!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No. It's about office buildings, not residental ones. Those remain at a critical state.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Once most of the office buildings are permanently empty, converting them is the obvious choice.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how obvious of a choice that really is though due to a plethora of regulations and construction costs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Compared to having a building go unused until it becomes unusable, the construction costs don't seem so bad. For sure, a very large number will sit empty for a long time, though.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, absolutely not. Strict regulations will make sure that housing stays rare and unaffordable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because absolutely nobody benefits off of it. Property owners lose profit as buildings go unused and become dilapidated. The government gains nothing. Potential buyers lose an opportunity. Who wins?

I can understand the feeling when it seems like the whole system is acting against our interests, and sometimes it really is, but the intentions of regulations are not to reduce housing availability unless regulators somehow benefit from it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The purpose of a system is what it does.

I'm just very disappointed with the housing politics in Germany. There's a huge gap between the demand and the supply, and a lot of it is held up by the Bauämter and a lot is influenced by the numerous regulations which make housing the most expensive in Germany out of its neighboring European countries where the excuse of expensive labour doesn't come into the picture. Meanwhile living in Berlin, I see new office towers and malls and other commercial real estate popping up much more frequently than housing of similar size. A tower with 500 offices is cool, but where are those 500 people going to live? On top of that, most city officials are against WFH because it reduces their tax base and tax receipts from fewer people ordering or going to lunch, sandwiches in the morning, after-work drinks and so on.

Also my point is that housing stays rare and unaffordable, and a certain class absolutely benefits from that -- the current owners of property. If they can restrict supply, their land retains or appreciates in value. The same people may not be invested in commercial real estate, or may be trying to increase the RTO movement at the same time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

a certain class absolutely benefits from that – the current owners of property

But that only holds true if they're maximizing profit by keeping housing unavailable, because they can also profit off of the office spaces. But if the office spaces become unprofitable and unmaintainable, then their best choices are to either convert or sell, otherwise they are losing out on money. They can't force people to buy, lease, or rent their offices.

We are talking about greedy people. They're not going to intentionally lose money to make your life harder. What this system does is make money for the owners, your suffering is merely a side effect.