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

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

#181

Post by abalashov » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 5:21 AM UTC

troupe wrote: post #173

niftich wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Having extensively used the public transportation system in a number of US cities, NYC has been by far the best place to try to get around by subway. Is there another US city where you think the subway works much better?

Chicago's threatens to be borderline usable, but unfortunately as you tend away from the Loop to the vast expanses of suburbia, its utility diminishes exponentially. Still, by comparison to 95% of Middle America, Chicago definitely deserves a top spot.

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

#182

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 5:22 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #135

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…

Pardon me for appearing to be the spokes-person for market economics, but if "congestion, long commutes and sprawl is hurting the U.S. (and Californian) economy", wouldn't they be self-healing problems? Do "younger generations ... want to live and raise families in a city with reasonable housing costs" or do they want to accumulate as much of the easily-available money there a fast as possible? (The former is availab…

[deleted]

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

#183

Post by zby » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 5:36 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #174

toomanybeersies wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sta…

It is slightly unusual. Germany is somewhat similar, as is China (scaled to their population). The Tokyo metro is famously 30% of the population of Japan. It'd be like LA having nearly 100 million people. The Moscow metro is 11% of Russia. The NYC metro is 6% of the US by comparison. Germany's two largest metro areas - Berlin and Ruhrgebiet - have a comparable share of its population to NYC at around 6%-7%. Stockholm…

And Athens is about 35% of Greece :)

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

#184

Post by nshelly » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 5:36 AM UTC

otoburb wrote: post #165

nshelly wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Thanks for clarifying! That’s a lot of new track for one metro area. “Buying in bulk” seems to ring true with many of these expansions.

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

#185

Post by inferiorhuman » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 5:45 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…

> no living thing could ever afford Manhattan

I stayed for a week at a hotel in Midtown, in February for about $80/night. Not a great hotel, but there were no bed bugs, rodents, or roaches. That's well below what most folks consider the median rent to be in San Francisco. Plus someone cleaned the place every day.

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

#186

Post by amorphid » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 5:47 AM UTC

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?

I'm guessing Springfield, Massachusetts.

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

#187

Post by elvinyung » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 5:58 AM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #129

niftich wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 As opposed to SF? At least in the NYC area you have the option of cheaper housing in Queens or New Jersey and a not-too-horrible commute.

What about east bay?

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

#188

Post by subway » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:07 AM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #185

maxsilver wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> no living thing could ever afford Manhattan I stayed for a week at a hotel in Midtown, in February for about $80/night. Not a great hotel, but there were no bed bugs, rodents, or roaches. That's well below what most folks consider the median rent to be in San Francisco. Plus someone cleaned the place every day.

Hotel Penn is damn near the only place you'll find a rate like that, and if that's where you stayed, it sounds like you got one of the nicer rooms.

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

#189

Post by cbhl » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:22 AM UTC

elvinyung wrote: post #187

orangecat wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 As opposed to SF? At least in the NYC area you have the option of cheaper housing in Queens or New Jersey and a not-too-horrible commute.

What about east bay?

The bay bridge and transbay tube are pretty much at capacity at rush hour (8-10a, 3-7p).

You can drive over the Bay Bridge in 15-20 minutes if there's no traffic. If there's an accident and a ball game and rush hour, you could easily be stuck on it for 90-120.

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

#190

Post by inferiorhuman » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:23 AM UTC

subway wrote: post #188

inferiorhuman wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no living thing could ever afford Manhattan I stayed for a week at a hotel in Midtown, in February for about $80/night. Not a great hotel, but there were no bed bugs, rodents, or roaches. That's well below what most folks consider the median rent to be in San Francisco. Plus someone cleaned the place every day.

Hotel Penn is damn near the only place you'll find a rate like that, and if that's where you stayed, it sounds like you got one of the nicer rooms.

It was the Watson near Columbus Circle. The room probably hadn't been redecorated in the better part of thirty years, but I'd happily stay there again.