Live data from Hacker News

Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

strongtowns.org

311–320 of 564 posts

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#311

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).

Anyone getting USD75k/EUR65K/GBP55K in Europe can afford to buy an apartment in any of the major cities, including London with access to a walking lifestyle. Add a partner’s salary to the equation and you are walking your kids to school and living the dream.

> USD75k/EUR65K/GBP55K in Europe can afford to buy an apartment in any of the major cities,

That doesn't seem likely. I live in Dublin, and the median household income for a first time buyer is approximately 90k in euros.

I'm surprised that this is possible in London.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> banning all investment in companies that grow or sell food Nobody wants to ban companies from building and selling houses. Buying them and keeping them as investment vehicles is something else entirely.

Investment buyers and owner-occupants both provide the cash to the homebuilders to allow them to go build the next home. You can't sell a home without a buyer.

I don't think requiring anyone who wants housing to be financially able to buy an entire home is sensible, meaning that some entity needs to be in the business of paying for more housing than they personally need to allow people to have housing who can't or don't want to buy an entire dwelling unit.

Maybe you want the government to have a monopoly on that activity, but someone needs to provide it or you end up with far less access to housing and far more people living on the street than currently.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to (and do) raise my family like that. We live in Cambridge, MA; our kids walk to school and to play with friends in the park, I’ve never feared a mass shooting*, we have reasonable accommodations for cars, bikes, and pedestrians. * - Do you live in fear of drowning, choking, or bicycling? All are significantly higher lifetime risks in America than mass shootings. Drowning is 10x more likely but few live…

Choking can happen anywhere you are; preventing accidents from drowning and bicycling is 100% under your control (just don't swim or ride a bike). Mass shootings don't and aren't.

>preventing accidents from drowning and bicycling is 100% under your control (just don't swim or ride a bike)

With a risk profiles like this I'm starting to see why emergency covid measures never end.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#314
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and commonly also a loan from parents for downpayment to buy.

Not a lack of 75-100 m2 (3 bedrooms) under €600,000 in walking distance from the most famous tourist attractions, I know as I looked. Smaller 2 bedrooms can be bought in the center of Amsterdam for €350,000 with a €35,000 deposit (10%). How is that not viable for a tech worker?

It's sort of viable, but you'd have to spend 2-3 years living in overpriced temporary sublets while trying to save up to that deposit, and still it just supports the original comment which was that you could only afford 2 bedrooms and even that is a push.

To get one of those 600k apartments you'd have to flip your first apartment for the bigger downpayment, and that's gonna take another 2 years.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#315

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…

Motorised traffic, and cars in particular, are prioritised over non-motorised traffic everywhere I've been in the world, including Stockholm. The problem is cultural. You see, motorised traffic wins by default, unless there are strict rules to stop that happening. If you think about a street full of pedestrians, some will be quicker and stronger than others, but it's not OK for them to use their might to take priorit…

> Motorised traffic, and cars in particular, are prioritised over non-motorised traffic […]

For a history of how this happened in the US see Fighting traffic: the dawn of the motor age in the American city by Peter Norton.

> Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily a motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as "jaywalkers." In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution. Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as "road hogs" or "speed demons" and cars as "juggernauts" or "death cars." He considers the perspectives of all users--pedestrians, police (who had to become "traffic cops"), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for "justice." Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of "efficiency." Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking "freedom"--a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States. Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change.

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2924825-fighting-traffic

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#316
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…

"So any characterization of USA vs Europe positing Europe as some sort of walkable-heaven is really just idealized bullshit."

This is actually bullshit.

Europe is fundamentally more walkable, it's not even an argument.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#317
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motorised traffic, and cars in particular, are prioritised over non-motorised traffic everywhere I've been in the world, including Stockholm. The problem is cultural. You see, motorised traffic wins by default, unless there are strict rules to stop that happening. If you think about a street full of pedestrians, some will be quicker and stronger than others, but it's not OK for them to use their might to take priorit…

> The problem is cultural. You see, motorised traffic wins by default, unless there are strict rules to stop that happening. It's not cultural, motorized traffic wins because it's more powerful. > Right now a child is being taught to give way to cars because if they don't the car will kill them. Vehicles with enclosed cabs like cars are the worst because the drivers are completely removed from the road. Their experie…

[deleted]

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#318
post #251

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…

> The walkability comes at the cost of tiny housing though. You might have your correlation/causation things mixed up. Walkability means higher quality of life, which means higher demand thus higher prices. In turn, as real estate prices go up, real estate developers are pressured to provide more houses from a limited construction area, thus this means shrinking apartment sizes. Offering smaller apartments also has t…

You have it mixed up.

Firstly, walkability only means higher prices if supply is limited. If it's the default, then supply matches demand.

Secondly, a grocery store needs say 500 potential customers (households) within walking/transit distance. A cafe 2,000. A specialist shop 5,000. Otherwise they need parking for customers arriving by car, which takes up yet more space, making the area less walkable, inducing more car demand and car lanes, etc. The same calculation applies to schools, parks and other amenities.

It isn't possible to reach those customer numbers while giving each family American suburbia levels of space.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#319
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the Netherlands. We bike rather than just walk everywhere, and generally people do more frequent small shops rather than big weekly shop. It takes some imagination and a lot of urban planning work, but quality of life improves dramatically, it’s life-changing. Much Urban planning was involved in making it better for cycling though, and it wasn’t always great for it. Off-road cycle paths being a mainstay for…

> We bike rather than just walk everywhere, and generally people do more frequent small shops rather than big weekly shop. It takes some imagination and a lot of urban planning work, but quality of life improves dramatically, it’s life-changing. Yeah which means that you spend a lot more time and energy on grocery shopping. That is for me directly inverse to quality of life. The more time I spend in traffic (cycling…

How you think about exercise and time may influence whether driving increases your quality of life. To me, time spent driving is a pure waste with no redeeming value and I make every effort to minimize it. Whereas time spent engaged in physical activity (up to about an hour a day) isn't wasted at all since it improves my mood and energy levels. If that physical activity happens to save me a car trip then it's doubly useful.

For example, this morning I drove a kid to school because we were running behind and it was a ~10m round trip. Usually we bike and it's a ~20m round trip. I saved 10m of clock time but lost ~20m of exercise. Now I can choose whether to make up that exercise later and end up net ~10m poorer or skip today's exercise and end up slightly fatter and lazier.

(I agree about grocery shopping though.)

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#320

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…

"Can my child ride the bike to school" is the test for me as well. I'm struggling to find such a place, in Germany ideally.
Post reply on HN