The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#211

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #207

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support more density, but the relationship between density and personal space isn't side-stepped by building up. You're just adding a vertical commute component. It's better than yards and boulevards, but a building of three-bedroom apartments to the edge of space will have a different human dynamic from one with mostly one-bedrooms.

Well first, a 1-bedroom is the most expensive way to live, at the rate we're going we'll have 3-bedroom apartments with 3 families per bedroom instead of 3 bedrooms per family :). Back to the Industrial Revolution tenements. You can get your human dynamic just fine on sidewalks, cafes, parks, etc. It doesn't need to be in-building. And even ~70 stories by elevator is still only a few minutes, nothing like the hour-pl…

> You can get your human dynamic just fine on sidewalks, cafes, parks, etc.

More density means fewer [EDIT: more] people within walking distance of each café, park and restaurant. That, in turn, affects how many of them there are and how eclectic they can be.

Density is people over space. If you give each person more space, you reduce density. This can't be avoided.

> nothing like the hour-plus train rides middle-class people in cities currently need to endure

They don't need to endure it. Stamford, CT and Rochester or Port Jefferson, NY are nice cities with middling densities.

But many people don't want that. They want restaurants and nightclubs and parks with rotating art installations that only emerge and make sense when you pack people together.

Sure, you can put one or two large units in the mix without screwing things up. But not a lot, not for everyone. Else you end up with urban deserts.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#212

Post by lostlogin » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

saryant wrote: post #112

alistairSH wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question... where does the 30% income/housing ratio come from? I always assumed it was pushed by the housing industry to "con" us into more housing than we need.

That's why I called it arbitrary. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-17/housings-... I was using it as a starting point.

Excellent link, thank you.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#213

Post by SmallBets » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 9:10 PM UTC

While pricing people out of "hot cities" sucks, there is an upside to up and coming cities being built up. Even Austin and Denver mentioned in the story were not on par with 'out of reach' cities a decade ago.

There will continue to be waves of this as we see places like Nashville, NC cities, SLC, Charleston etc building up now.

This relocation is a form of spreading the wealth and based on geography the optimistic view is some of the benefit will go to areas we saw most left behind and divided this election (south, midwest).

In the long term that could be a boon to middle class outside megacities and more opportunity to escape the mega city bubbles/echo chambers

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#214

Post by ashark » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #190

ghaff wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Public schools in dense cities tend to be almost universally bad--in spite of often being funded at significantly higher per-student levels than even relatively tony suburbs that have high-performing schools. If you look at Massachusetts public high schools for example, the one public high school in Cambridge (where housing has gotten very expensive) has some of the highest per…

Hmm. It's a little hard to imagine that per-student funding in high-density city schools outstrips that for truly wealthier and presumably sparser suburbs with any significant consistency. I'd want to see the actual numbers. For instance, where is this funding coming from for the cities? And, where is the suburban tax money going? And, what's the history? Were these schools neglected for years, then the state recentl…

> Hmm. It's a little hard to imagine that per-student funding in high-density city schools outstrips that for truly wealthier and presumably sparser suburbs with any significant consistency.

Definitely does in my city. Teacher pay's also substantially higher in the inner city schools. Most teachers still don't want to work there because they're stuck in a seemingly-inescapable poverty-and-culture-driven "bad homes -> bad students -> burnt-out and bitter faculty" rut, which makes them a discouraging, abusive, and dangerous hell for faculty and students alike.

Source: my wife and probably half my circle of friends are teachers.

[EDIT] in fact, some of the better suburban schools pay worse than the so-so suburban schools, let alone the high-paying inner city ones, because they can. Good teachers will still work there because the environment is nicer and more rewarding (that is, the students are way easier to teach, and the community tends to be supportive)

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#215

Post by maratd » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 9:16 PM UTC

muninn_ wrote: post #196

maratd wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't remotely true. The NYC metro area is massive, with plenty of family friendly neighborhoods with good commute times to midtown. Plenty of places in northern NJ and elsewhere with good schools.

There you go then. You can raise a family in NYC.

I am doing just that? Apparently others are as well since school enrollment keeps growing.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#216

Post by kansface » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

mhneu wrote: post #140

laughfactory wrote: post #128

This article reflects my wife and my experience: just a month ago we left San Diego for a small town north of Salt Lake City. We make over six-figures and San Diego held only poor economic prospects for us. We'd have a very difficult time buying a decent home (2000 sq ft, good neighborhood, reasonable commute) for a price which wouldn't jeopardize other essentials like retirement savings, kids college savings, saving…

It's not just housing policy that's gone wrong, it's transit policy. We haven't built good public transit in our cities, and now that cars are filling all available roads, even houses far away from cities are too expensive for how long commutes are. We wish we had a train system in many cities that allowed the middle class to live 40-60 minutes away from their jobs. Ultimately however the main problem is wealth inequ…

> Ultimately however the main problem is wealth inequality. If median income had increased with GDP since 1980, instead of all gains going to the 0.01%, you would be able to afford to live in the suburbs of San Diego.

The problem of income inequality is one and the same as the housing crisis - ie, the wealth gap is nearly entirely explained by real estate.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#217

Post by ghaff » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #211

closeparen wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well first, a 1-bedroom is the most expensive way to live, at the rate we're going we'll have 3-bedroom apartments with 3 families per bedroom instead of 3 bedrooms per family :). Back to the Industrial Revolution tenements. You can get your human dynamic just fine on sidewalks, cafes, parks, etc. It doesn't need to be in-building. And even ~70 stories by elevator is still only a few minutes, nothing like the hour-pl…

> You can get your human dynamic just fine on sidewalks, cafes, parks, etc. More density means fewer [EDIT: more] people within walking distance of each café, park and restaurant. That, in turn, affects how many of them there are and how eclectic they can be. Density is people over space. If you give each person more space, you reduce density. This can't be avoided. > nothing like the hour-plus train rides middle-cla…

I think you meant more people within walking distance.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#218

Post by closeparen » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 9:29 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #211

closeparen wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well first, a 1-bedroom is the most expensive way to live, at the rate we're going we'll have 3-bedroom apartments with 3 families per bedroom instead of 3 bedrooms per family :). Back to the Industrial Revolution tenements. You can get your human dynamic just fine on sidewalks, cafes, parks, etc. It doesn't need to be in-building. And even ~70 stories by elevator is still only a few minutes, nothing like the hour-pl…

> You can get your human dynamic just fine on sidewalks, cafes, parks, etc. More density means fewer [EDIT: more] people within walking distance of each café, park and restaurant. That, in turn, affects how many of them there are and how eclectic they can be. Density is people over space. If you give each person more space, you reduce density. This can't be avoided. > nothing like the hour-plus train rides middle-cla…

>Some people don't want that--they want the restaurants and nightclubs and parks with rotating art installations that only emerge and make sense when you pack people together.

You really think a neighborhood of 70-story buildings can sustain these things as long as people share bedrooms, but can't the instant that children and young adults have their own doors to close?

>More density means fewer people within walking distance of each café, park and restaurant.

Vertical distance costs almost nothing in terms of time, given modern elevators and scheduling. I'll skip the cafe because it's a 40 minute walk instead of 10. You'd really skip the cafe because it's 20 floors down instead of 5? That's, like, one minute on a really bad day.

>If you give each person more space, you reduce density.

Well sure, but the advantages of density really come from compactness in time/ease of transportation rather than space. It doesn't matter that the restaurant is far away from its customers on the vertical axis, because elevators are fast.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#219

Post by toasterlovin » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

ryanSrich wrote: post #58

gipp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$200k is the 94th percentile of income.

I'd imagine that's less so when you look at popular cities. The parent post wanted an opinion on middle class. My opinion is that middle class incomes in cities is around $200k (or should be if you want to be somewhat comfortable). I see houses all around me in Portland going for $800k, $900k, and $1mm plus. That's certainly much more than what a middle class income could afford. So considering those prices are fairl…

Those prices are not standard for Portland. There are tons of houses to be had in Portland for $300k-$500k. And many of those are in neighborhoods that most of America would consider insufferably hip.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#220

Post by closeparen » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 9:35 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #108

mac01021 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the moment, though, we are probably better off shrinking our numbers.

Not in the US. We're facing a huge impending labor shortage. (And immigration just externalizes the problem of accommodating raising children from US policy to India or China policy.)

Doesn't that mean, huge impending rise in real wages? Because if so, sign me up!