Live data from Hacker News

Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

strongtowns.org

291–300 of 564 posts

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#291

The planet boils because Americans are afraid of living in places as beautiful as the ones they vacation in. If you're an American who'd like to escape, check out the Dutch American Friendship Treaty, or Portugal's new visa for remote work. PT's NHR tax program makes it very popular for FIRE too. It's not Amsterdam but moving to Dublin from LA did wonders for my happiness. The next goal is living somewhere my kid can…

>I moved from LA to Dublin then back to San Diego for a year (bad idea, that!) then back to Dublin and recently to a dirt cheap place an hour away from Dublin I'm sure all those long distance flights help the planet a great deal.

They do not.

But this article is about nice places, not particularly about climate breakdown, which is another pressing issue.

At the end of the day I want to live somewhere drivers don't get away with killing kids cycling to school.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#292
post #200
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This simply isn't true in the UK. You can't drive 5 miles without seeing some giant new sprawl of new build housing, yet rent is increasing year on year.

Then perhaps building even more is what's needed to keep up with the demand. If you keep building at a fast enough pace, then at some point, there will be more housing units than prospective renters, landlords start having trouble finding tenants, and that's when prices will inevitably fall. If demand is rising, then housing needs to be built at an even faster rate. Rising demand can be very hard to keep up with, and I believe that's what we're experiencing right now.

I don't live in the UK, so I'm not too familiar with the specifics there, but what seems to be happening worldwide is that young people are flocking to cities. I'm fairly young myself and I don't know anyone my age who would like to live in a small town in the middle of nowhere - everyone I know was either born in a larger city or moved to one.

In the past, if you were born in a small town, maybe there was a factory nearby and you'd end up working there. Only a few would move out.

These days the factory has most likely closed, and the jobs were shipped off to China. Even if, by some miracle, it happened to still be open, most young people wouldn't want to work there anyway. Young people tend to be more educated and want jobs where they can make use of their education. These jobs tend to be located in big cities.

There are only two ways out of this mess:

The first one is to satisfy the demand -- that means building more, a lot more. No Western country is currently building enough. The demand is so huge that the only way to satisfy it would be very high-density housing. I'm talking 30+ stories apartment buildings everywhere like you see in East Asia. This would have to be accompanied by enough public transport because at that population density, you'd need super wide highways everywhere to support people driving cars. I don't think allowing such construction is politically feasible, however, as it would completely change the character of existing cities.

The other one is to embrace remote work and revitalize small towns. Remote work is not enough since people still demand the amenities cities provide. These are lacking precisely because so many young people have left, causing a negative feedback loop. We need trendy cafes and restaurants, we need WeWork locations, and for young families, we need high-quality school/preschool/daycare. If small towns "gentrify" with such amenities causing young remote-workers to start moving there, this may significantly ease the demand pressure on city housing.

The best solution is probably a combination of the above two.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow, that's a great idea! I don't much like carbonated water, but if you do, this'll make your life amazing.

Regular brita filter is great solution for drinkable tap water.

I tried that but the jug had a weird smell. I don't know if those filters that go on the tap directly are better, I keep meaning to try them. Have you?

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but the salaries are much, much lower. SF: ~$167k USD p.a. - https://www.builtinsf.com/salaries/dev-engineer/software-eng... Stockholm: 45k SEK per month = ~$63k USD p.a. - https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/stockholm-software-engine... Taxes are also much higher (especially if your employer has good health insurance coverage in the US, so the added benefits are less). Like I pay an average 40% rate on income p…

I was just in Italy and it seemed like all the restaurants were packed every night. They're not cheap. How are people able to eat out so much in EU on these salaries?

Probably a fair bit of pent up demand from Covid. Also, the economy is strong at the moment, even in Europe.

Of course, were the other patrons tourists?

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#295
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Västerås which is sometimes touted as one of the, at least, top 10 cycling cities in Sweden with 390 kilometers of cycle/walking paths. And still we have expansive shopping malls outside of town which is heavily in favor or cars. We still have the downtown shopping but it can barely hang by, and parking is very expensive. It would not really have been possible to build all this shopping in the city center,…

>It would not really have been possible to build all this shopping in the city center, so there is the physical limitations. I think this is the main problem, that the cities outgrow themselves, and it is just so much cheaper and economical to build mega-malls instead of smaller centres for shopping and amenities. But this is a matter of chosen-lifestyle . This was really brought home to me talking to my mother-in-la…

There is unbelievable competition in Amsterdam right now for grocery delivery. The big markets all offer it, then there are specialized delivery apps like Picnic (cheap), Crisp (quality) and Peter Pot (all reusable packaging). Then, in the past year, the VC funded fast delivery apps showed up: Gorrilas, Flink, Zapp and Getir.

Driving to buy groceries may be necessary today, but maybe not tomorrow.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#296
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China and India emit far more CO2 than we do.

per Capita?

per capita isn't a useful metric. Imagine if you are China and your population is declining, but your GDP is still going up so your per-capita CO2 is going up. That's not fair for them.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...

At the same time, if you are a developing country and your GDP is going up, then your absolute emissions will also go up. That's not fair, either.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT?location...

So you look at emissions per dollar of GDP to measure how efficiently you are producing. This is why China's own CO2 commitments are expressed as Kg per GDP. This is what they are targeting to decline, it's what they set policy around, and it's how they publicly measure their own progress. So let's use their own preferred metric:

China's CO2 per GDP is ~.47 and dropping

For the US it's .24 and also dropping

India is .27 -- almost the same as the U.S.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD?locat...

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the USA is only ~250 years old and most of its planning was done in the past ~150 years, whereas most European cities date back to the middle ages or even before that, growing much more organically, often around a castle, wall, church, or all of the above. It's only in the past 100 years or so that cars are a thing. But the other is just different approach to planning. I live in a relatively new, so-called "vin…

> we need 100K houses in the next decade That's a lot for a country with 17M inhabitants. Is that mostly driven by urban flight (not enough flats where people want to be) or is it more about population increase or less people living together (no enough flats anywhere)?

The UK has the same issue. One cause is the house builders have permission to build a lot, but only do so slowly to not affect the price. Another cause is the market and government’s mess with mortgages. The southeast has it worse but it exists everywhere that employs enough people densely (ie multi storey offices often reached by public transport).

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#298

The planet boils because Americans are afraid of living in places as beautiful as the ones they vacation in. If you're an American who'd like to escape, check out the Dutch American Friendship Treaty, or Portugal's new visa for remote work. PT's NHR tax program makes it very popular for FIRE too. It's not Amsterdam but moving to Dublin from LA did wonders for my happiness. The next goal is living somewhere my kid can…

There’s many towns in the USA where kids can walk to school and shops are walkable, etc. especially on the east coast there are numerous pre-war towns like this. But your experience is in California, a place notorious for being designed around the highway.

The walkable bit I see, but proper, fully segregated cycle infra is very rare.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#299
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

A supermarket is in the business of buying food in bulk and then offering portions of food suitable for a shorter time period. A gas station buys 8000 gallons of gas from a tanker and offers it by the gallon at retail. Target/Walmart buy pallets of jeans and offer them individually to consumers. The supermarket didn’t grow the food, gas station refine the fuel, nor did Target manufacture the jeans. A landlord is in t…

Its an interesting way of describing landlords, but we have now worked our way back to GP's original criticism, just stated in a different/less-tangible way: For landlords, the simple act of buying housing (a basic need) allows them to extract a profit in the time dimension, and it shouldn't work like that.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#300
post #199

My cynical view is that if you put not nice people into nice places, you make the places not nice, not the other way around. 99% of the time.

It seems weird to use ‘having a lot of money’ as a proxy measure for how nice someone is likely to be though?

You’re right, maybe stable, tidy and can afford a lawnmower would be a better pidgeon hole than ‘nice’ :)
Post reply on HN