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

211–220 of 250 posts

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#211

Post by Doxin »

TuringNYC wrote: post #100
danielrpa wrote: post #18

Cities exist to serve people's needs. The 2 existing models are a relic of a low technology past: suburbia with long car commutes to downtown, and dense cities built around facilitating mass daily movement to the office through subway/public transportation. Instead, we need self-sufficient neighborhoods catering to different lifestyles and needs (some higher density and walkable, others still car-centric but encourag…

I'm a life-long New Yorker, born and raised. Even I gave up on the city and moved out, despite all the desire to live with low carbon-impact and live a moderate lifestyle w/o cars. At some point, the pain factor becomes too much. I'll give you some examples - Approximately 5-6yrs ago the transit quality in the outer-boroughs (not Manhattan) became so bad that you could spend 2hrs hours switching multiple trains if yo…

> as if I could jump on a ride-share bicycle with two kids.

So while this is rather tangential to the post in general, The cargo bike is the exact solution to this problem[0]. Just because your city is terrible at bicycle infrastructure doesn't mean it's a problem inherent to cities.

And honestly by your post it sounds like New York is just terrible about infrastructure in general.

[0] https://www.babboe.be/media/welke-bakfiets/welke-bakfiets-ki...

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#212

Post by mmarq »

danielrpa wrote: post #18

Cities exist to serve people's needs. The 2 existing models are a relic of a low technology past: suburbia with long car commutes to downtown, and dense cities built around facilitating mass daily movement to the office through subway/public transportation. Instead, we need self-sufficient neighborhoods catering to different lifestyles and needs (some higher density and walkable, others still car-centric but encourag…

> Instead, we need self-sufficient neighborhoods catering to different lifestyles and needs

What you are describing is a random continental European city (that is Europe minus UK and Ireland)

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#213

Post by kkfx »

cozzyd wrote: post #180
kkfx wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, good. So what's the purpose of converting former office buildings in residential one? Workers who left them surely do not came back in them to reside, they left and choose new homes more apt to the WFH purposes, something not easy to find in a dense city. Where you have plenty of space to develop renewables in a dense city? Where the home garage to recharge your car? Where the place to get larger and larger packa…

There is plenty of demand for living in dense walkable places, which is why they're more expensive per square foot than houses in the burbs. You don't need to recharge your car if you don't have one at all, which is much more sustainable.

Mh, I'm from EU so my view it's not on the current USA population but here while there are some who want to live "at a hyper-short range", that's all but NOT sustainable: they do not pollute, as single humans, but they need a supporting structure who pollute much.

The denser an area is the more territories around are needed to feed it, to a point of 1000+miles ranges vs few if population is not that dense.

Anyway, at least in Europe people who want to be in cities normally are a not so marginal cohort, but still far little in size than the one who want to flee, only few countries where services are not developed outside cities have different mean opinion.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#214

Post by kkfx »

woodruffw wrote: post #187
kkfx wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, good. So what's the purpose of converting former office buildings in residential one? Workers who left them surely do not came back in them to reside, they left and choose new homes more apt to the WFH purposes, something not easy to find in a dense city. Where you have plenty of space to develop renewables in a dense city? Where the home garage to recharge your car? Where the place to get larger and larger packa…

One possible purpose is demand shift: lots of (relatively affluent) people want to live in cities, and are currently inflating rents in neighborhoods that otherwise would be more affordable. (In general, it's incorrect to assume that WFH implies a desire to flee to suburbia, particularly in dense cultural hub cities: people often seek employment in these cities because they want to live there , not the other way arou…

Ok again, but those people want to be there because they work in the city, if a significant cohort of workers leave the city why they do want to be there? Most would have no job there anymore.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#215

Post by AtlasBarfed »

johnkpaul wrote: post #158
escapedmoose wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I managed to find a suburban area with restaurants, groceries, and shops within walking distance in the US and it is an amazing, life-changing thing. I am never ever ever ever ever leaving. US zoning laws need to change.

Where are you? This sounds like a magical place of unicorns and fairies. :-)

It took some digging, but essentially they work in a university town. University towns are basically the apex example "walkable" with good restaurants, good shopping, good services, etc etc etc.

The happiest existence I had lifestyle wise was living in university. It is the closest socially acceptable communal living experience in modern capitalists.

There were stories of colonists captured in Indian wars by tribes, "freed", and they ran away to go back to the tribal group rather than go back to colonial life. You know, Dances with Wolves but in real life.

There was a slight uptick in communalism in the early internet, but the MBAs have stamped out that out hard.

Honestly, for places like San Francisco where Silicon Valley essentially destroyed the communal aspect of the city, all of those tech bros moving away would be good in the long term. Of course it would also take a massive collapse in property values, and kind of like revolution, that's never a good thing.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#216

Post by watwut »

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…

What does being 3th or more generation immigrant have to do with that? At that point, the ties toward where ancestors came from are purely theoretical. The person have nothing to do with culture or economy of country of origin anymore.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#217

Post by adamjcook »

expdshn wrote: post #157
adamjcook wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Detroit is doing it all over the place. I live in an office building that was first opened in 1914 and was converted into residential units. Another 18-floor office building across my street is being converted as we speak ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Artists_Theatre_Buildin... ). The Park Avenue Building is supposed to be converted in residential units by the end of 2024 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park…

From the posted Wikipedia links, it appears that at least the United Artists building has already begun being demolished.

The theater part was demolished.

The high-rise building part remains and is being converted into residential units right now.

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#219

Post by thegginthesky »

woodruffw wrote: post #183
thegginthesky wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, GP has no idea what they are talking about. I lived with urban planners and architects for 20 years, read books about zoning, about the effects of urbanization on aquifers and rivers, about the differences between cities that grew organically like São Paulo or Mexico City vs cities that were bulldozed to fit a central plan like NYC. Never ONCE in my life I had read contemporary literature or heard a urban plann…

I agree with your comment, but: I don't think NYC was bulldozed to fit a central plan. The city's (really, just Manhattan's) street plan was developed in 1807 and finalized in 1811[1], at a time when most of the island was still wetlands and marsh. (That's not to praise the Commissioners' plan, per se, but only to observe that no dense city was bulldozed to enact it.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioners%…

Sure, they had a central plan in the 1800s but only to fit a part of the population that came to live there in the coming centuries. A lot of NYC expansion to support and grow the city was done through displacement[0] and bulldozing[1] of existing buildings.

Most of it wasnt done maliciously, but a city doesn't create square blocks, nice and uniform, on its own as it grows from a few hundred thousand to a few million inhabitants. If it grows organically, as in without a central plan driving it and pruning uncontrolled growth, you will get a very heterogeneous city layout.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_Hill,_Manhattan [1]The creative destruction of Manhattan, 1900-1940

Re: Remote work’s toll on cities

#220

Post by throwaway0a5e »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #200
rsj_hn wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. I look at these issues as a war between location and transportation. Those who monopolize location are the landlords. Their value comes from location. Transportation and communication makes location less valuable. It allows people to escape from under the thumb of landlords and get their own little plot of land so that they don't need to pay rent to anyone else. Imagine a world in which you can snap your finge…

> Transportation and communication makes location less valuable. It allows people to escape from under the thumb of landlords and get their own little plot of land so that they don't need to pay rent to anyone else. Imagine a world in which you can snap your fingers and instantly be transported anywhere. What would be the value of living close to your job? Or in a specific location? There would be no premium at all.…

It's absolutely mind boggling that this is downvoted? Are pods and bugs really that popular? Do people like slow subways and traffic filled freeways? Unless you benefit from reduced competition high cost of distance is bad for you.
Post reply on HN