Live data from Hacker News

Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

strongtowns.org

481–490 of 564 posts

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#481
post #455

In a capitalist society, when you find something that people are willing to spend above average on, there's usually no shortage of providers trying to produce it. Why isn't that happening in this case?

Put simply, zoning doesn't allow it.

and land — largely speaking — isn’t producible. a capitalist can’t really spin up a land factory when demand for specific land grows whereas one could spin up a silverware factory as demand for at-home dining grows.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#482

It’s not just scarcity. People “need” a place to park three or four huge (subsidized) vehicles. Also, people like to brag. N -thousand square feet and an n -car garage provide an objective measure. It’s harder to one-up by saying you have a really nice trattoria three blocks over.

Closeness to good cafes/restaurants/shops, parks, and so forth absolutely confers bragging rights to those who value such things. It is a question of each person's preferences.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#483
post #28

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 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.

and this is where things collide with capitalism. Once your neighborhood is a part of "your space", you're much more invested in that neighborhood and its future evolution. However, under the "rules" of a capitalist economy, in which the private ownership of real estate generally trumps most other concerns, you have very little ability to control the future of your neighborhood. If it starts changing in ways you don't like, it's not likely (though not impossible) that you can do anything about it.

This is at least part of the motivation for people seeking out their own larger properties, not to mention buying land adjacent to them: it's not necessarily that they have any use for the acreage, they just want to be able to exert (more) control over what happens in the "space around them".

Note: I'm not condoning that behavior in any way.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#484
post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes more supply would make it cheaper for the people in the niche that wants that type of house. The writer hints at this but the penny doesn’t drop. It’s most likely that maybe he doesn’t understand the middle and working class market as well as the entire home building industry of America. Regular people need schools, offices, shops etc which need a level of scale to operate efficiently. That is going to counter th…

This isn’t about “quaint shops”. This is being able to walk or cycle to your GP, or to the local shops to grab some milk, or to the nearest park to play with your kids. In the most sought after places, it’s about being able to take regular, fast public transport to your place of work, because it’s obviously quicker & less hassle than driving. In most of the US, you can’t build like this, because of zoning & planning…

The author didn’t really talk about those practical concerns, the focus seemed to be about aesthetics. If you have a look at Milwaukee avenue it’s much lower density than anything in Europe.

I live in a much denser town and I couldn’t walk to the GP, school or train station. They’re all 30-40 minutes walk in different directions. And we don’t tend to just choose the closest services to where we live.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#485

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…

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 whe…

Those houses—actually the land that they're built on—are expensive nowadays because living in the urban city is cool again.

Up until ~2000 it was not so, because living in the city was for immigrants and all the WASPs moved into the innter/outer suburbs with their white picket fences. The area of the links is where the Poles concentrated; to the west were the Ukrainians; to the east is Little Portugal (then onto Chinatown); to the north-east is Little Italy. Toronto is a good example of what Jane Jacobs saying 'you don't live in a city, but in a neighbourhood':

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neighbourhoods_in_Toro...

And the reason why Toronto (SW Ontario) is so expensive, especially since 2015, is because we've had so much immigration in the region, but housing hasn't kept up by pure volume (regardless of density or other factors).

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#486
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…

> the "remote first" revolution seems to just encourage more sprawl, since you don't need to live near where you work.

It might be my impression, but lots of traditional tech companies have offices out in the suburbs. Because land is cheaper there for a sprawling single-story office park.

Remote work has done the opposite and allowed me to live in the city. And because I'm at a central site choosing where to commute I have more opportunities. Rather than living in one suburb and commuting to another suburb.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#487
post #23

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 get the impression Americans buy these huge houses that they then barely use any of most of the time. And a dense neighbourhood can substitute for many rooms - I have a community hall around the corner if I want to host a party, I don't have a home gym/cinema/pool/sauna but I have those things a ten minute bike ride away....

Sure, 1bdrm apartment is more than enough when you live alone and don't have any hobbies aside of hosting parties.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#488
post #338
post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

I started using Instacart in 2013, after few years completely stopped using and any other grocery delivery. The problem is that often the shopper thinks things are “out of stock” if they don’t find them, or they just buy the wrong item. So each delivery you are always stressing about if you get all the items and if the quality of produce is good enough. I’d rather order stuff from Amazon or another web store that only ships when they have the right product at hand.

Personally don’t believe the supermarkets will go away. I don’t think the business model of these delivery platforms allows having qualified staff to do the shopping.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#489

I'm pretty addicted to "Not Just Bikes" youtube channel which seems to be either directly or indirectly related to stongtowns https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes It's frustrating. Even though I'm currently in SF, SF still doesn't feel remotely as nice as many other places outside the US. Public transportation is slow and although the muni is okay the busses are kinda gross compared to good non-US cities. There are…

The biggest problem with NJB is that he completely ignores important fact: there are many people that don't want to live in apartments or even close to other people. Surprise surprise, we really want to live on 10 acres of land in our 3500 sqft house, with our motorcycles, garage workshops, dogs et cetera. We don't need "sense of community", we just want to have quiet space for ourselves.

Re: Our self imposed scarcity of nice places

#490
post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the "remote first" revolution seems to just encourage more sprawl, since you don't need to live near where you work. It might be my impression, but lots of traditional tech companies have offices out in the suburbs. Because land is cheaper there for a sprawling single-story office park. Remote work has done the opposite and allowed me to live in the city. And because I'm at a central site choosing where to commute…

It’s shifted to some degree but it’s only in the past decade, two at most, almost no tech companies were actually in cities and most offices are still in suburban office parks. So most tech workers aren’t walking or taking public transit to their jobs.
Post reply on HN