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

The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 77 posts

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#11

Post by dasmoth »

stupidcar wrote: post #9
dasmoth wrote: post #6

This is an incredibly "urbanist" piece. No mention at all of companies moving to less-populous locations, let alone alternatives such as remote work. It's hard not to be left with the impression that the author isn't going to be happy until everyone is living like ants.

Hard not to be left with the impression that you consider people who enjoy living in cities to be insects, and expect every piece you read to reflect that bizarre prejudice.

There are many variations on "living in cities". Some of them involve single-family dwellings and lots of private space. It actually seems to be those models which are most strongly under attack right now.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#12

Post by maxsilver »

ams6110 wrote: post #7
shawnee_ wrote: post #3

Now everything’s changed. In 2016, the San Francisco metro area was the top location for venture capital investment in the country, hauling in $23.4 billion—more than triple the VC investment in Silicon Valley proper. Interesting numbers, what seems to be evidence of inflation chasing inflation. There's no logical justification for such a concentrated purse of investment dollars benefiting so few people. Furthermore,…

Renting has been the standard model for suburban office parks too. Most companies do not own their own office buildings. It's more common for specialized space, e.g. manufacturing facilities but not usually done for offices.

> Renting has been the standard model for suburban office parks too. Most companies do not own their own office buildings

For small business, sure. But is that really true in SF for mid-size to major companies? I know this is a midwest-skewed perspective, but most mid-sized and large companies really do own their suburban office buildings / HQ buildings here.

The only office space I know of that they rent, is the expensive monopolized spaces downtown. Which would seem to reinforce parent posters point.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#13

Post by TulliusCicero »

dasmoth wrote: post #11
stupidcar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard not to be left with the impression that you consider people who enjoy living in cities to be insects, and expect every piece you read to reflect that bizarre prejudice.

There are many variations on "living in cities". Some of them involve single-family dwellings and lots of private space. It actually seems to be those models which are most strongly under attack right now.

They're under attack because they make those cities unaffordable to most, they're a cash transfer from immigrants to the emplaced, from the young to the old.

They're under attack because they can't possibly scale.

They're under attack because they take more energy and are more hostile to walking, biking, and transit.

They're under attack because they're not the natural outcome of people expressing preferences in the market, but rather the result of enforced government zoning regulations.

They're under attack because said zoning regulations are social engineering designed to -- in concert with neighborhood-based school district boundaries -- segregate people based on class.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#14

Post by sevensor »

This piece is by Richard Florida, who helped create the very problem he laments. Ten-fifteen years ago, he was talking up the same cities as magnets for the "creative class." Now all of a sudden he's concerned about the janitors and street sweepers? I'm not taking Florida seriously if he can't acknowledge his past myopia.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#15

Post by jdavis703 »

sevensor wrote: post #14

This piece is by Richard Florida, who helped create the very problem he laments. Ten-fifteen years ago, he was talking up the same cities as magnets for the "creative class." Now all of a sudden he's concerned about the janitors and street sweepers? I'm not taking Florida seriously if he can't acknowledge his past myopia.

Isn't this an ad homin argument? What is wrong with his actual policy proposals?

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#16

Post by aninhumer »

ionwake wrote: post #4

Please do correct me if I am wrong. But isn't the whole reason lower class job salaries increased in the USA was simply because they had just won a world war? I do not know enough about the reasons for affluence in the 50s, but surely it was in large part to success in the war? If so, how could one suggest the minimum wage is just raised without it causing mass unemployment in the present? I must be misunderstanding…

I'm not sure how you think winning a war leads "simply" to higher wages?

There were a lot of factors surrounding WW2 which contributed to the success of the US afterwards, but they're nowhere near as simple as the fact that they won.

If anything, the most immediate outcome of the victory is a sudden influx of unemployed soldiers needing jobs, which causes downward pressure on wages.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#17

Post by hueving »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #13
dasmoth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many variations on "living in cities". Some of them involve single-family dwellings and lots of private space. It actually seems to be those models which are most strongly under attack right now.

They're under attack because they make those cities unaffordable to most, they're a cash transfer from immigrants to the emplaced, from the young to the old. They're under attack because they can't possibly scale. They're under attack because they take more energy and are more hostile to walking, biking, and transit. They're under attack because they're not the natural outcome of people expressing preferences in the…

And that's why New York city is so affordable?

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#18

Post by matt4077 »

ionwake wrote: post #4

Please do correct me if I am wrong. But isn't the whole reason lower class job salaries increased in the USA was simply because they had just won a world war? I do not know enough about the reasons for affluence in the 50s, but surely it was in large part to success in the war? If so, how could one suggest the minimum wage is just raised without it causing mass unemployment in the present? I must be misunderstanding…

Germany quite definitely lost WW2 and saw incomes rise even faster after the war: wid.world/solo.php#0/countriestimeseries/anninc_pall_992_i/US;DE/last/eu/k/p/yearly/a/false/1844.6039999999998/75000/curve/false

"Winning a war" is surprisingly useless, economically.

A higher minimum wage would certainly not create "mass unemployment". Most research points to unemployment remaining about the same. That's because there are different mechanisms involved that work in opposite directions.

Firstly, very few people would actually lose their jobs. These are the people who create a value of, say, 7$/h, and would therefore be a net loss if their wage were raised above that level.

But that's quite rare. Most people working for minimum wage create value >= their wage. Currently, that value is "captured" by their employer and/or by the customers. Raising the minimum wage would just redistribute that surplus value: Instead of getting a Happy Meal for $6, the customer may have to pay $6.25. And instead of making $1 on the sale, McDonald's may only make 75cents. The employee gets 50cents extra.

Since, by definition, these are the poorest people, any extra cash they get is usually also spent rather quickly, If our employee uses their extra $100 for this month to get his shower fixed, it means extra business for a plumber. Compare to the current situation, where those $100 end up with McDonald's shareholders, and customers, who may use it to buy more shares and inflating the S&P500 without any effect in the real economy.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#19

Post by muninn_ »

akanet wrote: post #2

The author's recommendations are certainly apt, though I wonder if he realizes how much of a political nightmare trying to get cities like Berkeley to build more housing is. Berkeley is probably the staunchest NIMBY city of the major Bay Area cities. The mayor and city council recently outright denied a simple rebuild of a house on Haskell St (heh) that would have added a couple extra units of housing. We believe thi…

Or you can move if you can't afford the area. There are plenty of places with lower costs of living. You can't live in what is perhaps the most desirable area in the world and then be upset that people want to protect/increase their property value or not change how their community is. Not everybody wants to live in a sea of imposing skyscrapers.

-edit

So I see a few comments discussing things like commuting, urban sprawl, etc.... Those are fair comments and I largely agree. But the solution proposed is not the right answer either. We need mixed-use developed walkable neighborhoods. We need our work places to be mixed within our neighborhoods along with our parks, convenience stores, and everything in between. Obviously I'm not a fan of sprawl, but I'm not a big fan of skyscrapers, and I'm also not a fan of others being upset about the affordability of the world's most desirable areas. While it is true that there is much more economic opportunity in a place like San Francisco than, say, middle-of-nowhere Arizona or something, it would be incorrect to suggest that there is no economic opportunity. Frankly, the assessment being made here is that you're choosing to suffer a 2-hour each-way commute and unaffordable rent for the opportunity to work at really cool companies, but the solution, which is to force other people to change their way of life, even if you find it contemptable, is an inherently immoral stance. If a town votes in a mayor who does what the town wants, what is more American, and democratic than that? Is overrunning the town with lawsuits and fights an ethical thing to do? I don't think so. Pack your stuff, and move. When (insert company here) can't get employees to relocate to the insanity that is the Bay Area, they'll move their offices, and things will resolve naturally and peacefully.

Disclaimer: I have never lived long-term in the Bay Area and I have no vested interest in how any of this turns out. If anything, reading the horror stories about people subletting camping spots in their backyard and the like amuses me (obviously I feel bad too). I do confess I have a vested interest in promoting mixed-use development neighborhoods and I would like to see more people move out of the Bay Area and back into the rest of the United States as I believe that the concentration of wealth and knowledge in one (or a few) areas is contributing to the fractures in our society and anti-competitiveness of our second and third-tier cities.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#20

Post by dilemma »

aninhumer wrote: post #16
ionwake wrote: post #4

Please do correct me if I am wrong. But isn't the whole reason lower class job salaries increased in the USA was simply because they had just won a world war? I do not know enough about the reasons for affluence in the 50s, but surely it was in large part to success in the war? If so, how could one suggest the minimum wage is just raised without it causing mass unemployment in the present? I must be misunderstanding…

I'm not sure how you think winning a war leads "simply" to higher wages? There were a lot of factors surrounding WW2 which contributed to the success of the US afterwards, but they're nowhere near as simple as the fact that they won. If anything, the most immediate outcome of the victory is a sudden influx of unemployed soldiers needing jobs, which causes downward pressure on wages.

What the parent is referring to is the US having industrial production capacity that was left intact while Europe was in shambles.
Post reply on HN