Our self imposed scarcity of nice places • Hacker News Board

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#371

Post by hnarn » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

null_object wrote: post #101

fsloth wrote: 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.

What’s “bullshit” is using the example of satellite malls, a global phenomenon due to obvious reasons (land and real estate pricing) as somehow proof that Sweden or similar countries aren’t walkable, without mentioning the huge divide in the feasibility of using public transport.

It’s not equal if a mall is kilometers away from the city center, but in one case you have public transport available and in the other it’s for all practical purposes impossible to get there without a car.

In addition to that, even locations outside the city center are often safely walkable, if you would want to. This comes down to a difference in city planning and the assumed value of pedestrian traffic. I seriously don’t understand how that can be a contentious point, it’s well known that city planning in the US is more car-centric than that in Europe, and that consistent public transport is almost unheard of in the US outside of large cities. That doesn’t mean all of the US is impossible to access without a car, nor does it mean all of Europe is possible without one, but the difference in planning is completely obvious.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#372

Post by CapitainEvident » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:32 PM UTC

jseban wrote: post #314

CapitainEvident wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We are talking about living right in the centre of Amsterdam. No one is stopping you from buying something with a much lower deposit at a cycling distance from the city centre or a much smaller deposit with a 30 minutes public transport commute for 2 years so you can then afford to live in one of the most desirable areas of a main city with a sizeable tourist industry.

That’s 2 years saving to then live where you want and then an extra 2 years to live where you want in the apartment that you want which is oversized for a single person.

Why do you need a 3 bed as a single person and what’s your ideal scenario? Do you want to be able to afford a house without a deposit, is that it?

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#373

Post by seanmcdirmid » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:34 PM UTC

jseban wrote: post #303

dr_dshiv wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah same in other big cities, it just shows how incredibly impractical it is to do grocery shopping without a car, and what big demand there is to get rid of this annoying chore. I think it's great! The solution is not walking and cycling, that's for sure.

Eh. Living in Beijing without a car, we had a big grocery store near our apartment so a cart was sufficient. There was also a wet market and convenience store downstairs from our complex, while taxis are cheap and plentiful for anything that benefited from a ride out to get.

Back in the states, I shop for groceries daily (again, choosing to live in a semi urban area with two grocery stores in easy walking distance) after dropping the toddler off at daycare. A stroller works wonders. Not sure how I will shop after he starts kindergarten next year.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#374

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

xyzelement wrote: post #352

wayoutthere wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. When you have more options and less of a perception of scarcity, prices adjust. We really erred in allowing homes to become a vehicle of generational wealth. It creates perverse incentives that prevent cities from growing in ways that serve their populations, and instead only serve people wealthy enough to own property…

> Existing homeowners don’t want more “nice” places because it reduces the value of their own homes. Well - what does that actually mean? I own a home, and I am not interested in a huge apartment building going up next door (for reasons that aren't property values) but I have no objection to the boundary of my town expanding, or a new town being established a little bit down the road. Yes sure those things will creat…

[deleted]

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#375

Post by jxidjhdhdhdhfhf » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

schnitzelstoat wrote: post #13

Everybody wants walkable cities, but nobody wants to live in tiny-ass flats. I'm a European and if you look at the size of housing here (perhaps excluding the few cities that have low population density) it's tiny in comparison to most of the USA (except for NYC). So as always there are pro's and con's - would you want to live in a city like NYC? Would you like to raise a family in those conditions?

I think there's a happy medium. Perhaps closely spaced SFHs or row-houses near a small downtown with rail access to a larger city.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#376

Post by CapitainEvident » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

alexanderchr wrote: post #265

jseban wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stockholm is not car free by any standards. On the opposite it’s very car friendly.

Too car friendly for my taste and I don’t get why people drive so much.

Stockholm is small enough that it’s walkable with fast public transport connecting everything.

I don’t think it ever took me over 30 minutes to get anywhere, none of my friends drive in town but over half of them own a car so we are often traveling north for skiing, south for the summer, weekends in someone’s parent’s farm, but I have no recent memory of driving around town, there’s just no need, plus, no drinking, so it’s a nonstarter.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#377

Post by maxsilver » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

zchrykng wrote: post #327

jelly wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not? Seriously, what is your proposal for how it should work? Presumably the people renting the housing would have bought it themselves if they had the financial resources to do so (unless they just like having housing with no real downside investment risk). So what would they do without a landlord? If the builders didn't have people to sell the property to, they wouldn't build them and the housing just wouldn't…

> Presumably the people renting the housing would have bought it themselves if they had the financial resources to do so

It's actually quite the opposite. By literal definition, every renter that's paying their rent can already afford the housing they currently occupy, because every renter is already paying for (their entire unit) as well as (all cost of maintenance) and (some extra profit for the landlord)

So by definition, every renter is always already paying more than it would cost to own, operate, and maintain their unit. Every renter on the planet (who isn't like, behind on rent) has already proven they have the financial resources to own their unit.

> So what would they do without a landlord?

Save money every month. (By the exact amount of profit the landlord currently makes).

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#378

Post by sime2009 » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #82

rekado wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I find it very hard to relate to this perspective. Perhaps this is a cultural difference: I don't value efficiency in my life nearly as much as you seem to do. I don't go out of my way to waste time, but I'm perfectly happy to walk through the quiet roads while carrying groceries, thinking about what I've recently read, wondering about things I happen to see on my walk ---such as the Jugendstil reliefs on facade…

For me, it’s not about carrying the groceries, but the mental and temporal overhead of thinking about what I needed, making a list, walking however many additional minutes, spending 15 minutes shopping/paying/packing, etc would strike me as a terrific waste if done daily. I used to do that when I interned in Germany. The market was near the bus stop and our dorm had limited fridge space, so I’d tend to buy and eat th…

In my house in the Netherlands, we feed a family of four each day and buy food an hour or two before we cook it precisely because we can't handle the mental overhead of planning food more than 24 hours in advance. ;-)

We don't really make lists.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#379

Post by mellavora » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

Panzer04 wrote: post #190

Aeolun wrote: 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.

Yes, a lot of landlords do leave the house empty. Maybe not for the hell of it, but if it is empty you don't risk getting a bad tenant.

Even with good tenants, a tenant means you have more responsibility w.r.t repairs/maintenance costs etc.

If the property is appreciating at 10-30% yoy, why take the risk of renting it?

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#380

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

thow-58d4e8b wrote: post #106

hendiatris wrote: post #10

I read this and think “ah, well there are many more non-rich people so the density requirements make this sort of thing complicated” and then I look out the window over the European city I live in where it has been achieved. Then I think about the town an hour away with a vibrant community and pleasant human-scale environment. What makes it all possible? Good transit. Clean buses. The US simply doesn’t have that, and…

I'm afraid it's not simply about political will. To have affordable and safe public transport, one would need to completely revamp the fabric of American society Why is there no public transport? Because it's losing money due to low ridership. Why is the ridership low? Because people are afraid of dangerous neighborhoods, wackos, homeless and other people of lower castes. Why all of these factors? Because of massive…

> Why is the ridership low? Because people are afraid of dangerous neighborhoods, wackos, homeless and other people of lower castes.

Where do you get this? PT ridership goes down where it is unreliable, has insufficient hours, has too few runs and where stops are far away. These things are all from investing far below what the public needs.

What I have personally seen over and over is that PT fills up with all the people who can overcome the hurdles and make it work. Remove more hurdles, get more riders.