Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 363 posts

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

#311

Post by rukittenme »

orbitur wrote: post #287
rukittenme wrote: post #284

The people who write these articles almost always live in California or New York City. I just have to laugh. Move to any major Texan city, any major Floridian city -- really any city in "The South" -- and the situation is much different. There are tons of great properties for unsubsidized, lower class purchasers. Seriously, zillow downtown Nashville TN. You can find great deals for the poorest amongst us. People in (…

As a southerner who's moved to a northern city that expanded before cars blew up in the 50s, I gotta say, I can't ever see myself going back until you can feasibly live without a car. My homecity is now over 600k people, but it's really just a network of highways and avenues/parkways connecting them all. Public transit is underfunded, and only the poorest of the poor use it until they can buy a car. Buying a car is s…

> Maybe the freedom of not being trapped in a car to get anywhere interesting costs more.

Perhaps it does. That is little consolation to the poor. All of whom have cars.

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

#312

Post by rukittenme »

mhneu wrote: post #302
rukittenme wrote: post #284

The people who write these articles almost always live in California or New York City. I just have to laugh. Move to any major Texan city, any major Floridian city -- really any city in "The South" -- and the situation is much different. There are tons of great properties for unsubsidized, lower class purchasers. Seriously, zillow downtown Nashville TN. You can find great deals for the poorest amongst us. People in (…

Housing doesn't take care of itself. Cities built on the American car-centric model work fine until they reach a certain size and then traffic chokes them and quality of life for everyone goes down. Atlanta, a southern city, is a good example of a city whose economic growth is limited by traffic. Society and government exist to help us citizens coordinate our efforts to solve problems bigger than any of us. Building…

Public transit won't reduce the cost of housing in cities. The opposite has been shown.

Zoning protects incumbents -- always. Incumbents are the reason more density is not being built in places like SF.

Every solution you've presented has been done, is being done, and will always be done until it becomes politically unpopular to do so. I don't see how doing it again will solve anything.

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

#313

Post by candiodari »

CountSessine wrote: post #225
Svenskunganka wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that every major city across the continents have a supply shortage, that's the nature of cities, but I haven't heard of any city in Europe not affordable to live in for the middle class. Surely the good 'ol supply & demand are influencing the pricing, but I believe there must be something external that has caused this.

Yes - that's because they don't have a supply problem; they don't do stupid things like zone their cities to prioritize single family detached homes. European cities are dense and if we want North American cities to be similarly liveable, we need to rezone to allow greater density and increased supply.

Can Americans stop with the "surely it's better elsewhere" crap ? No it's not better in Europe. Either you go to a capital or second tier city with jobs, and pay ridiculous rates. Buy, rent, doesn't matter. Or you go to a normal city and commute in. That adds 2-4 hours to your working day and 50-150 euros to your (effective) monthly rent, but provides you with a much better place to live.

Or of course you go to rust belt equivalent communities. Northern Spain. Southern Italy. Very cheap, beautiful even, housing for no money whatsoever. And not a chance in hell of finding a job there.

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

#314

Post by Glyptodon »

_m8fo wrote: post #114
Glyptodon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your numbers are entirely unreasonable unless they're after tax. Maybe in Arizona and not saving 5k for retirement. But even there $150/week for food is like Ramen, Beans, and Rice, you're not accounting for transportation or medical costs, etc. You can live on 35k for sure, but saving 10k of it every year is pretty optimistic.

35k after tax is about 28k [1]. What's wrong with rice and beans and occasional meat? An average 22 year old doesn't need medical insurance. Given that many people don't save at all this would be pretty good. Also the plan I described already had leeway for unexpected expenses. 12k housing and food 3k entertainment 10k house 5k saving I agree that it would be a boring life. That being said, this is using 35k and not…

As on otherwise healthy person who had to go to urgent care/ER twice this year (nothing that serious, ultimately)... not having health care is something that you'll really regret. Almost anything that puts you in the hospital for any amount of time will cost thousands of dollars. If you need anything major it will be tens of thousands of dollars. Unlucky enough to get cancer or something similarly bad and you could be out more than your lifetime earnings. And you have almost zero control over if/when something happens.

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

#315

Post by [deleted] »

criddell wrote: post #250
1024core wrote: post #151

I live in SF, and am flabbergasted at the number of 1- or 2- floor single-family homes. A city the size of SF (46 sq mi) and population (850K+ and growing) simply can't afford so many SFHs. I was in Barcelona recently (yay NIPS!) and Barcelona is smaller than SF (36 sq mi) and has nearly twice the population! Everywhere you see are 6-floor buildings, with the bottom reserved for shops and people living above them. It…

I have too many hobbies that take space to live in a place like Barcelona. Where do people work on their hobby car or motorcycle? Where do you do woodworking? Where do you keep your boat or paddle board? Do they have gardens? What about an outdoor kitchen for grilling and smoking? Do their kids have bicycles and scooters and skateboards and baseball gear?

[deleted]

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

#316

Post by ido »

vidoc wrote: post #303
crdoconnor wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's partly because the underground is 154 years old, which carries with it its own set of maintenance headaches, partly because of the "public private partnership" programs from 2000s onwards that were set up as a means to extract money from the system and partly because they pay reasonably good wages.

Do most londonese share this feeling of mine that it's kinda expensive or this is just me being a bit dumb? :)

It certainly surprised me as a tourist- for example Berlin's network is not much less extensive but cost a fraction to use.

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

#318

Post by sologoub »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #166
sologoub wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's entirely untrue - you can find plenty of decent affordable neighborhoods in LA that have nothing in common with skid row. What you have to compromise on is traffic/long commute.

You'll have to be a lot more specific, and I currently work from home. We also have a school-aged child.

Neighborhoods in LA vary greatly and depend on what you value. For example, if you want good schools, yard and say house under 700k, and want to commute to Santa Monica. Your best bet is West San Fernando Valley, such as Woodland Hills and parts of Calabasas.

Thousand Oaks would reduce house costs to 400-600k, but add 20-30 mins to an already hour-long drive. Forget public transit.

If you don't need to go to SM/Venice/West LA, then going south might be better. Orange County has a lot to offer and probably a bit cheaper.

If you are ok with Condos/Townhomes, either direction, 2-3 br condo can be had for less than 400k, sometimes less than 300k.

Most condos on the west side are more like 600-900k and above, so the drive can save you 50%, but it really sucks. (Did the drive for 6 years.)

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

#319

Post by sangnoir »

kafkaesq wrote: post #245
1024core wrote: post #151

I live in SF, and am flabbergasted at the number of 1- or 2- floor single-family homes. A city the size of SF (46 sq mi) and population (850K+ and growing) simply can't afford so many SFHs. I was in Barcelona recently (yay NIPS!) and Barcelona is smaller than SF (36 sq mi) and has nearly twice the population! Everywhere you see are 6-floor buildings, with the bottom reserved for shops and people living above them. It…

We kept thinking: why can't SF be more like BCN? Because you'd have to demolish acres and acres of 100+ year-old architecture (generally considered to be among the planet's most distinctive) to make it that way. And even if we did -- it wouldn't look anything like Barcelona (and its fabulously integrated 100 year-old architecture and street grid), either. Most likely, I betcha, it would end up looking like a pepped u…

> Which I'm sure would suit many of the "Who cares about historic architecture, as long as I can get a shot at a $2400 studio!" advocates here just fine.

As opposed to the status quo, which suits many of the "Who cares about the middle class, as long as we can preserve all of the 100+ year old architecture" advocates just fine.

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

#320

Post by spacemanmatt »

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…

The dearth of quality education drives the housing inequality significantly. Funding schools adequately would have a profound effect on property values.
Post reply on HN