Live data from Hacker News

Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

strongtowns.org

201–210 of 564 posts

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#201
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The main issue is that there is just nowhere near enough housing to keep up with population increases, seemingly anywhere in the Western world. Not sure about Sweden but at least here (Spain) housing being bought for investment is much more of a problem than physical unavailability. And I don't mean it as a store of value: People (and companies) buy houses to rent them and have the rent payments pay for the mortgage…

The role of investors in the economy is ultimately to finance new development. It's easy to see how this works when an investor is the first owner. If it weren't for the initial investor with the required capital and/or credit to make the purchase, the housing likely wouldn't have been built in the first place. Now you may ask, what is the role of investors who buy up older properties? They provide valuable liquidity…

I think you're locked into a Capitalist view there.

What you say amounts to "without rich people to pay every time they do some work poor people wouldn't be able to build houses". I don't buy it. I think it's perfectly possible to organise society without the driving force being "how can we as a society benefit this tiny cadre of super-rich people without pissing-off everyone else enough that they revolt".

Of course you need to wrest control from the people who can buy "mind control", and vote to allow corruption from the ruling party (cf UK parliament yesterday).

>All of this extra development spurred by investment money pouring in leads to lower rents for everyone //

The more we give to the rich the cheaper everything will be for us plebs, yeah, you're going to have to spend a bit more on your PR to press that idea home.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#202
post #8

Fantastic cultural divide. This is one of the reasons why I read HN. Most of Europe is more or less walkable - one reason is that the largest urban centers predate cars, but intentional design AF (anno ford) is also a factor. I can bike or walk everywhere, and the only reason I have a car is that it makes grocery shopping much, much easier. I am not very green or anything, I just like to keep things simple. You can c…

Walkability isn't uniform across Europe, Scandinavia or even within a single country: other people have mentioned Stockholm - which is still a walkable town, even though car-traffic is prioritized over cycles and pedestrians[0] - but other towns in Sweden are definitely not modelled for pedestrians. Nyköping is a town I need to visit regularly, and there pretty much all of the grocery and larger stores have been plac…

It varies a lot! Some places in Finland are almost exactly like some places in America. Huge windowless stores next to a big road. You are supposed to drive from one big parking lot to the next. There are also inside playgrounds for kids and gyms in some of these big box buildings.

https://www.google.fi/maps/@60.2791313,24.9709347,3a,75y,66....

There is usually a bike and pedestrian way also, and there are buses going there too. But it's not human scale. The inside is divorced from the outside. In the winter it's a pretty noir experience as you visit these places after you get out of work, when you need to buy some lumber etc. It's dark and it rains, it's +1 C, there's a highway close by and the orange light from street lights and the car head and tail lights are lighting up the place. Salty water and brown sleet is splashing there from the large mass of cars driving around, and the constant noise from the studded tires. There is no cover, no trees, nothing living really except some barely struggling grass on some traffic dividers. These are built outside city centers, near the outer ring roads. Land is cheap. It used to be a field 30 years ago.

And vice versa, some places in America are just like some nice places in Europe, like a lot of Boston.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The main issue is that there is just nowhere near enough housing to keep up with population increases, seemingly anywhere in the Western world. Not sure about Sweden but at least here (Spain) housing being bought for investment is much more of a problem than physical unavailability. And I don't mean it as a store of value: People (and companies) buy houses to rent them and have the rent payments pay for the mortgage…

> Basic needs really shouldn't be investment material. Companies providing and selling food, energy, and consumer staples are investment materials. I don’t get why housing should be a special carve-out and don’t see a workable answer to how to provide food for everyone while banning all investment in companies that grow or sell food. These companies are invested in precisely because these are basic needs. The company…

>Companies providing and selling food, energy, and consumer staples are investment materials.

>companies that grow or sell food.

House builders would be the analogous party to that. The parent comment is describing landlords, specifically part-time landlords who buy up family homes and turn them into rental properties. Your analogy doesn't apply to those landlords.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#204
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this clearly isn’t true for housing. Landlords keep buying up more and more, supply only goes down, and the prices keep going up.

And are the landlords just leaving the house empty for the hell of it? Or is it being rented out to people? I know with one is more likely. The thing is, housing is a surprisingly flexible commodity (too expensive, people live with parents/share, and then move back out if prices fall) , and encouraging everyone to buy a full on house in a suburb is a recipe to drive expensive housing.

>And are the landlords just leaving the house empty for the hell of it?

No, but a landlord who got into the market early when properties were dirt cheap can leverage that and buy more and more for renting them out, reducing the supply and increasing the competition if you want to buy your first property and not be a renter your whole life. You know, like when you want to settle down and have kids, you're gonna be out-muscled by a landlord who already has 3 properties and is is looking to buy 2 more.

>housing is a surprisingly flexible commodity (too expensive, people live with parents/share, and then move back out if prices fall)

The thing is this is one of the reason why birth rates are so low in rich western cities. How can you expect people to start families if you expect adults to live in shared accomodations or move in with their parents?

Having access to cheap, spacious housing that's just for living and not part of someone's investment vehicle, would definitely make "nesting" an enticing proposition for young adults, like it was for the boomer generation. But if you expect them to bum around between living with roommates and living with their parents like adolescents, and their only hope of nesting being to grind away after years in university at some soul-sucking job 40+ hours/week plus commutes just to afford a bank loan for a shoe-box that they'll have to pay off till they die, then of course they'll realize this expectation of their life is a scammy wage-salve trap and say "to hell with that, I'd rather stay single, childless and free and spend my time and money on travelling, clubbing, netflix, meme-stocks and videogames".

But of course, fat chance to get governments to admit their policies of enriching the banks, property investors and the older owning class by squeezing the young is the cause of this. To them, the real reason why the young can't afford to settle down is because "these pesky millennials and zoomers spend all their money on iphones and avocado toast, so to fix this we'll allow uncontrolled mass immigration from the third world".

Housing can't be an affordable necessity for starting a family that everyone should have access to while at the same time being an investment vehicle design to enrich their owners. It's either one or the other and most of the west has chosen the latter while talking how the former is more important.

In Austria, the goverment isn't even hiding the fact that housing is officially an investment vehicle, with the conservative party throwing the blame back on the people for not having bought properties as the reason why they stay poor and can't afford to keep up with rent increases. Despicable!

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#205
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this clearly isn’t true for housing. Landlords keep buying up more and more, supply only goes down, and the prices keep going up.

And are the landlords just leaving the house empty for the hell of it? Or is it being rented out to people? I know with one is more likely. The thing is, housing is a surprisingly flexible commodity (too expensive, people live with parents/share, and then move back out if prices fall) , and encouraging everyone to buy a full on house in a suburb is a recipe to drive expensive housing.

I think you are over stating the flexibility of moving out, getting a roommate, or moving in with your parents. What if your parents moved into a smaller residence and can't fit a family?

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, it's bullshit. The author must be conflating staff positions with "senior". I was paid 75k as an L5 engineer at Amazon, that's like intermediate senior (two levels down from Staff). So maybe one level up you'd get 100-110k? I've never seen salaries anywhere close to that article. Even contractors might pay $150k (and then you have to pay your own taxes, insurance, etc. out of that).

The author is spot on. You just happened to be working for the scrappiest/shittiest faang that's all. Shop around, there is decent money to be made in Europe - but of course it's not as easy to walk into it as in the US today. Oh and don't forget that it's TC that matters in big public tech, not salary.

I have gone through interview rounds a few months ago at several of the companies the author mentions in the blog post and I can confirm that the range seems about right. The offers I received for their EU offices were between €120k - €170k (total comp).

But - compared to what I have heard about the US, the variance between offers is much more extreme in the EU, depending on whether these companies only compete in the local market or globally, and it is really hard to figure this out before going through the whole process. I have been surprised by a few companies that pay very competitive salaries in the US but which are barely competitive compared to some of the salaries I know from local companies here in the EU.

So yeah, it is possible to find these salaries in the EU, but they will still be considerably lower than what you can expect in the US and the bad offers are harder to weed out in the EU.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#207
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walkability isn't uniform across Europe, Scandinavia or even within a single country: other people have mentioned Stockholm - which is still a walkable town, even though car-traffic is prioritized over cycles and pedestrians[0] - but other towns in Sweden are definitely not modelled for pedestrians. Nyköping is a town I need to visit regularly, and there pretty much all of the grocery and larger stores have been plac…

"any characterization of USA vs Europe positing Europe as some sort of walkable-heaven is really just idealized bullshit" Ouch, a bit harsh, that. I did not intend to claim Europe does not have unwalkable areas, but that walkable areas are not considered as such novelties. I should have used a more cautious tone. Never the less, using Helsinki as an example, you can plan to purchase an apartment within one hours of c…

Yes, Helsinki. A capital city. Which is where most of these comparisons end. In most European countries, people have trouble even affording a place close to a larger or capital city unless they inherited money or already live there, at which point the quality of transport rapidly diminishes (same goes for a place in that city with good connections). That includes young professionals working in tech.

When you have to go home by midnight as a student / young professional living outside the city because public transport service ends (or even before that because you don't want to get stranded), or you live somewhere off the beaten path, or even the other party lives off the beaten path a little, getting a car to drive at least a part of that becomes more and more enticing.

I say this knowing that improving public transport to reduce the number of roads and cars on the road has been a topic for a few decades now, and even the most obvious national lines aren't being funded in my country, whereas there is money to create more roads and maintain older roads. I don't doubt The Netherlands is far better than the US, but while possible, there are still tons of hurdles to overcome in going car-less. Japan is another example, where the cities do it much better than we do, but the outskirts arguably do it worse.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#208
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The walkability comes at the cost of tiny housing though. Like here in Stockholm even 60m2 is getting very pricy (~350-450k USD). The main issue is that there is just nowhere near enough housing to keep up with population increases, seemingly anywhere in the Western world. And housing has become a "store of value" against inflation for investors, driving up prices and becoming a retirement fund for landlords and home…

No, it's not walkability that makes apartments in central Stockholm expensive. There's just not much more space there for more houses. For decades car traffic was what was prioritised. Just look at old Slussen which was just a couple of big traffic circles, with narrow tunnels for pedestrians. Or Sergel's torg, arguably the most central square in Sweden, which is dominated by a big traffic circle and with shops and p…

Car traffic is still prioritised, the new slussen is still an 8 lane highway right through the middle of the city, and the biggest reason it's downsized is that the ring road is now finished. And the biggest reason why Stockholm is managing to be so "car free" is because the highways are in tunnels underground.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#209
post #8

Fantastic cultural divide. This is one of the reasons why I read HN. Most of Europe is more or less walkable - one reason is that the largest urban centers predate cars, but intentional design AF (anno ford) is also a factor. I can bike or walk everywhere, and the only reason I have a car is that it makes grocery shopping much, much easier. I am not very green or anything, I just like to keep things simple. You can c…

"Most of Europe is more or less walkable"

Europe is not just Berlin, Helsinki and Paris.

There are a lot of very rural areas where you need a car to get things done.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that US viewpoint kinda irks me too. Of course Europe is cheap when you earn US tech salaries. Amsterdam is definitely not cheap on your average non-FAANG/IB local Dutch wages.

Even FAANG pays shit in Europe. I was paid 75k at Amazon. Europe is designed for the landed aristocracy, not working people.

For FAANG, levels.fyi shows pretty competitive salaries in European cities where it has presence (Munich, Amsterdam, London, etc) — most are in six figures. Every time I put those figures in expatistan.com, I absolutely don’t get the feeling that FAANG salaries are low in Europe.

Local European IT firms (your local broadband provider, or a supermarket chain) normally pay much less though.

Post reply on HN