Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 564 posts

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#401

Post by logfromblammo »

sokoloff wrote: post #116
torben-friis wrote: post #85

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…

Private utility companies are often subjected to regulatory board controls. Their local monopoly is limited by a representative (supposedly) of the public's interests. That low-risk investment has its potential returns limited to what a board deems "reasonable".

Some states regulate residential housing, or at least taxes on it, to limit what municipalities and counties may do with their taxing authority. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to regulate the rents charged by "housing provider" individuals or companies to be, on average, 1/3 of average local income.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#402

Post by pornel »

throw0101a wrote: post #335
pornel wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walkability is highly correlated with population density. Dense walkable neighborhoods are more attractive. These two together make housing small and expensive. Walkable neighborhoods need destinations you can walk to. Businesses need a minimum number of customers to be viable, so the denser the neighborhood the more variety of destinations it will have. To avoid cars taking up the space, it's necessary to have high-…

> These two together make housing small and expensive. Nothing small about these houses in the walkable neighbourhood of Roncesvalles: * https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+... * https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toron... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roncesvalles,_Toronto * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb You still have a (back)yard and can have a garage…

I guess for walkable as in literally able to walk somewhere that works.

But I was thinking about walkability from European perspective where it means you don't need to own a car (the places you've liked to look like every household has a car). When I lived in London on multiple occasions I've had jobs within 20 minute walk from where I lived.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#403

Post by CapitainEvident »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #311
CapitainEvident wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Evidently.

On £55k you can afford to borrow £247.5k.

£247.5k + 10% deposit and you are looking at £272k properties.

Check sold house prices in London and you’ll find plenty under £272k.

Possible in London which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#404

Post by CapitainEvident »

zchrykng wrote: post #343
jseban wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That 2 bedroom apartment costs way more than my 5 bedroom house that is ~420 m2. Housing prices in some places are crazy.

Evidently.

That 2 bedroom apartment is in one of the most desirable areas of the most desirable city in the country. Location matters.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#405

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

quantumofalpha wrote: post #394
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You just happened to be working for the scrappiest/shittiest faang that's all. You know, with this statement you've just proved his point, that good tech wages in Europe are super scarce when you need to be very picky with wich FAANG you join for good compensation. That's basically skimming the cream off the cream you just skimmed. How much are you left with now, ~1% of the total tech jobs?

Amazon is worst payer among them in the US as well. Facebook and Google pay decent money in London and Zurich, almost on par with US in the latter, London is maybe ~30% less. > How much are you left with now, ~1% of the total tech jobs? If you want top 1% pay, you gonna have to hunt for top 1% jobs, seems obvious, no?

>If you want top 1% pay, you gonna have to hunt for top 1% jobs, seems obvious, no?

Of course, but the discussion was about the fact that the tech job market in Europe is poor. You pointing out that the top 1% devs in Europe make really good money doesn't change that since the 99% are left with sub-paar options.

To make it clearer, a better indication would be to look at median opportunities and wages in the tech sectors, and here the wages in the EU are far lower than in the US even when adjusted for the local purchasing power and real estate prices (actually, I think this makes it even worse for Europe, as stuff cost more and real estate is more expensive).

If you remove the 1%ers like FAANGS and other US unicorns pumped with VC money form the EU tech scene, you're not left with much good local grown opportunities, the wages take a massive nose-dive, which is what the majority is earning.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#406

Post by Cd00d »

Quanttek wrote: post #361
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Biking/walking is utilized at least twice as much in Western European countries as in the US, What's it look like when you include eastern Europe in that comparison? I'm sure the rich half of the US bikes a heck of a lot more than the poor half too.

It's likely the other way around: most Soviet block cities have not only historic centers equally centered around walking/biking but Soviet city design focused strongly on public transport and walkable neighborhoods because cars were unaffordable to most people.

My experience in ex-Soviet bloc countries is the opposite. Unmaintained sidewalks, parked cars blocking safe walking access, unsafe driving behavior/routing near pedestrians.

I often think of a time in Sofia, Bulgaria where I saw an elderly woman trying to get around a car parked on the sidewalk, up against a wall, by walking on the car bumper with her groceries. It was terrifying and precarious.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#407

Post by fatnoah »

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…

>I can bike or walk everywhere, and the only reason I have a car is that it makes grocery shopping much, much easier

I've lived in the center of an older US city, and one thing I loved was how easy grocery shopping was. I went to the market almost daily, so I never needed a vehicle to get 10 bags of groceries home. Friends who lived outside the city always asked if it felt limiting to not have a car, but I actually found it very freeing. I walked or took transit, and while the transit wasn't usually time-competitive with driving, it was basically free time for me to read, think, etc.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#408

Post by looki »

treis wrote: post #341
matkoniecz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The grocery is 2.5 kilometers away and the journey includes one very dangerous roundabout. Well, if city is so poorly designed that it requires cars, then you will need a car. For comparison, I have small supermarket 250m away (on the ground floor of an apartment block) - and I do not need to cross road to get there. And withing 250m there are several other shops like bakeries, pharmacies, haidresser, convenience s…

I'm guessing you pay significantly more for food at these local places than you would at a big box grocery store. Plus, you're less able to buy in bulk to get those time&money savings. The other big factor that people miss in these comparisons are schools. Generally speaking housing in dense places with good schools is usually very expensive. People that can't afford that typically have the choice between crappy urba…

>I'm guessing you pay significantly more for food at these local places than you would at a big box grocery store.

I think you have a very wrong picture of what the GP is talking about, since this is not really the case at all. We're not talking about NY-style bodegas here. In Germany for example, cut-throat discount stores like Aldi that constantly try to lower the price floor for groceries are ubiquitous and can definitely be found in dense neighborhoods. Come to think of it, a while ago I read that they started building apartment buildings with a store integrated in the ground floor because that concept works well for them.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#409

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #301
globular-toast wrote: post #236

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…

In the 1970s, the Netherlands experienced a mother-led political backlash to cars that was expressed in the “Stop Murdering Our Children” movement. Thousands protested and the government responded by deprioritizing cars. People think that Amsterdam is walkable because it is an old city. It is walkable because it’s people demanded it. So cool. This site has a bunch of news articles about the movement: https://www.dutc…

>It is walkable because it’s people demanded it.

Can you please come and do the same in Austria, this boomer-mentality country that's all about everyone owing cars and driving and parking everywhere, where cycling is seen as a sport or means of transportation for poor people who can't afford a house in the suburbs?

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#410

Post by jsnell »

necovek wrote: post #397
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.

If delivery happens by the same means you would have been doing it (eg. a car), it adds nothing to the communal or ecological value of a neighbourhood — it's merely a consumer's convenience in saving time. Only if delivery was organized in a way to deliver to multiple households in the same area does it start to make sense from an ecological perspective: but your neighbourhood still has to have those delivery trucks…

A delivery person will probably not do a roundtrip between the store and your house, just for your groceries. They'll have an optimized route for doing a dozen deliveries at once, and amortize the ecological / social cost across all of them.

It's a bit like a bus vs. a car. They're not equal, even if they both drive on the same roads.

Post reply on HN