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

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#51

Post by aninhumer »

maxsilver wrote: post #39
aninhumer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While it's laudable that people can afford detached housing in the extended metro area, I think calling the special wards "central Tokyo" is a bit of a stretch. (Especially given that they reach the border of Tokyo prefecture to the north and east.)

But in any case, as far as I can see your vision doesn't even conflict with the urbanists. They want the dense urban cores and excellent public transport that allows Tokyo's suburbs to exist. Where they are hostile to suburbs, it's where they are enforced by zoning and are getting in the way of density in places where it makes sense and making single family dwellings more expensive in the process.

Indeed many would argue that the success of cities in Japan can be largely attributed to their laxer zoning laws, which is one of the primary things urbanists argue for.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#52

Post by sevensor »

kasey_junk wrote: post #43
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 him doing just that? The creative class came back to the cities, changing what the problems are?

We needed better transit and affordable housing ten years ago too. Florida just didn't care at the time. That's what I think is missing -- a mea culpa for ignoring crucial urban issues and promoting the kind of growth that would muscle out the non-"creative" people a city needs to function. Big scare quotes for "creative", by the way. My other pet peeve with Florida is that he thinks creativity is the exclusive province of the affluent.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#53

Post by zucchini_head »

kasey_junk wrote: post #40
zucchini_head wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'de say it was rather large, since looking around, it's believed that it was very big pre-WWiII, but a quick look for numbers isn't revealing any good sources. I suppose it'll just have to float around as a "general belief" that the Japanese automotive industry was "rather big" pre-WWII.

WWII definitely effected the US less than a lot of countries though that is for sure. But I think certain industries benefited more from USA's post-war advantage than others (automotive maybe being an example).

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#54

Post by twobyfour »

muninn_ wrote: post #50
twobyfour wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To your second point. The large issue here has more to do with moving to the areas with more economic opportunity instead of creating economic opportunity where you currently reside. The culture of moving on a whim, not creating a stable network of family and friends in your neighborhoods, and other factors are contributing to our social problems.

Well, creating economic opportunity can be a chicken-and-egg problem. For instance, there are extra challenges to starting a tech startup in a location without a large existing pool of software developers.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#55

Post by zucchini_head »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #44
zucchini_head wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hm, doesn't seem to add up. Flattened countries were not buying cars - so the foreign market for US cars would actually go down post-war? As for reduced competition - how many foreign cars did America import before the war? We're talking the excess capacity of pre-WWII Germany - a depressed economy (the indirect cause of WWII) which couldn't have been much. I'd credit an increased US appetite for goods, a huge influx…

Yes but was the decrease in demand greater in magnitude than the increase in sales due to less competition? I'de disagree, but getting numbers on these things is very difficult since it's a long time ago. Most of what you'll get is "general ideas" that the industry was "fairly big/small".

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#56

Post by Nav_Panel »

twobyfour wrote: post #36
hueving wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If East Queens and Long Island looked like South Brooklyn (incl subway access) rather than like Westchester, NYC would be a lot more affordable.

The problem was that Robert Moses built highways at a crucial turning point for greenfield development in NYC, and it's gonna take a lot of effort to reverse these changes.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#58

Post by firebird84 »

matt4077 wrote: post #18
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…

For your last example, it could give someone the ability to liquidate their position (from the buyers of that stock), get $100 in cash to pay a plumber, or if you're arguing about their social class perhaps the last $100 of down payment needed to finance the new yacht they had built. That yacht-building also creates jobs. Most likely that stock is institutionally owned though, so it goes to a retirement fund redemption somewhere producing income for a retiree to participate in THEIR local economy.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#59

Post by eregorn »

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…

How is a nearly 7-1 average housing cost to median income considered cheap? I'm pretty sure that's the ratios these cities that admit there's a problem are dealing with and you're saying this is the ideal.

It doesn't help your argument either when the video itself admits pop growth in Japan is so low that housing isn't considered a good investment.

Re: The Unaffordable Urban Paradise

#60

Post by JoeAltmaier »

zucchini_head wrote: post #55
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, doesn't seem to add up. Flattened countries were not buying cars - so the foreign market for US cars would actually go down post-war? As for reduced competition - how many foreign cars did America import before the war? We're talking the excess capacity of pre-WWII Germany - a depressed economy (the indirect cause of WWII) which couldn't have been much. I'd credit an increased US appetite for goods, a huge influx…

Yes but was the decrease in demand greater in magnitude than the increase in sales due to less competition? I'de disagree, but getting numbers on these things is very difficult since it's a long time ago. Most of what you'll get is "general ideas" that the industry was "fairly big/small".

Agreed. Which puts the claim that 'decreased competition in markets from flattened economies of the losers helped American manufacturing', in an equally foggy light.
Post reply on HN