The end of sprawl • Hacker News Board

Re: The end of sprawl

#41

Post by vostok » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #29

danking00 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what type of cities you've lived in. I've lived in various parts of Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville and we've previously had rock band and currently have room scale VR (it is, in fact, in use as I write this). Neither had dedicated rooms but the setup and tear down is manageable. Neighbors never complains about the noise, but we also don't set the bass to room-shaking levels. Perhaps the most significant d…

> By pooling four incomes (two six figure tech salaries and two low five figure academia/architecture) we can afford places with enough living space to be comfortable. I'm surprised people with six-figure salaries are sharing. Is that common?

Yes. Six-figures is worth much less now than when the term came into popular usage.

Re: The end of sprawl

#42

Post by tomkinstinch » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

matt_morgan wrote: post #34

Where does the idea that you should spend 30% of your money on rent come from? I see it everywhere. Not that I'm questioning it in general, but does it ever change?

The notion one "should" spend some fraction must come the real estate industry.

The rule should be "spend as little as you can on housing to achieve the quality you want (or can tolerate), but never exceed 30% (or other arbitrary percentage) of net income, lest you risk being unable to save for large future expenses and emergencies."

Re: The end of sprawl

#43

Post by ArkyBeagle » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

matt_morgan wrote: post #34

Where does the idea that you should spend 30% of your money on rent come from? I see it everywhere. Not that I'm questioning it in general, but does it ever change?

Ten to fifteen percent is vastly better. It's doable but it's not that easy. You need a middling-good job in flyover country. That's the part that's not that easy - it's harder to justify a gig in flyover country by sheer ability. Companies on the downward slide towards Schumpeterian irrelevance just don't care and so don't bother them with the facts...

IMO, this was what my ( Silent Generation ) parents used as a heuristic. But people saw rising home prices and began the "stretch", and then "stretching" became the standard.

Because of this, I've become somewhat of the Geotaxer fan - if the rent is too damn high, then tax land rents, not income per se. Geotaxes have the aspect that they cannot be passed on to the renter by the rentier.

Re: The end of sprawl

#44

Post by vostok » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 7:20 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #28

mjevans wrote: post #8

I support ending sprawl, but there are factors that drive people to it. (Perceived or real) * Quality of education for their children. * Privacy (space/sound insulation) * Nature (if you move far enough out, then wonder why wildlife 'invades') * Investment (housing shouldn't be, but it is; also rent is too high)

The "let's move where schools are good" is just a self sustaining effect of some sprawling cities. In most countries "inner city kids" or "inner city schools" means the best schools with the richest kids. If the inner city is attractive then schools will be too. Not sure if you referred to nature as a net positive or negative? I have a forest an beach nearby (with the commute to suit my very reasonable price point).…

I mean, that's true in the US too if you look at schools like Stuyvesant or Trinity.

Re: The end of sprawl

#45

Post by ArkyBeagle » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 7:21 PM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #8

I support ending sprawl, but there are factors that drive people to it. (Perceived or real) * Quality of education for their children. * Privacy (space/sound insulation) * Nature (if you move far enough out, then wonder why wildlife 'invades') * Investment (housing shouldn't be, but it is; also rent is too high)

Sprawl is a reaction to land rents ( ala Ricardo ). It's really only bad in that it facilitates and encourages commuting. It could be at least partially addressed through the tax system - carbon taxes and land rents taxes combined would probably be enough.

Re: The end of sprawl

#46

Post by gumby » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 8:10 PM UTC

"Walkable" is on the increase because of demographics: there's a slight bulge in under 30s who are more likely to like urban living; once they start having kids the suburbs start to look more enticing.

Self-driving vehicles are likely to increase sprawl by reducing the travel burden :-(

Re: The end of sprawl

#47

Post by auxym » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 8:25 PM UTC

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #43

matt_morgan wrote: post #34

Where does the idea that you should spend 30% of your money on rent come from? I see it everywhere. Not that I'm questioning it in general, but does it ever change?

Ten to fifteen percent is vastly better. It's doable but it's not that easy. You need a middling-good job in flyover country. That's the part that's not that easy - it's harder to justify a gig in flyover country by sheer ability. Companies on the downward slide towards Schumpeterian irrelevance just don't care and so don't bother them with the facts... IMO, this was what my ( Silent Generation ) parents used as a he…

FWIW, my (half of) rent (split with SO) in Montreal is less than 15% of my net income. And I'm not even in software. People see the low engineer salaries around here and are generally reluctant to come, but I find the quality of life to be high and rent to be low.

Of course, there are other aspects to cost-of-living than rent, and quality of life is somewhat subjective.

EDIT: For anyone curious, here is a nifty heat map of rents in the city:

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/special/cartes/15-06_annonces-log...

Re: The end of sprawl

#48

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 8:27 PM UTC

auxym wrote: post #47

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ten to fifteen percent is vastly better. It's doable but it's not that easy. You need a middling-good job in flyover country. That's the part that's not that easy - it's harder to justify a gig in flyover country by sheer ability. Companies on the downward slide towards Schumpeterian irrelevance just don't care and so don't bother them with the facts... IMO, this was what my ( Silent Generation ) parents used as a he…

FWIW, my (half of) rent (split with SO) in Montreal is less than 15% of my net income. And I'm not even in software. People see the low engineer salaries around here and are generally reluctant to come, but I find the quality of life to be high and rent to be low. Of course, there are other aspects to cost-of-living than rent, and quality of life is somewhat subjective. EDIT: For anyone curious, here is a nifty heat…

[deleted]

Re: The end of sprawl

#49

Post by eropple » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

tomkinstinch wrote: post #40

Symbiote wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By pooling four incomes (two six figure tech salaries and two low five figure academia/architecture) we can afford places with enough living space to be comfortable. I'm surprised people with six-figure salaries are sharing. Is that common?

In Boston/Cambridge/Somerville it is depressingly common. I wish it were within my means to live alone, but even on six figures it doesn't make sense (I refuse to spend 40-50% of my net income on housing). Having roommates (who aren't romantic partners or family) is the worst. I need sanctuary away from people, and for example, it's frustrating when you want to cook and your cooking equipment is left dirty, when the…

The solution should be obvious: get out of Cambridge/Somerville! I recently moved to Malden and was able to comfortably afford a two-bedroom condo on a senior-level tech salary (I pay under 25% of my take-home in housing). It's super quiet and just on the edge of suburbia, but with a supermarket, the gym, the T, and about a dozen restaurants within easy walking distance. I'm a little over ten minutes from an Orange Line T stop (Malden Center) that gets downtown in 28 minutes and the same T stop has a thirty-minute bus to Central. I live super near three different parks, and the one I go to most often is lightly used enough that I can often sit somewhere, surrounded by trees, and not see another person for an hour or so.

I could Uber to Cambridge, round-trip, twice weekly to go out with friends and still be racking up significantly less expenses than I did when I lived in Davis.

Re: The end of sprawl

#50

Post by ArkyBeagle » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 9:10 PM UTC

auxym wrote: post #47

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ten to fifteen percent is vastly better. It's doable but it's not that easy. You need a middling-good job in flyover country. That's the part that's not that easy - it's harder to justify a gig in flyover country by sheer ability. Companies on the downward slide towards Schumpeterian irrelevance just don't care and so don't bother them with the facts... IMO, this was what my ( Silent Generation ) parents used as a he…

FWIW, my (half of) rent (split with SO) in Montreal is less than 15% of my net income. And I'm not even in software. People see the low engineer salaries around here and are generally reluctant to come, but I find the quality of life to be high and rent to be low. Of course, there are other aspects to cost-of-living than rent, and quality of life is somewhat subjective. EDIT: For anyone curious, here is a nifty heat…

I had a shot at moving to Montreal in the early '00s. It would have been interesting. Those winters, however..