Live data from Hacker News

Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

strongtowns.org

461–470 of 564 posts

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#461

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 problem in the United States is there is almost no choice. If I want to live in walkable/bikable area, I might be fine with living in a tiny flat at a reasonable price. But because of zoning, parking minimums, discretionary review, setbacks, roads designed for traffic throughput etc. there is a huge shortage of these areas so they are not only small, but expensive.

We need to allow these types of communities for people to have choice.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#462
post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge apartment buildings are “lumpy” and indeed impose externalities locally. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about if we could evenly distribute housing, we could cut through some of the NIMBY opposition. Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem. Unfortunately, in many places SFH owners will come out in force to fig…

>> Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. That may sound crazy so let me explain. For 39 years, I valued density/walkability/convenience of city life, and lived in NYC for most of that time. Now…

>I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into.

This is, definitionally, NIMBYism. Resisting necessary change in your town because it doesn't jive with what you want is more or less the problem.

Now, maybe your town doesn't need quads or apartments or anything of the sort. Maybe the properties and zoning laws that exist are able to meet demand. But if your town is growing faster than single-family construction can keep up; if people aren't able to afford to live close to their jobs; if you see your town becoming more exclusive, something that often comes at the expense of local businesses or municipal budgets; then reality dictates that we embrace change.

Of course, it sounds like you're in an area close to NYC, so you would hold that there's already suitable choice of housing in your area to meet peoples' needs. I think the areas where this debate is more prevalent are the ones in the PNW, Southeast, and Mountain west/Southwest portions of the US where cities are busting at the seams and zoning is a huge barrier for the stock of housing.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nevermind that saving a deposit while rents are quite high is no easy feat.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#464
post #427
post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an odd comment. You don't need to move out of the US in order to reduce how much you drive, or live somewhere your kids can walk to school (source: me). Expecting people to make such a drastic change for fairly minor lifestyle changes isn't realistic. Also, I don't think it's fear that prevents Americans from moving across the world. I think it's more related to, they don't want to leave their family, friends, a…

You're also not allowed to simply move to other countries. You generally need to get some type of work authorization if you want to be able to get a job. This isn't available to everyone, and can often require proficiency in the native language.

Yes, this is why I referenced visas that might be attainable for people who can't go the usual "I work in tech and have companies courting me at every turn" route.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#465

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'm in the process of DAFT right now. I got lucky and found a decent place at a decent rate in the center of Amsterdam (this rate is only really affordable because I work in tech, though). I've taken exactly one taxi ride so far (airport to airbnb with lots of luggage). Every other time I've walked, cycled, or taken public transit (OV Chipkaart is really great). It feels great to just...be around people.

That's wonderful! If you care to write about your experience with DAFT I'd love to read it. shawnindutch.com kept a blog about it for years but that appears to be a dead link now :-(

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#466
post #416
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it's not been that it's inconvenient to do it without a car, but that it's inconvenient to do it at all . I used to do my shopping on the way home from work, and the stores were on my way so they added nothing to my travel time, yet they added time spent in shops , and I had no desire to keep doing that when delivery options appeared. I'm in London, and use Ocado, which means if I can't even be bothered to ope…

This seems to be straying from the topic of the article which was making walkable communities more mass market. Not to pick on you but this sentiment is that sure I can handle groceries without driving to a store. I’ll just have some gig worker deliver it for me. Personally I prefer shopping in person anyway. It’s not a big deal once a week and usually have multiple errands to run anyway.

> This seems to be straying from the topic of the article which was making walkable communities more mass market.

I don't agree that it's straying from the topic. The shift towards getting groceries delivered is likely to start to kill off the big out-of-town super markets in certain markets, and it fundamentally changes the dynamics where grocery shopping was a big factor for people living in areas with few walkable shops with respect to their real or perceived need for cars.

E.g. my mums neighbourhood in Norway is one she'd likely have had to move away from when she gets a bit older than now if it wasn't for delivery services. She's close-ish to shops, but not close enough to be comfortable carrying lots of groceries any more. Having delivery services means the neighbourhood remains walkable enough for her for longer.

> Not to pick on you but this sentiment is that sure I can handle groceries without driving to a store. I’ll just have some gig worker deliver it for me.

No, my weekly shop is delivered by salaried drivers. They're not paid great (I've checked), but they're certainly not paid as poorly as the typical gig worker and thankfully they've recently been forced to up salaries to deal with the ongoing lack of delivery drivers in the UK. My very occasional extras via Deliveroo are delivered by gig workers, and I'm conscious they're paid shit so I generally tip heavily.

Personally I utterly hate shopping in person unless it's something that I like to look at, and I'm very happy to pay extra to avoid having to.

But to bring it back to the topic, if having someone deliver groceries takes away the main reason why people otherwise need a car, it's a net win. For me it e.g. makes a big difference in where I'd be prepared to live as I don't need to take into consideration whether it'd be a long walk with heavy bags any more. I enjoy long walks. I don't enjoy long walks with bags full of groceries.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#467
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…

Isn't Toronto one of the most expensive cities to live in North America? If you are building large houses in a nice, walkable area, you can't fit enough people there to match demand, and so the cost of the housing spikes. The point is that you can pick 2: walkability, large houses, affordability.

* Walkability, large houses = very expensive neighborhoods and gentrification

* Large houses, affordable = rural areas where cars are required

* Affordable, walkable neighborhood = Tiny apartments/homes in an urban area

* A bit of the best/worst of all 3 = Suburbs

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#468
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love living in a walkable city and a tiny-ass apartment (3 people, 75 square meters). When the neighborhood is attractive it becomes part of "your space". I don't need my whole world to be within the confines of these walls.

This is a key, I think. If you live somewhere that has no common space and nowhere to walk (which is most of US housing) you "need" the larger space of your own because you have nothing of any value available to you (unless you are willing to get in a car and navigate the hellscape of suburban sprawl that isolates these types of housing developments from each other and from any amenities). It's a "tragedy of the comm…

Removing the artificial restriction that you need to be close enough to the steel and concrete temple to go worship there 5 days a week means that people can now make more free choices about how to live.

That will result in some people choosing higher density areas and some people choosing lower density areas, but it should improve freedom of choice significantly, which is great for people.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#469
post #454
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Get outside the big cities and houses are very affordable. We’re talking 120m^2 homes for under $200k.

Yeah, but then I'd have to buy a car and drive it to get simple basic tasks done.

That's kind of the whole point. People want that.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#470

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…

Most of the deliveries take place by bike, at least for the fast delivery sites. For the stores and others, they have trucks that deliver to 20-50 people. So, you replace many cars with a single trip.
Post reply on HN