Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by toomanybeersies » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:28 AM UTC

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…

I think part of the difference is that the USA has a lot more "Tier 1" cities than other countries would have for their size.

Australia really has 2 major cities (Sydney and Melbourne), and two second tier cities (Perth and Brisbane).

I think it's also in part to how separated the federal government is from local governments. In Australia, tax money is collected by the federal government and then disbursed to the states (bit of a simplification). There's less of a clear delineation between "federal money" and "state money".

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

#162

Post by ryanworl » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:33 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #137

ryanworl wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who are worried about turning San Francisco into Manhattan also don't know what Manhattan is even like! The Upper West & Upper East Side as well as Harlem do not look anything like e.g. the Financial District. Even within Manhattan there is a huge variety of building heights. I used to live in Yorkville in a six story building in an area filled with other six story (and smaller) buildings. We had a nice park w…

Out of curiosity, how much is rent per square foot?

I shared a ~650 sq ft 2bd/1br. It was $2650. That was probably below median for the area by a little.

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

#163

Post by projektfu » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:38 AM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #128

closeparen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Is Manhattan considered a mistake It's not so much a 'mistake' as it is an instant feeling of "no living thing could ever afford Manhattan". It's like a physical manifestation of the saying, "no one ever goes there anymore, it's too crowded". > (Manhattan is) 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…

They don't have to be very expensive. High rises that subdivide to 1000-2000 sq. ft. have reasonably priced homes in Atlanta and Chicago, depending on location. 4000 sq. ft. is on the expensive side, but cheaper than a similarly sized townhome.

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

#164

Post by dominotw » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:40 AM UTC

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…

Oh man I live in jeedimetla, Hyderabad,India ( lower) middle class neighborhood. We still have buses from the 90s, no paved roads, pigs, cows, musqitos, constant steet noise, no garbage pickup, twice a week water supply, nasty industrial air. Yeah please look at India from San Francisco.

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

#165

Post by otoburb » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:47 AM UTC

nshelly wrote: post #100

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…

If there were a Paris or Barcelona in the U.S, tons of people would move there. Cost of living in this "Paris" or "Barcelona" would skyrocket and you'd see the transit system hit the max and cost of housing skyrocket. There are just fewer cities in the United States with good transit systems, low-crime, high quality of life and urban amenities. This hypothetical city would go through similar growing pains as NYC and…

>>[...] Paris has 133 miles of rail to support a population of only 2 million.

Just so we're talking about the same scales, the 133 miles of the Paris Métro rapid transit system covers the entire Paris metropolitan area[1], which itself has a population of around 12.4 million residents[2]. NYC's population across the five boroughs covered by the MTA is around 8.5 million residents[3].

The last cost projection for the Paris Métro expansion[4] for 120 extra miles of tracks, stations and lines is roughly $25 billion.

If anything, this clarification only further reinforces your point that, even taking into account a hypothetical 5x cost overrun, Paris would still come out ahead from a $/mile metric.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_metropolitan_area

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City

[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/03/tying-p...

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

#166

Post by mnutt » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:51 AM UTC

niftich wrote: post #111

closeparen wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

there's technically trains but sometimes it's faster to walk;

I like to complain about train delays as much as any New Yorker but this perception is pretty much incorrect; once you're going more than 15 minutes away it'll always be faster to take the subway. Commuting from midtown to where I live takes 25 minutes by train during peak times and up to ~40 minutes late night; walking takes an hour and a half.

I guess I can see how someone who visits NYC and only visits Times Square / Canal Street gets that impression though.

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

#167

Post by blhack » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:52 AM UTC

Just to highlight the cost difference: I was just in a small city (Boise, actually!) for a work event. We rented a very nice house from airbnb for the stay.

It was >4000 square feet. The master bedroom was probably 4-500 square feet itself. It bad high ceilings, a private, gated, massive yard, mature trees etc.

Recently listed for $600k and couldn't find a buyer at that price. Just absolutely insane compared even to Phoenix, where I live, and which was the last "Californians flee hiding prices" city.

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

#168

Post by JPKab » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 2:59 AM UTC

Judgmentality wrote: post #75

lotharbot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

software engineer salary somewhere else is usually more like 20-25% less rather than 50% less -- someone making 140k in SF might make 110k-120k in places like Boise or Denver. They'll pay 5k less in taxes (both due to lower total income and lower state tax rates). So saving 18k in housing costs puts them at least in a comparable disposable-income range. For people in lower-paying careers, the lower housing costs else…

> someone making 140k in SF might make 110k-120k in places like Boise or Denver As someone who moved from Pittsburgh to San Francisco and had my compensation quadruple, I call bullshit.

You are right: your single data point invalidates his theory. /S

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

#169

Post by adventured » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 3:01 AM UTC

lev99 wrote: post #160

nshelly wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> most people have been to Times Square A lot of people have been to Times Square, but I doubt most United States voters have.

50 million Americans visit NYC each year. Times Square is a marquee draw for tourists.

There are ~150 million (134m in the last Presidential election) active American voters. They tilt older and financially better off, which is also the combination that is most likely to have a substantial travel history.

I'd bet on the majority of active US voters - 75m+ - having visited Times Square at least once in their lifetimes.

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

#170

Post by CydeWeys » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 3:05 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #96

CydeWeys wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an example, I moved from the DC metro area (itself already a high CoL area) to NYC to take a job at Google. I'm currently making 'exceeds expectations' L5 money, which is way more than you can make at basically any tech job in the DC area. And yet there are tens of thousands of engineers here in NYC making that much, at Big 4 and fintech companies. Yes, the cost of living went up a bit, but it's utterly dwarfed by…

Genuinely happy to hear that it worked so well for you. I think what you may be overlooking is that the vast majority of SEs don’t have the experience or talent to be at your technical proficiency ( trying not to sound classist here, just stating facts).

The way income/CoL works, though, the majority of SWEs will still do better in a tech hub where the highest salaries can be found, for SWEs of all skill levels. There's plenty of "mediocre" SWEs (I hate writing this, it feels judgmental) still pulling six figures in the Bay Area; in Boise they might only be making half of that.

As long as you're good enough to be employed, it makes sense to go to one of the tech hubs, where the salaries are the highest. I made the mistake of not doing that for the first seven years of my career and definitely regret it.