Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods • Hacker News Board

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#381

Post by claudeganon » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:35 PM UTC

neutronicus wrote: post #359

claudeganon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m skeptical that taxes themselves can resolve the problem. The people who engage in these tactics are already quite good at gaming them. Housing would have to revert to circumstances like Japan, where homes are largely a depreciating asset.

They should be, shouldn't they? They're physical luxury goods that deteriorate as you use them, like cars. They appreciate largely because of nearby corporate and government investment (in office complices, schools, utilities). That people make money off of them suggests that the government isn't being nearly aggressive enough about capturing the value it's creating here.

Yes, I agree entirely. Removing socially necessary goods like food, housing, and healthcare from financialized speculation would resolve many that issues countries like the US face.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#382

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #163

cameldrv wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, I like this a lot. The key is that for it to work, you must build taller, but it doesn't have to be all that tall. I've lived in several places that had great walkability, and they all had one thing in common: They were built before the invention of the automobile. The best for walkability was Berlin, which, in the inner part, is mostly 5-6 story buildings. Within two blocks there were numerous stores and…

I’m not sure about your argument of “you have to build up”. Lot of places in Europe have strict limits regarding how high a building can be and they do have lot of small stores around, Berlin, that you mentioned, is very strict on this. A few examples: Hamburg residential areas seem to have ~4-5 floors max. Groningen has neighborhoods where apartment building are limited to only 2 floors (So just two apartments). The…

Single family detached housing on fully separated lots of 1-2 storeys, and very often only a ground floor, is typical through much of the US. That describes a startlingly large fraction of San Francisco, and even larger "dense" neighbourhoods (Richmond, Sunset) are typically 2-3 floors, where ground level is garage parking ("soft story" construction, a major earthquake concern. Only in NYC and environs do you find generally denser construction.

A 5-6 storey standard would likely more thaan double SF's housing capaacity.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#383

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

dodobirdlord wrote: post #190

TheAdamist wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are big enough theres some weird accounting incentive to keep it vacant. You can keep claiming it as an asset that brings in 10x dollars, even though your cash flow is 0x, so actually renting for 8x really hurts your asset value or some nonsense that im probably getting the details wrong about.

The answer is more boring than financial conspiracy. Rents are sticky and both evictions and finding new tenants are a pain in the ass. Especially for a commercial space, better to wait a while for the 10x tenant than to settle for the 8x one.

It's not a conspiracy, just a murky business.

Real estate is the most "advantaged" businesses out there. They tend to support local political figures heavily and get heard.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#384

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

allannienhuis wrote: post #345

bezmenov wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~5 floors is as high as you can go before needing an elevator.

I don't think I've seen a reasonably modern building around here (Vancouver, Canada) over 2 floors without an elevator. I expect we have accessibility rules that require them for anything other than individual private residences.

Much of Europes dense inner core multi-storey construction predates lifts.

At the time the buildings were constructed, 5-6 storeys was a practical limit.

Not just people, but food, water, and waste travelled by stair (or, in the latter case often, air).

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#385

Post by Ericson2314 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:41 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #305

bobthepanda wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in residential lending the problem is that the FHA has specific rules on what it will and will not guarantee, distorting the market in favor of mostly single-use residential. Really we should pull that and the mortgage deduction, because at this point both distort the market in favor of people who can afford to own property.

I suspect mortgage deduction will be gone in a few years. With Trump's tax reforms very few people take it, and so they won't be for it. If they eliminated it entirely now too many people remember it as good, but give it a few years to sink in that only the rich (or those living in California, which is itself a point against it elsewhere) take it, not you can get rid of it.

Let's hope!

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#386

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:44 PM UTC

neutronicus wrote: post #359

claudeganon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m skeptical that taxes themselves can resolve the problem. The people who engage in these tactics are already quite good at gaming them. Housing would have to revert to circumstances like Japan, where homes are largely a depreciating asset.

They should be, shouldn't they? They're physical luxury goods that deteriorate as you use them, like cars. They appreciate largely because of nearby corporate and government investment (in office complices, schools, utilities). That people make money off of them suggests that the government isn't being nearly aggressive enough about capturing the value it's creating here.

It is really weird. My home is a wood-frame house >100 years old. Although some aspects are better than new construction, it seems weird that the underwriting is basically the same as a new property given the term of the loan I just refinanced. Even insurance is almost the same!

I can travel a mile down the road and due to a "bad" neighborhood, many properties are literally negative value. They sit till they burn because demolition is more costly than the value of the land.

Markets don't price risk well. Housing markets definitely don't price capital investments or liabilities more than 5 years out well.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#387

Post by Ericson2314 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

sparsely wrote: post #213

jhatemyjob wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people actually like cars/driving, some people dont want random people walking in front of their house, and not everyone wants their city to turn into NYC Sometimes it feels like the people on this site have only lived in SFBA/LA/NYC and nowhere else in the United States. Cars/suburbia work pretty well in most places

Mixed use zoning isn't about becoming like NYC, it's about being able to walk to the cornershop at the end of the road to buy a pint of milk. Maybe there's a cafe and a accountant's office there too.

Or dense towns and more countryside and parkland.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#388

Post by Cogito » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #375

Cogito wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rise of the automobile and destruction of commuter rail lead to a ton of land accessible to people who worked in cities. And in conjunction with the exclusionary zoning that was used to protect the capitalistic gains of property values, the idea of mixed-use zoning became antiquated and counter productive to financial and social interests. This is a solid argument, but I don't see the link between this and raci…

I think you are definitely right that classism could also produce the same effects! However, in the US most of our classism is motivated from racism, I think. Or perhaps, if we didn't have the racism, we'd still find reason to be classist. Here is the current US president being explicit about what is usually the quiet part of the Southern strategy: > The Suburban Housewives of America must read this article. Biden wi…

I'm really coming from another direction.

I don't think you need racism or classism to describe the behaviours that lead to neighbourhood shops disappearing from suburbs, or not being planned for in the first place, though examples exist where those things are intertwined like you've illustrated.

What I don't see is the causal link. This phenomenon occurs in other places in the world, places that don't have the same interweaving of racial issues throughout society that the USA has, and it doesn't occur in some locations within the USA that does have those same issues.

It may be true that all suburbs in the USA were founded for racist reasons, or that the residents make all decisions about perceived house value and their community based on racist ideals, or that city planning policies are put in place to fulfil racist agendas, however;

It seems far more likely that the underlying causes are driven, like the rest of the world, by

- rational individual economic decisions, and

- policy informed by lobbyists

Now the effect of these decisions or policies may well be racist or classist - like I said above, people with money tend to have more agency, and it's definitely true that the USA has had and continues to have significant divides in wealth between various racial groups.

There are also examples of specific, explicit racism that have caused this effect, but those pale next to the impact that the widespread adoption of the car (and many other things!) had on decision making.

These decisions changed the way our world works, the true impact of them took decades to register, and we are only now adjusting for what we have learned. There are racial and classist components to these impacts, but that doesn't mean the decisions were (on the whole) motivated by race or class.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#389

Post by 082349872349872 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:48 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #350

rapnie wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I read it it was referring to the type of businesses that arise in already dying residential areas, due to the rent being cheap, etc. and individuals can start their yoga studio or karate doja and such. The businesses themselves aren't bad, but they are a symptom of a neighborhood in decline. Don't know if that is true, but that's how I understood it.

Also, these businesses don't need walls or public restrooms. If the floor is concrete, CVT, carpet, or whatever they still just roll out some padded mats. No one cares what the ceiling looks like or if the heat works. No remodeling required to get their tenancy started, and none required to replace them with a more lucrative business. Landlords are not afraid to sign up such tenants even if the rent they'll pay is lo…

The stoa was the ancient greek strip mall, and I suppose doing philosophy involves little to no remodelling. I can imagine the early stoics putting up resiliently with the misfortune of being moved on from each venue every time a better-paying tenant came along...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23767947

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#390

Post by Cogito » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

tannhaeuser wrote: post #294

pjc50 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know anyone in this country, urban or rural dwelling, who can't walk to a shop or a pub The average walking distance to a pub has gone up a lot in recent years due to closure, and walking on rural roads at night where there is no footpath is horrendously dangerous even if you carry lights. It's a nice idyll but it's no longer really true. What you say about Simcity is absolutely true though. It doesn't corr…

AFAIK, there's no such thing in city planning as "Medieval mixed walkable". Rather, business of the same guild worked in close proximity, so that one wouldn't undercut the others (AKA a price cartel). It's why we have meatpacking districts etc. Maybe it's different in UK, though.

On similar shops operating in close proximity - it makes sense to cluster in order to maximise the number of customers you have access to.

Imagine two ice-cream vendors on the beach, selling identical ice-creams for the same price.

Since number of sales are a function of how far people have to walk to your stand (and price etc), you want to make sure you are as close to as many people as possible.

If your competitor is closer to them, they will go there instead, so you either need to be very far away or right next to the competitor. If a person could visit either of your stands, the competitor can 'steal' them by simply moving their stand closer to yours, so that the customer previously in the middle is now closer to them.

A discussion on the general case is here [0].

This principle obviously doesn't extend flawlessly to the real world, but is a significant contributor to, for example, the clustering of car dealerships today.

[0] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/583157/ice-cream-ve...