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

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#31

Post by dsfyu404ed »

muninn_ wrote: post #19
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 sp…

Commuting has a cost that is more than just dollars especially for people who can't afford to outsource most non-income earning aspects of their lives.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#32

Post by ghaff »

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,…

Yes, in the 80s, companies built out in the suburbs/exurbs in part because it was cheaper. But they also built out there because relatively few of their potential employees had much interest in living in the city.

I worked for one of those suburban computer companies in the 80s/90s and almost no one I knew commuted out from the city even though many people I worked with had equally long commutes (45 minutes to an hour) in other directions.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#33

Post by jacobolus »

maxsilver wrote: post #27
TulliusCicero wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> (single family homes with reasonable space) they make those cities unaffordable, they can't possibly scale, they are more hostile to walking, biking, and transit. None of that is actually true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv6SbFlZMbU Apartments are great for those who want them, but there's nothing wrong or anti-urban about family housing. You can easily give ever…

“Everyone”? The first video you linked shows that the specific neighborhood in Tokyo is filled with low-rise and mid-rise apartment buildings.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#34

Post by twobyfour »

muninn_ wrote: post #19
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 sp…

1) A city can't survive if the people needed to work the jobs to make it an appealing place to live can't afford to live within commute distance.

2) The more affordable places tend to have less economic opportunity (which is part of why they're in lower demand and more affordable in the first place), so moving there isn't necessarily a win.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#35

Post by maxsilver »

jacobolus wrote: post #33
maxsilver wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (single family homes with reasonable space) they make those cities unaffordable, they can't possibly scale, they are more hostile to walking, biking, and transit. None of that is actually true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv6SbFlZMbU Apartments are great for those who want them, but there's nothing wrong or anti-urban about family housing. You can easily give ever…

“Everyone”? The first video you linked shows that the specific neighborhood in Tokyo is filled with low-rise and mid-rise apartment buildings.

"Everyone" meaning everyone who wants one.

The average family making average wages in Tokyo, can afford a brand new detached home inside central Tokyo.

The same is not true in any of the top 50 cities in the US. Even the smaller unpopular cities, even the cities that have slower population growth than Tokyo, or have cheaper land than Tokyo.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#36

Post by twobyfour »

hueving wrote: post #17
TulliusCicero wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Would it be more affordable if it had only two stories of housing everywhere instead of up to 40?

NYC isn't affordable because housing growth can't keep up with population growth.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#37

Post by aninhumer »

maxsilver wrote: post #35
jacobolus wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Everyone”? The first video you linked shows that the specific neighborhood in Tokyo is filled with low-rise and mid-rise apartment buildings.

"Everyone" meaning everyone who wants one. The average family making average wages in Tokyo, can afford a brand new detached home inside central Tokyo. The same is not true in any of the top 50 cities in the US. Even the smaller unpopular cities, even the cities that have slower population growth than Tokyo, or have cheaper land than Tokyo.

What exactly do you mean by "central Tokyo" here? I'm fairly sure the average family cannot buy a detached house in Ginza for example.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#38

Post by kasey_junk »

maxsilver wrote: post #12
ams6110 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exp…

> most mid-sized and large companies really do own their suburban office buildings / HQ buildings here

I'd love to see some statistics on that because it doesn't jive with my experience in large companies in the midwest. Ownership of land was considered a major negative when I was working in large companies but its definitely been a while and the sample size is small.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#39

Post by maxsilver »

aninhumer wrote: post #37
maxsilver wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Everyone" meaning everyone who wants one. The average family making average wages in Tokyo, can afford a brand new detached home inside central Tokyo. The same is not true in any of the top 50 cities in the US. Even the smaller unpopular cities, even the cities that have slower population growth than Tokyo, or have cheaper land than Tokyo.

What exactly do you mean by "central Tokyo" here? I'm fairly sure the average family cannot buy a detached house in Ginza for example.

"The 23 special wards that make up the core and most populated portion of Tokyo" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_wards_of_Tokyo

You should watch the videos linked above, it explains all of this in simple but detailed language.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#40

Post by kasey_junk »

zucchini_head wrote: post #30
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…

Well, a lot of historians say that the USA's economy flourished post-war not necessarily because they "won" it (hard to define concept these days), but because everybody else's manufacturing infrastructure was completely flattened. Why do you think the USA automobile market exploded post-war? It's because the two biggest automobile manufactures - Germany and Japan - were flattened to smouldering ashes and took around…

Were the Japanese auto manufacturers a large player prior to the war? I thought the domestic production there was essentially nothing before the ramp up to war in the 30s.
Post reply on HN