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

The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 136 posts

Re: The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

#51

Post by logfromblammo »

notahacker wrote: post #26

it wasn't until I noticed the animated clouds in the background that I was sure the image of the "future" suburb with houses that weren't shaped like regular houses and the staggering innovation of roads that are curved hadn't been drawn at some time in the, say, 1930s. On closer inspection, there is a difference in vision, but they might want to reconsider the sustainability implications of the bird that disappears…

This article sounds a whole lot like every "housing of the future" ever written--except the flying cars have been split into robot cars for people and flying delivery drones for everything else.

And none of the authors ever seem to indicate any understanding of why the suburban housing development exist in its current form before hand-waving away all those real factors and baking up some pie-in-the-sky nonsense to support whatever their vision of the future may be.

We already know what a sustainable, efficient suburb looks like. It's a city block. But if people who live in suburbs actually wanted that, we'd have more urbs and fewer suburbs.

Re: The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

#52

Post by [deleted] »

derekp7 wrote: post #50
majormajor wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how does anyone expect to build this stuff, when we can't even build regular housing, anywhere near the amount that is required to match demand. You can't in SF, NY, LA... other areas don't have this problem. If your biggest desire is to have your housing not cost more than 60% of your paycheck, move to the suburbs of somewhere like Dallas. You'll be shocked at how many millennials can afford to have nice apartment…

Chicago area is similar -- you can easily get a tech job (lots of trading houses here) making 6 figures (or close to it), and get a house in the suburbs (about 50 minute train ride away) for less than 200K, or often times around 100k if you get one that is less than pristine (and these are good investments too, if you can do handyman work yourself).

[deleted]

Re: The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

#54

Post by gozur88 »

ocb wrote: post #40
gozur88 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roads, sewers, and mortgages aren't subsidized in my suburb. We pay for all of it.

If you live in the US that can't be true. The Interstate Highway System, state highways, etc. are government funded infrastructure that isn't funded locally. The mortgage market is also distorted/subsidized nationwide by the federal government. I'm not sure about sewers.

You can only count the highway system as a subsidy if you pretend a highway between, say, San Francisco and Los Angeles is there to benefit the people of the Central Valley. And it's not.

Certainly the mortgage market is distorted by the federal government, but I have yet to see any evidence of subsidy for suburban borrowers.

Re: The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

#55

Post by gozur88 »

jellicle wrote: post #47
gozur88 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roads, sewers, and mortgages aren't subsidized in my suburb. We pay for all of it.

I expect you'll find that your city core pays for it. Every calculation I've ever seen about the expenses of suburbs ends up with downtown paying for suburban development. It's cheaper to service a downtown property, more expensive to service a suburban one; and the suburban properties are typically paying lower property taxes, not higher. Heavily subsidized suburban residents then go to their city council meetings a…

>I expect you'll find that your city core pays for it.

I expect you're wrong about that.

> Every calculation I've ever seen about the expenses of suburbs ends up with downtown paying for suburban development.

It all depends on who is doing the accounting. Much of the infrastructure built outside cities isn't built for the local residents at all, but it's there to service the cities. As I pointed out above, you can't count a highway between San Francisco and Los Angeles as a subsidy for the Central Valley, and yet that's exactly what academics in at places like CUNY do. How convenient.

>Heavily subsidized suburban residents then go to their city council meetings and complain about property taxes going to mass transit and similar uses. shrug

I mostly see complaining by people who live in cities. People who state confidently how much more efficient cities are and then can't explain why everything they buy is more expensive. Shrug.

Re: The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

#56

Post by ufo »

gozur88 wrote: post #54
ocb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in the US that can't be true. The Interstate Highway System, state highways, etc. are government funded infrastructure that isn't funded locally. The mortgage market is also distorted/subsidized nationwide by the federal government. I'm not sure about sewers.

You can only count the highway system as a subsidy if you pretend a highway between, say, San Francisco and Los Angeles is there to benefit the people of the Central Valley. And it's not. Certainly the mortgage market is distorted by the federal government, but I have yet to see any evidence of subsidy for suburban borrowers.

The home mortgage interest deduction is effectively a subsidy for suburban borrowers.

Re: The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

#57

Post by gozur88 »

ufo wrote: post #56
gozur88 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can only count the highway system as a subsidy if you pretend a highway between, say, San Francisco and Los Angeles is there to benefit the people of the Central Valley. And it's not. Certainly the mortgage market is distorted by the federal government, but I have yet to see any evidence of subsidy for suburban borrowers.

The home mortgage interest deduction is effectively a subsidy for suburban borrowers.

Why would you think that? Are people who buy million dollar shacks in SF forgoing their deduction? It's hard to imagine.

Re: The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

#58

Post by jtmcmc »

wil421 wrote: post #34
pascalxus wrote: post #28

Its fun to dream about the future. But, a dream is all it'll ever be. how does anyone expect to build this stuff, when we can't even build regular housing, anywhere near the amount that is required to match demand. The only way, I can see this being built, is if new cities are created. These cities need to be populated by employers first: once that's there, most people that works there will find housing there too. I…

Speak for yourself and your own city. My city doesn't really have a housing problem and I'd bet a vast majority in the US don't either. I'm easily a 15 min train ride from downtown and I have a huge back yard, garden, and space for my kayaking stuff. Sure it's pricey in the city centers but not outrageous. It's only my California friends who are complaing, and to some extent Seattle. If you're spending 60% of your in…

where do you live with mass transit and cheap housing? Also Chicago?

Re: The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

#59

Post by WalterBright »

fuzzybeard wrote: post #19
taway_1212 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it costs more to build and maintain a house (compared to a flat), and most of the other countries, even the developed ones, aren't as affluent as the US.

But after 15 years my house is paid off. With renting, you're paying for the rest of your life. After my mortgage I only pay taxes and upkeep which is a fraction as much.

If your house was converted to cash, and that cash invested at, say, 7%, that is what the "paid off" house is costing you.

Re: The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

#60

Post by paulddraper »

jtmcmc wrote: post #58
wil421 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speak for yourself and your own city. My city doesn't really have a housing problem and I'd bet a vast majority in the US don't either. I'm easily a 15 min train ride from downtown and I have a huge back yard, garden, and space for my kayaking stuff. Sure it's pricey in the city centers but not outrageous. It's only my California friends who are complaing, and to some extent Seattle. If you're spending 60% of your in…

where do you live with mass transit and cheap housing? Also Chicago?

Salt Lake. Free bus + train in city center; yearly ticket outside of that.

Every big city has mass transit to at some degree. IDK what your specific requirements are though.

Post reply on HN