Our self imposed scarcity of nice places • Hacker News Board

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#441

Post by nuerow » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

lozenge wrote: post #318

nuerow wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

> Firstly, walkability only means higher prices if supply is limited.

Isn't it, though?

In fact, not only is it limited, it's also a market on the supply side.

> Secondly, a grocery store needs say 500 potential customers (households) within walking/transit distance.

In consolidated urban areas with medium density occupation, such as city centers in pretty much any relatively large European city, you already have multiple supermarkets at a stone's throw. In some places like Madrid some suburban areas even have multiple supermarkets on the same apartment block.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#442

Post by typest » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

RivieraKid wrote: post #436

Is is just my feeling or has there been a large increase in anti-car sentiment, interest in neighbourhood niceness and walkability, etc?

There has been. With work from home, people are spending way more time in their neighborhoods, and online. They’re simultaneously discovering that their neighborhoods aren’t very nice, and (through urbanist social media) that nice walkable neighborhoods do exist!

When you don’t have to commute by car to your job, you spend more time walking around your neighborhood. It’s nice if it’s a nice neighborhood to walk around.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#443

Post by will4274 » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

akanet wrote: post #11

makeitdouble wrote: post #2

> Places like this are expensive because places like this are scarce, and scarce things almost always become expensive. > The answer to this isn't to lower our standards for design or to be dismissive of the things that are really lovable about these places. The answer is simply to allow a lot more Milwaukee Avenues to exist. And the same goes for the likes of all of today's beloved, "charming" historic districts. It…

The notion that increasing housing supply is similar to "trickle down" economics is common in discourses of housing policy in America, but it is misguided. Reagan's notion that increasing the margins of the wealthy would induce them to pass profits to workers was mistaken in that its proposed mechanism was entirely altruism. Price reductions in housing from an increase in supply do not occur because the rich voluntar…

> Reagan's notion that increasing the margins of the wealthy would induce them to pass profits to workers was mistaken in that its proposed mechanism was entirely altruism.

No it wasn't.

Reagan push to lower taxes so rich people money would be used in investment instead of sitting idle. The notion that money in investment has a higher velocity than money sitting is basic economics. The main issue with Reagan is that his prediction that the increased velocity of money would produce enough economic activity to make up for the reduction in taxes - was totally incorrect.

It's really disappointing how many commenters criticize Reagan's economic policies without understanding them at all.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#444

Post by maxsilver » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #418

maxsilver wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where "in perpetuity" comes from. Nothing stops you from selling your small apartment condo later or whatever. But yeah, generally speaking, adults should be able to own their buy and own their own housing, and be able to reside there as long as they choose to. For the same reasons we expect people to be able to own their own coats and shoes and laptops and such, and hold on to it as long as they are ali…

The “in perpetuity” doesn’t mean you can never sell it, but it does mean that at the moment of purchase you’d have to pay for the discounted cash flow value of consuming that housing for the expected lifetime of the building and for using the land for the expected lifetime of the land, because that’s what you’re buying: the perpetual right to exclude others from that dwelling and land/shared land until you decide to…

> If instead of requiring people to pay for the perpetual right to occupy and exclude others, you allow them to pay for that right for only one year or one month at a time, well, that’s what renting already is.

No, that's what property taxes are -- and they're already paid out little bits at a time. (Here, twice yearly). Rent vs buy has nothing to do with the "right to occupy", the taxes do, and renters and owners both pay their property taxes in full (renters taxes are rolled up into their monthly rent, but same thing).

---

Every benefit a landlord offers is a lie -- it's a benefit the renter setup, and the landlord is stealing credit for. A landlord does not "maintain" any property (the renter does, the renter pays money that gets spent on a property management service that does the work). A landlord does not pay any taxes for the land (the renter does, through monthly rents). A landlord did not build the structure on the property (a construction firm did, using money exclusively paid for by current and future renters). A landlord does not protect the property from risk or damage (the homeowners insurance / property insurance company does that, paid for entirely from monthly rents from the renter tenant).

You could potentially argue that the landlord is a bank, a form of financing to get money upfront and paid back later -- except they don't do that either, the Federal Government does that through a mortgage that the landlord just gets to hold for no reason, so the landlord usually isn't even risking any finances there either. A default doesn't leave a landlord high-and-dry, it leaves the general public (through the Federal Government) holding the bag.

The landlord doesn't even take on any opportunity cost risk in the US, because the US soft-mandates (though fiscal policy) that property values continuously rise on average, and passes this cost on to citizens. So, even if hypothetically all renters abandon the property in a few years, the landlord will be able to 'cash out' (sell) the property, nearly always for more than they paid for it (using appreciation paid for by past renters).

A landlords choice is literally "do I do nothing and get free money forever for no labour" or "do I cash out now, and dump the money into some other place, for the chance at more free money for no labour". That's the only "opportunity cost" they ever have to weigh.

The landlord *literally* *does* *nothing*, they provide *literally* *zero* value. They exist solely to skim money from people. It's a political choice to let these people exist and take the bulk of earned value from a given area, not some kind of need-based response to anything.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#445

Post by sokoloff » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #444

sokoloff wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “in perpetuity” doesn’t mean you can never sell it, but it does mean that at the moment of purchase you’d have to pay for the discounted cash flow value of consuming that housing for the expected lifetime of the building and for using the land for the expected lifetime of the land, because that’s what you’re buying: the perpetual right to exclude others from that dwelling and land/shared land until you decide to…

> If instead of requiring people to pay for the perpetual right to occupy and exclude others, you allow them to pay for that right for only one year or one month at a time, well, that’s what renting already is. No, that's what property taxes are -- and they're already paid out little bits at a time. (Here, twice yearly). Rent vs buy has nothing to do with the "right to occupy", the taxes do, and renters and owners bo…

I agree with your premise that the cash flows from the tenant to pay for these things, just like employers don’t pay salaries but rather customers pay salaries and the employer just handles the money. (I disagree that property taxes are the only charge to exclusively occupy a structure. Purchase price and property taxes [and insurance] are.)

My parents were (very) small-time landlords having 0, 1, or 2 houses (or half-houses) at the time while I was growing up.

The reason that I’ve stayed away from doing it is that I saw firsthand just how much work it actually is, notwithstanding the claims from people (almost invariably never-landlords) about how easy it is.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#446

Post by throw0101a » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

pornel wrote: post #402

throw0101a wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> you don't need to own a car (the places you've liked to look like every household has a car).

I know people who are in the area that do not have a car, but the area has been gentrified over the last few years, so folks have cars 'just because why not' really.

Still generally applies per the label of streetcar suburbs. The area in question is just south of a subway line, and Roncesvalles has a streetcar line going through it to a station.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#447

Post by nuerow » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

convolvatron wrote: post #384

nuerow wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The economy exists to support everyone's life, not the other way around. Just because you can argue someone can make a quick buck selling a basic necessity, that does not mean it's ok to deprive a whole community of basic necessit…

i think you misunderstand. the tail has been wagging the dog for some time now. it is not for the market to adapt to our needs, it is for us to adapt to the market and hopefully we can extract what we need.

> it is not for the market to adapt to our needs, it is for us to adapt to the market and hopefully we can extract what we need.

The market isn't a magical entity which demands human sacrifices. It's quite possible to keep it reigned in with a combination of banning private property investments[1] with public housing and urban renewal projects. Cut down on detrimental demand and increase supply.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28422768

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#448

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

CapitainEvident wrote: post #403

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So this depends on what multiple the bank will lend you. In Ireland, it's 3.5 whereas it looks like it's 4.5 in the UK.

Honestly though, apartments anywhere near the city in Dublin are still way out of reach for a person on your wage, even if the rules changed to 4.5.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#449

Post by peoplefromibiza » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #435

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #79

> Would you like to raise a family in those conditions? apparently hundreds of millions of people already do it... A provocative answer to your comment: would you like to raise your family where your kids can walk to school and play with other kids in a nearby park at walking distance and never be afraid of mass shootings? I get the impression that huge houses are a symptom of a bigger issue: people in US feel they n…

> A provocative [...] mass shootings? Please don't take HN threads on flamewar tangents. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29104807 .

Judging from the subsequent posts nobody took it as a flamewar, but as an announced provocative answer aimed at exposing the hyperbole contained in the message I was replying to.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#450

Post by ChrisLomont » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #46

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?

The US is not a good comparison because the house sizes are just ridiculous – and those huge houses are just as out of reach for most "common" people and are rapidly getting even more out of reach because they never were sustainable at all! But there’s a spectrum between 40m2 highrise flats and 800m2 single-family McMansions.

Median house size is > 2000 sq ft, so common people are buying large houses. They're certainly not out of reach.

The US has (except maybe Australia) the largest median house sizes on the planet. Home ownership has bounced between 63% and 69% for over 50 years, and is currently rising again.

What force makes a smaller home sustainable but a larger one not sustainable?