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

Post by paublyrne » Sun, Jan 01, 2017, 9:00 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #157

mhneu wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Inequality is not the problem. The problem is there are more people who want to live somewhere than there are houses. With perfect equality there would still be more people than houses. The one and only fix is more houses. That's it. Any other solution is just picking winners and losers different ways. But no matter which way you pick the same number of people win and the same number lose.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 01, 2017, 9:40 PM UTC

shostack wrote: post #132

rdlecler1 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less of a ladder than a Ponzi scheme. In SF housing prices have grown at a compound growth rate of 6% for over 50 years. Older generation squats on property paid for by debt, low taxes, and then retires at 60 -- all paid for by a younger generation that doesn't have jobs and can't afford housing.

Don't forget that Prop 13 disproportionately favors buyers who bought closer to when it was rolled out. Their rates were locked in a long time ago. I'm not sure how repeatable this will be for new buyers.

Post by Camillo » Sun, Jan 01, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

melq wrote: post #336

sangnoir wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You can't touch such historic buildings, that house is 100 years old! We have to preserve the character of our city! I've lived here 3 years and really treasure it. Let's just continue the wholesale replacement of the people and culture that gave rise to it in the first place.

Post by user5994461 » Sun, Jan 01, 2017, 10:06 PM UTC

muninn_ wrote: post #81

jamespitts wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a view that will lead to a highly dysfunctional society. First off, you are dismissive of the issue with that bit of exaggeration. It is not as if this group wants all the good things in life that only a tech salary afford. Perhaps a dignified life would be sufficient. You also place NYC, SF, Boston, DC, etc. into a category of city that is naturally not available to the middle class. Is NYC a luxury like a 3…

Is NYC a luxury? Absolutely. The access to institutions, the culture, the people, the shops, the history... all of that is a luxury. That's why people want to live there versus somewhere like Cleveland I guess. Once those cities are unaffordable for the very people you mention, they will just move to more affordable places where they have a better cost of living, and then they will bring ideas, creativity, and resurg…

Post by Redoubts » Sun, Jan 01, 2017, 11:28 PM UTC

m0llusk wrote: post #326

nopinsight wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an article or other links from which we can learn more about the reasons? A summary of the long answer would be helpful too. Since the demand for such cities is quite high--a large number of middle class voters would like to live in one--would a mobilization of political will enable us to change to situation somewhat, at least over the medium to long term?

Strongtowns.org might be a good place to start.