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

Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 383 posts

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#331

Post by maxsilver »

asdff wrote: post #301
sudosysgen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, demand and supply has increased dramatically in almost every single city in the world, and in almost no cities has supply outpaced demand? The world is not an economics 101 textbook. In Canada for example, the only province with functional and affordable housing is the one that enacted serious rent control and public housing, and they didn't have to build a lot. Seems to me that supply and demand isn't the whole…

California is short by millions of units. This number can be calculated. A cheap city example is Cleveland. The reason why it's so cheap? In 1960, 900,000 people lived there. Today, 400,000 people live there. The population of LA in 1960 was 2.4 million. Today, its over 4 million in the city proper. Units in LA are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on monday, and move in by thursday. In Cleveland, list…

> A cheap city example is Cleveland. The reason why it's so cheap? In 1960, 900,000 people lived there. Today, 400,000 people live there.

Cleveland is not actually that cheap (it just looks dirt cheap to people earning Californian dollars). And Cleveland would instantly be as expensive as California, if Silicon Valley headquartered there instead of California -- the fact that 900k people once lived there would not help in any way.

The prices of places is largely not determined by supply or demand. It's determined by the value of the property around it, and that property in aggregate is determined by the wealth of the jobs congregated there, and the concentration of capital located there. Only by redefining "demand" to not mean "persons needing homes" but instead to mean "anything that impacts the price" can you make a supply vs demand model work for housing.

> The population of LA in 1960 was 2.4 million. Today, its over 4 million in the city proper. Units in LA are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on monday, and move in by thursday.

The population of Grand Rapids, Michigan was ~198k in 1970. Today, it's still ~198k in 2020 -- same population, almost exactly. Despite this, units in Grand Rapids are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on Monday, and move in by Thursday. Despite this, units cost has increased by about 700% during that time.

Because, again, supply and demand are not the primary factors in housing costs in the US. They haven't been for over 50+ years now.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#332

Post by sudosysgen »

asdff wrote: post #301
sudosysgen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, demand and supply has increased dramatically in almost every single city in the world, and in almost no cities has supply outpaced demand? The world is not an economics 101 textbook. In Canada for example, the only province with functional and affordable housing is the one that enacted serious rent control and public housing, and they didn't have to build a lot. Seems to me that supply and demand isn't the whole…

California is short by millions of units. This number can be calculated. A cheap city example is Cleveland. The reason why it's so cheap? In 1960, 900,000 people lived there. Today, 400,000 people live there. The population of LA in 1960 was 2.4 million. Today, its over 4 million in the city proper. Units in LA are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on monday, and move in by thursday. In Cleveland, list…

And yet in Detroit, the price of rent has increased while occupancy rates, incomes and population have decreased. This leads me to believe that the rising prices of rent on average in all cities in the first world is not actually a supply and demand issue. When the price for a mortgage is far above what the average person can afford, land prices start having little bearing on rent, and the reverse happens: rent prices start having a bearing on land prices.

Taking Cleveland for example, despite there being a massive surplus of housing units as you say, the average price of rent is 1123$, while the average household income is of only 26179$. This means that the average household pays 51% (!!) of their income into housing in recent years, while there is a surplus of housing.

I don't understand how this can be stated as supply and demand. It seems to me that rent simply increases so as to saturate the budget of the lower class, regardless of supply.

I would also observe that in most cities the average price of housing as a share of average income is steadily rising. This leads me to believe that what is actually happening is that prices of rent are increasing synchronously,

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#334

Post by WalterBright »

maxsilver wrote: post #331
asdff wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is short by millions of units. This number can be calculated. A cheap city example is Cleveland. The reason why it's so cheap? In 1960, 900,000 people lived there. Today, 400,000 people live there. The population of LA in 1960 was 2.4 million. Today, its over 4 million in the city proper. Units in LA are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on monday, and move in by thursday. In Cleveland, list…

> A cheap city example is Cleveland. The reason why it's so cheap? In 1960, 900,000 people lived there. Today, 400,000 people live there. Cleveland is not actually that cheap (it just looks dirt cheap to people earning Californian dollars). And Cleveland would instantly be as expensive as California, if Silicon Valley headquartered there instead of California -- the fact that 900k people once lived there would not he…

> It's determined by the value of the property around it, and that property in aggregate is determined by the wealth of the jobs congregated there, and the concentration of capital located there.

The value of something is set by what people are willing to pay for it. I.e. supply and demand.

> Despite this, units cost has increased by about 700% during that time.

Average inflation since 1970 is 565%. 700% is within that, as inflation measurements are inexact and there are regional differences as well.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#335

Post by dodobirdlord »

scarface74 wrote: post #291
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google abandons projects when they don't make business sense. Or perhaps you think Google is a charity that just keeps randoms apps running on servers? Maybe it should be funded with tax-dollars then.

Unless they abandon an infrastructure project after ruining miles of city streets.... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/googl...

It’s impossible to take seriously that some 2-inch deep trenches and some stray cables are “ruining” streets.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#336

Post by KerryJones »

Barrin92 wrote: post #266
drusepth wrote: post #118

I know there's gonna be a lot of people here that are happy about this for various reasons (anti-Google, anti-"smart cities", etc), but this is really disappointing for me. It's true that the concept of "cities" (or even just "gatherings of people") predates the Internet by thousands of years, and that cities themselves haven't adapted much to the Internet and what it enables in the 40ish years it's been around. This…

The entire idea of a "smart city" is pure anathema to how vibrant cities function. It's a technocratic wet dream, the digital version of Robert Moses and Corbusier making a comeback. The people preoccupied with this should read some Alain Bertaud and learn how markets work and then go do more productive things with their time than trying to micromanage cities.

Anathema: "someone or something intensely disliked or loathed", I don't think this word means what you think it means? Perhaps antithesis?

Also, I don't know much about the smart-city idea, though I do know that you can design spaces, homes, blocks, etc. in a way that creates natural interaction -- which is something that Google has excelled at (possibly more than any other company). This is also discussed heavily in facilitator-culture (and can be seen with Zappos).

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#337

Post by KerryJones »

jacquesm wrote: post #223
neom wrote: post #88

4 years ago I co-founded a smart cities business. Basically a wysiwyg schema/api generator for non-technical municipal users. Idea being if you're procuring data generative "stuff" - municipal workers can define an integration point. In the first few months of starting the company, I met with sidewalk labs at their request. We talked about working together and I said that wouldn't be possible because we wanted to giv…

The hubris of Google is just incredible. Half-baked commitments and then to tell someone who is actually dedicated to the mission that they will run them into the ground. It's really nasty. I've seen the same behavior from the first CEO of 'Spotlife', exactly the same tone of voice, exactly the same ending.

I think it's important to remember that Google is made up of people, as are their sub-companies. I would argue that you get any large group and at some point you get people making stupid, hateful, & hurtful comments. It is equally important to look at whether the organization as a whole is to blame or just pieces of it, and can pieces of it be addressed.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#338

Post by dade_ »

I consider it part of my neighbourhood. I am glad this is over. There are so many issues, but essentially the city is in over its head on this entire concept from the beginning. Further, I think Waterfront Toronto overstepped it's mandate. At the time, Google love was high, and politicians were enamoured with the attention and jumped into bed without even a thought.

In the end, Google is an ad tech company, so no thank you. The scorpion and the frog...

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#339

Post by scarface74 »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #335
scarface74 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they abandon an infrastructure project after ruining miles of city streets.... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/googl...

It’s impossible to take seriously that some 2-inch deep trenches and some stray cables are “ruining” streets.

https://www.wdrb.com/news/belknap-neighborhood-residents-con...

https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/google-fiber-to-pay-nearly-4-m...

Google Fiber prepares to pull the plug on Louisville customers tonight, the tech company has agreed to pay Metro government $3.84 million to fix damage to city streets, Mayor Greg Fischer’s said Monday.

The payments, to be made over 20 months, will cover removing fiber cables and sealant from roads, milling and paving streets “where needed” and removing Google’s above-ground infrastructure, according to a news release from Fischer's office.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#340

Post by dodobirdlord »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #220
WalterBright wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> super simplistic The law of gravity is super simple, but it produces all kinds of complex results. Underlying the complex behavior of the real estate market is supply&demand driving it.

You’re disregarding the site guidelines here. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Are you interested in address the core of my argument, or only those two words in isolation?

Seems off to call someone’s reply unsubstantial when their very argument is that a simple model is sufficient.

Of course developers are going to build high-margin housing. But why is it high margin? Because there is high demand and low supply. “Luxury” housing is only marginally more expensive to build than “affordable” housing. The expensive parts of development are the land, labor, and construction materials, not the light fixtures, appliances, and flooring. Shouldn’t we be celebrating that developers are building a much better product then they could be if they cut a few corners?

To the second point, developers are not in collusion to keep supply down, and the suggestion is absurd on the face of it. They are developers. They make money by increasing supply. The more they develop, the faster they develop, the more money they make. Developers generally sell properties once they finish them and move on, because they are not in the business of property management. Maybe there’s a non-absurd argument to be made that property management companies are in collusion to keep supply down, but they aren’t. Aside from the fact that it’s illegal, it would be impossible. There are too many of them and the market is too fragmented for a cartel to form, and defecting is too easy.

Post reply on HN