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

Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 264 posts

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#111

Post by niftich »

closeparen wrote: post #107
nshelly wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just that many of the stakeholders in these areas such as long-time property owners in the westside of San Francisco and residents with rent control fearing gentrification would not benefit directly from new development. Their incentives simply aren't aligned with younger generations who want to live and raise families in a city with reasonable housing costs. To break this quandary we simply to need intervention…

Oh sure, there are plenty of objections to the process of change. I'm more interested in why Manhattan is a boogeyman for the end result.

Manhattan is a byword for the unhappy worst-of-both-worlds situation where you have premium luxury housing no one can afford or run-down walk-ups where you're paying thousands a month for a hole-in-the-wall; pedestrians overrun the sidewalks and gridlock continues late into the night; there's technically trains but sometimes it's faster to walk; people are on top of each other and you can't find anywhere quiet.

Parts of Manhattan aren't like that, but that's not the image people have in their minds.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#112

Post by [deleted] »

CydeWeys wrote: post #70
StudentStuff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? A plumber or electrician can earn more than that even in rural areas, I wouldn't consider $60k to be upper middle class.

Huh? Why do you define upper middle class so as to exclude the trades? Trades are frequently lucrative enough to place tradespeople in the income percentile required to reach upper middle class, especially if you own your own business, as many tradespeople do.

[deleted]

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#113

Post by jcranmer »

cko wrote: post #57
akhilcacharya wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NJ?

Can’t be NJ, it’s 1 hr from NY and 6 hours from Boston. Maybe near Hartford?

Hartford can have some bad traffic, so few commutes being over 30min seems unlikely.

New London is another possibility--it's the largest city on the Amtrak line between Providence and New Haven.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#114

Post by twblalock »

closeparen wrote: post #89
aclimatt wrote: post #32

Not the crux of the article, but: > This doesn't mean that they, or the even higher-cost, more congested coastal metros, will adopt Manhattan or Tokyo-style density and transit patterns. Instead, Austin and San Antonio might be the new Houston and Dallas. My goodness, can we /please/ stop this false dichotomy that a city either has to be a Tokyo megalopolis or a suburban sprawlfest? I don't think any reasonable perso…

Is Manhattan considered a mistake? I ask because, despite being one of the most desirable residences and tourist destinations in the world, everyone is deathly allergic to even the slightest hint that someone might want to replicate it elsewhere. Am I missing an unspoken “never again” moment? Is everyone who travels to New York doing it to revel in their hatred of the place? There’s not nearly enough Manhattan to mee…

A lot of Americans are old enough to remember the significant rise in urban crime rates from the 60s to the 90s. Manhattan was a poster child for crime, drug abuse, urban decay, and corrupt government/police.

Obviously it's much better today, but the image has stuck. And to be fair, the image was mostly accurate at the time. Liberals were so fed up with it they were actually willing to vote for Rudy Giuliani.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#115

Post by s73v3r_ »

taurath wrote: post #3
metei wrote: post #2

If Boise is happy to deal with an influx of Californians, they can have at it. I'd rather they go there than migrate up the West Coast, bringing their far right politics with them. A year or so ago I was near San Diego, and turning on the radio I got an earful about how finding a new strongman to head the police department was the #1 duty of the city. Seemed absolutely ridiculous to me, but the culture down in Cali i…

I’ve heard a lot of things about California transplants (being one myself), but being far right is one I haven’t yet heard.

I have. One contingency of those leaving are those upset at the liberal politics of the state. So they head elsewhere, and influence local politics in a conservative manner. I remember reading about another town in Idaho where that was happening (a lakeside town?)

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#116

Post by nshelly »

closeparen wrote: post #107
nshelly wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just that many of the stakeholders in these areas such as long-time property owners in the westside of San Francisco and residents with rent control fearing gentrification would not benefit directly from new development. Their incentives simply aren't aligned with younger generations who want to live and raise families in a city with reasonable housing costs. To break this quandary we simply to need intervention…

Oh sure, there are plenty of objections to the process of change. I'm more interested in why Manhattan is a boogeyman for the end result.

The Financial District of Manhattan (and Midtown) is the only place like that in the U.S., and most people have been to Times Square, so it does a good job conjuring up an emotional reaction in voters.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#117

Post by amyjess »

baron816 wrote: post #84

The sad thing is that trying to increase density in places like SV isn’t just about taming housing inflation, denser places are also better places to live. I think there are lot of people out there who would like living in a place like Brooklyn Heights, where you have 3-5 story row houses (small enough for a single family) that are connected together along a tree lined block, with shops, restaurants, and bars within…

> denser places are also better places to live

For you, maybe. But not for me or for everyone. I like my low-density suburban sprawl, and I intend to continue voting to keep my city [0] the way it is.

[0] Not SV, but in Texas.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#118

Post by [deleted] »

CydeWeys wrote: post #70
StudentStuff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? A plumber or electrician can earn more than that even in rural areas, I wouldn't consider $60k to be upper middle class.

Huh? Why do you define upper middle class so as to exclude the trades? Trades are frequently lucrative enough to place tradespeople in the income percentile required to reach upper middle class, especially if you own your own business, as many tradespeople do.

[deleted]

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#119

Post by 0x4f3759df »

dmode wrote: post #105

The fundamental problem with American cities is that Americans failed to recognize them the core engine of growth and prosperity as they are. Instead cities are viewed through a political lens. This NYC's problems are to be solved by the city/county and San Francisco's are to be solved by their local city/county politicians. The Federal government, which takes in 30% of income, chips in a very limited manner. Investi…

The suburbanization (or decentralization) was promoted by the Federal Government as a deterrent against nuclear strikes

https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjuly10/suburbs-defense-07-10....

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#120

Post by elefanten »

anabis wrote: post #104
rayiner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tokyo is also not particularly congested.

Most people commute by train. We are improving, but the morning commute is something foreigners consider particularly wacky, and not something that they want to repeat everyday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7kor5nHtZQ

I've seen these clips before and always wonder where these examples are on the scale of "average experience".

Is this the worst of the worst? ie- only the few most congested stations experience this during peak hours on a particularly bad day?

Or is it relatively expected? ie- most major stations will experience this during peak hours on an average day?

Post reply on HN