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

Remote work’s toll on cities

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 250 posts

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#161

Post by mensetmanusman »

em500 wrote: post #69
watwut wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that it is because speaker is an American and for Americans, business being in America is better then the one in Romania. The same goes for people in Romania who absolutely understand the exact same thing. They prefer jobs to be in their country. It is legitimate for people to worry whether jobs will be where they live or elsewhere.

My question was mostly retorical. I know that prioritizing fellow citizens is common in almost every country. But I think it is in most cases not morally justifiable, especially in the US where almost everyone is descendent of low single-digit generation immigrants. Not to mention 0-generation immigrants especially in California. (It wouldn't surprise me if there are more highly paid Californian SWE with family in In…

It is usually morally justifiable because one is more likely to have a positive impact on your family and community.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#162

Post by fundad »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #66
em500 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that the real concern? Are Romanians (or Indians for that matter) somehow less deserving of higher pay than Iowans?

Is it a real concern? Obviously if you live in Iowa, yes.

People can downsize to Romania if salaries sink that low.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#163

Post by sokoloff »

em500 wrote: post #69
watwut wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that it is because speaker is an American and for Americans, business being in America is better then the one in Romania. The same goes for people in Romania who absolutely understand the exact same thing. They prefer jobs to be in their country. It is legitimate for people to worry whether jobs will be where they live or elsewhere.

My question was mostly retorical. I know that prioritizing fellow citizens is common in almost every country. But I think it is in most cases not morally justifiable, especially in the US where almost everyone is descendent of low single-digit generation immigrants. Not to mention 0-generation immigrants especially in California. (It wouldn't surprise me if there are more highly paid Californian SWE with family in In…

It wouldn’t surprise me either to learn that more Californian have family coming from among over a bit over a billion than from a bit over 3 million people.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#164

Post by fundad »

spritefs wrote: post #149

I personally wouldn't have a problem living in a city like SF if crime and homeless were less common But since this is a literal nightmare in SF, being less "car dependent" or appeasing these whining activists is the least of my concern. I could give a shit less about "car dependency" if I have to worry about my own personal safety on a regular basis. Expecting people to put their own personal safety on the line to r…

Most people in SF have cars, most streets are lined with garage doors. There are many without cars but the city is designed for cars.

If you’re ok with car dependency then the suburbs are more comfortable. If shopping and hooking-up aren’t as important than safety you are winning.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#165

Post by ergvgdvgrd »

bm3719 wrote: post #17

My long-term prediction: Rural areas and exurbs will up-class, housing the higher-paid remote workers. The remaining non-farming rural poor will be priced out of these properties and will have to live in cities, in ever smaller apartments and eventually pods. The nice services that often are only available in cities currently will distribute more evenly geographically, negating a lot of the benefits of city life. Thi…

A story like what you're describing is in the etymological history of the word "villain". The rich had villas outside the city and people who lived and/or were servants in a villa were villains. No judgement here, but interesting parallel.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#166

Post by bart_spoon »

SoftTalker wrote: post #153
pjlegato wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's correct. US zoning laws have banned the construction of dense urban neighborhoods and required car-centric suburban neighborhood plans since about World War II. Mandatory density limits and setbacks and numbers of parking spaces and square feet per occupant and other zoning regulations make it illegal to build anything other than low density suburbs. Many people still want to live in a dense, walkable neighbor…

> Many people still want to live in a dense, walkable neighborhood I believe this is not true. Some people want this, yes, and it may be that they are overrepresented here or tend to form bubbles so that they think this view is predominant. If a majority of people wanted it, it would happen due to the majority electing people to their local governments that support it.

This assumes there is a strong link between government policy and the way constituents vote, which there is increasing cause to doubt, particularly at the local level.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#167

Post by nemo44x »

talideon wrote: post #107
nemo44x wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you travel or stay long enough you'll find there's plenty of bedroom communities in Europe - you just didn't go to them because why would a tourist go to them? The typical layout is town->multi-family housing surrounding the town that is walkable->larger housing (mix of multi/attached and detached ) that is not walkable. Older parts of the USA (pre-war) are very similar in that there's lots of mixed zoned areas wh…

Even those bedroom communities are a lot more livable than their US equivalents, because they have local amenities, meaning you're not forced to go to some big-box store or strip mall for stuff like you do in the US. They function as small towns, not just vast swathes of houses, which makes them more sustainable.

I agree that it's weird that people want to live in places where there's nowhere to walk to and the landscape is houses with nearly no landscaping except for lawns and some shrubs. Not even trees - just a lawn desert of isolated homes. It's not even a cost thing in many cases as the homes are not cheap or small, etc.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#168

Post by fundad »

norcon4 wrote: post #136

Maybe I'm biased, but I think cheering on the toll of remote work on cities is being sanguine. Cities have existed for a long time for reasons beyond proximity to work. Their decline will represent a decline in wider society. We centralize people and resources to give everyone better access to resources and economize on infrastructure. This pattern is as old as civilization itself. Bully for you if you can make off w…

There isn’t evidence that urban resi real estate is coming down at all. If it sinks below 2008 levels, I’ll worry.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#169

Post by selectodude »

talideon wrote: post #107
nemo44x wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you travel or stay long enough you'll find there's plenty of bedroom communities in Europe - you just didn't go to them because why would a tourist go to them? The typical layout is town->multi-family housing surrounding the town that is walkable->larger housing (mix of multi/attached and detached ) that is not walkable. Older parts of the USA (pre-war) are very similar in that there's lots of mixed zoned areas wh…

Even those bedroom communities are a lot more livable than their US equivalents, because they have local amenities, meaning you're not forced to go to some big-box store or strip mall for stuff like you do in the US. They function as small towns, not just vast swathes of houses, which makes them more sustainable.

Carrefour is one of the largest retailers on earth utilizing a big box model. They’re all over bedroom communities in suburban Paris.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#170

Post by x0x0 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #55
deltarholamda wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> convert office buildings into housing Can't be done. Office buildings of significant size are not engineered for 24/7 human occupation. The sewer will be inadequate. The water will be inadequate. Retrofitting this would be spectacularly expensive, if it's even possible, as mechanical and plumbing chases are sized for the original design requirements and are difficult (if not impossible) to alter. It may be possible…

Building infrastructure is scoped for maximum occupancy at a point-in-time, not over time. And maximum occupancy is typically denser in an office than residential. Put another way, what matters is the maximum volume the electrical, sewer, HVAC, elevators, emergency power, etc can handle. If it is scoped to handle 1,000 people for 8 hours of a day, it will do just fine for 300 people 24 hours per day. > Also, when som…

Nobody is saying residential buildings don't exist.

The claim -- which all the experts seem to back -- is you can't convert large office buildings to residential. For some of the reasons parent says, plus more importantly, you only have a habitable outer shell or donut given light requirements. And it's extremely expensive to take water and sewer, which are all located in the core, and distribute them out to each future apartment.

See eg https://slate.com/business/2022/12/office-housing-conversion...

Post reply on HN