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

Americans are rethinking where they want to live

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 645 posts

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#421

Post by nostromo »

0x0nyandesu wrote: post #402
nostromo wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ve created the lawless environment that attracted them to our cities. They weren’t coerced to come here, we enticed them to come here.

I've lived in a major us east coast city up until the pandemic. My tax dollars kept going down the drain dealing with homeless who by in large were not originally city residents. Your opinion that these people were enticed to the city is wholly unfounded and totally made up. Just another reason I've mentally checked out of the debate. Y'all have fun with that. I'll live in the burbs.

Your comment isn’t coherent. The homeless haven’t been forced into the cities. They chose to go there and the cities chose to welcome them.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#422

Post by vineyardmike »

hagbard_c wrote: post #393
vineyardmike wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> may I suggest you go somewhere more welcoming of those "humane and well thought out" policies? > those places tend to be the ones people are moving away from but that means there should be lots of vacancies. People have been moving away from those small towns for generations, and I feel like this speaks for itself.

They did not move because of "inhumane and not well thought out" policies, they moved because there was no employment to be had - Bruce Springsteen touched this in "The River", Chris Rea in "Steel River". Industry closed down, production moved overseas, people moved to what they hoped were greener pastures but found them to be gray and inhospitable. Now that employment can be had through a network connection people a…

> there was no employment to be had

Employment is a policy failure. Likely "not well thought out" if it didn't work as intended :)

California and its policies have created an ton of jobs. So many jobs that theres not enough space to put the people who work those jobs. Much of Silicon Valley in the 50s was farmland. Why hasn't every other rural town transformed into the economic powerhouse of the 21st century? Could it be (partially) policy decisions?

> Bruce Springsteen touched this

Not the authority on human migratory patterns i'd expect.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#423

Post by anthk »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #117
anthk wrote: post #33

As an European, I love the American culture. But if you had the European standards on healthcare (The Spaniard one it's great), America would enter in a 2nd golden age.

As an European with extensive knowledge about government budgeting and costs, I find the naivety of most people regarding European healthcare systems incredible. There is not enough money in the world to deliver the promise of the European hc systems and there is no serious reporting on the results to make people aware of the gap. Most people believe healthcare is readily available, free and unlimited, none of these…

Spaniard here. If the most powerful country in the world can't manage that at federal level, then the US is broken from its roots.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#424

Post by diveanon »

CountDrewku wrote: post #323
anarchy8 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My 5 year old has to wear a mask 7 hours a day against an illness that doesn't kill kids This is misinformation: https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...

Maybe you ought to pay more attention to what it actually says instead of getting upset at what is obviously a generalization about the overreaction to COVID when it comes to young children- >A smaller subset of states reported on hospitalizations and mortality by age; the available data indicate that COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death is uncommon in children. Here's a more accurate representation - https:…

Children are a vector for spreading the virus, this really isn’t complicated.

The psychological “trauma” of wearing a mask is nothing compared to what these kids will feel when they give grandma covid over Christmas.

It’s not about them.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#425

Post by nouveaux »

foofoo4u wrote: post #91

I sure am. I live in San Jose (which resides in the Bay Area). Here’s why I am leaving. - $2,700 per month for a 500 sq/ft apartment. - Homeless people everywhere the moment I step foot out of my apartment. - Smells like urine on many sidewalks. - Literally half of the buildings are vacant or abandoned (in downtown). - Human feces on sidewalks and entrance to buildings. - Political and ideological homogeny. Keep your…

> I’m paying a lot of money to live here, but for what?

The weather. The high cost of living in the bay area and California is largely about the weather. People come to California for the dream and stay for the sun.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#426

Post by ericmay »

treis wrote: post #408
opportune wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they choose suburbs because it’s preferred or because it’s cheaper? If the urban areas have more expensive housing for a given unit size, that would imply it is actually preferred. It’s like saying nobody drives because there is too much traffic. Or sporting events always sell out so nobody goes.

You can't separate preference from cost. Or, in other words, they prefer it because it's cheaper.

Cost is part of the preference, I agree. I think though that we're not accurately capturing the true cost. The suburbs appear to be cheaper and they very well may be on an individual level, but are they cheaper for civilization? How do we price in your commute, for example? Or the cost of roads or the government building a new power plant? I don't think we have great market mechanics for this which makes the cost comparison a little difficult to do to begin with.

But to the point of the person you are replying to, the price of a house in almost any reasonable case I can think of reflects desirability for one reason or another. If you see that suburban homes are cheaper than a mixed-use, medium density neighborhood (the kind that everybody visits and take pictures of) that would indicate that the preference is for that. Though I guess you can argue that due to lack of supply that the cost is increased.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#427

Post by ceras »

brnt wrote: post #268
larrymyers wrote: post #10

My family and I decided to stay on the north side of Chicago, a very high cost of living location, despite no longer needing to head downtown every day for work. Why not move outside of Chicago where our cost living would be substantially lower? * We wanted to keep our kids in the same school, which is walking distance. * We like being walking distance to the grocery store, doctor's offices, etc. * Our kids can walk…

Can you fill me in on sth? Where Ive lived in Europe, the onlt car-only areas are burbs. Small towns tend to be walkable too, on account of being small. Now, not every small town has a wide variety of shops of course, but most things are bikeable. The only things that are not where I now live are places I'd need a car anyway (furniture, construction, etc). I thought it'd be the same for small town America, but I gues…

You're right, it's not like that in small-town America: small towns aren't walkable in the US.

There aren't many walkable or bikeable areas in the US, and those that exist are in a handful of large cities. Many US cities aren't very walkable, e.g. Los Angeles (the second largest US city).

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#428

Post by sanderjd »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #344
kerbs wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my very anecdotal observation – these small downtown areas don't rely on retail as much as food and entertainment. It's where the best restaurants, brewpubs, and general hangouts are. If there is retail, it's _highly_ differentiated from Big Box.

Yes, but that is why there are so few places like that in the US. Not many people can afford to constantly eat out and consume entertainment at a sufficient frequency to keep those businesses going. And that was at the labor prices before the pandemic.

Not many relative or absolute? I think it is a fairly small percentage of people and also a very large number of people who can (and desire to) live this lifestyle.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#429

Post by sanderjd »

ethbr0 wrote: post #155
sanderjd wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason (besides inertia) that we can't have both. This is how thriving smaller downtowns are, single family homes within walking distance to amenities. It's just that all those areas get really expensive because there are so few of them. But there don't have to be so few places like that.

Afaict, the primary driver of non-walkable suburbs is neighborhood layout, which is driven by maximizing house:land ratio. I live in a suburban master planned development now that oriented itself around the residential-commercial interface. Having previously lived in an urban core, it's not too much of a downgrade. Sure, you inevitably trade local for chain (boo!), because that's who the anchor tenants originally wer…

Yeah this is the kind of layout I prefer.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#430

Post by sanderjd »

ravitation wrote: post #131
sanderjd wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a sample bias. Even if lots of people here who have moved used to commute by public transit, the reality is that most people commute by car. Reducing commuting is generally a very good thing.

Eliminating the commute, when it is replaced by living in a suburb with essentially no access to services without driving (especially when there was access before), can still be a net negative... That's the point of the anecdote...

Yes I know. My point is that I think it's unlikely that anything comes out behind eliminating commutes. Even "essentially no access to services" is closer access to services than the common exurban commuting distance.
Post reply on HN