The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#191

Post by harmmonica » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:32 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #125

Gargoyle wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LA is a MUCH bigger city than San Francisco, especially in terms of geography. I'm not sure an meaningful comparison can be made as a result. There are certainly areas of LA at least as big as the total area of SF where middle class families can not afford to live. There are also areas at least as big as the total area of SF where lower-middle class families are the vast majority of residents. The cities are just too…

Right, I get that too. But then: is the article correct? Are middle class families being priced out of LA?

I think the answer is yes, but depends on your definition of affordability.

Median household income for city of LA is ~$60k. Without detailing the numbers, maybe if you're really liberal with mortgage qualification you get a $450k home at that income (house or condo). In a broad Redfin search of the Valley/LA Basin and a bit beyond to the east/south (this includes many cities outside of LA), you have:

Total homes for sale: 4,720 Btw, and this is where people say you're not entitled to something, but if you are just talking about single family homes (LA is very single family home-focused) in a safe hood for Lots of other nuances here, but just a broad brushstroke look at the market.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#192

Post by closeparen » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:32 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #184

closeparen wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We've grown accustomed to overporting our post-war suburban archetype of what a "middle class" family "deserves," i.e. lots of bedrooms, garages and lawn space, while diminishing previously (and still!) common practices like having roommates when young, not owning a car, et cetera. "People's lives are too good, we need to make them worse." What's your angle? What do you gain from advocating against mobility and pers…

> What do you gain from advocating against mobility and personal space? What works in the suburbs isn't sustainable in cities. Suburbia is built for personal spaces. It's terrible, however, at supporting the rich social fabrics densely-packed humans spontaneously weave. (There's also the problems of commute and it's environmental impact.) City-centre richness is a direct product of density. If everyone gets large, pe…

>If everyone gets large, personal spaces you're back to suburbia and all it's disadvantages.

This is true on the x-y plane but not the z-axis. We can have substantially more sqft available per sqft desired in the same land footprint by building up, which is currently heavily regulated or outright illegal.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#193

Post by analog31 » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #23

legodt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a lot of those professions can't afford rent inside the city and are forced into unwieldly commutes and lose out on the benefits of being in a city

The whole point of smaller cities is, they are more affordable. Those professions will have a better time of it than in a larger city.

I think there's a tradeoff. Smaller cities should be more affordable, but there is less labor mobility, leading to higher economic risk. If a person finds themselves in even a moderately specialized occupation, and loses their job, there might not be another job for them unless they move to another city.

Thus they either have to deal with periodic un- or under-employment, or manage the risk by building a cash cushion, either of which means a less affluent lifestyle.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#194

Post by jorblumesea » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

I really think a big part of this is the QE/low interest rates the Fed used to dig us out of the hole. Everything seems inflated, from stocks to housing prices, because borrowing is so cheap and you can over-leverage yourself quite easily.

Anecdotal story: I live in a decent but not super nice part of Seattle and we had a house a few blocks away sell for 750k, which seems insane as everything else in the area goes for 400-500k and historically has basically been the ghetto. I could not imagine trying to get into this market, I would be living 6 miles down the road.

Will be interesting to see how prices are impacted once the fed raises rates. Borrowing will be more expensive and should have a depressing effect on home prices.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#195

Post by maratd » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:40 PM UTC

muninn_ wrote: post #147

jamespitts wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that people can squeeze by in a place like NYC with the right moves (as you have), but a configuration like this one may not be sustainable for those who want to raise a family.

New York City is not a place to raise a family. Move somewhere else. Period. You can raise a family and go to some of the best schools in the country in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, etc....

This isn't remotely true. The NYC metro area is massive, with plenty of family friendly neighborhoods with good commute times to midtown. Plenty of places in northern NJ and elsewhere with good schools.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#196

Post by muninn_ » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:41 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #195

muninn_ wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New York City is not a place to raise a family. Move somewhere else. Period. You can raise a family and go to some of the best schools in the country in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, etc....

This isn't remotely true. The NYC metro area is massive, with plenty of family friendly neighborhoods with good commute times to midtown. Plenty of places in northern NJ and elsewhere with good schools.

There you go then. You can raise a family in NYC.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#197

Post by Svenskunganka » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:45 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #157

mhneu wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just housing policy that's gone wrong, it's transit policy. We haven't built good public transit in our cities, and now that cars are filling all available roads, even houses far away from cities are too expensive for how long commutes are. We wish we had a train system in many cities that allowed the middle class to live 40-60 minutes away from their jobs. Ultimately however the main problem is wealth inequ…

Inequality is not the problem. The problem is there are more people who want to live somewhere than there are houses. With perfect equality there would still be more people than houses. The one and only fix is more houses. That's it. Any other solution is just picking winners and losers different ways. But no matter which way you pick the same number of people win and the same number lose.

I believe there's another option; make the cities more attractive (and affordable) to live in for the middle class. You can see this across European cities, which is explained really well in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQSxPzafO_k

It's easy to say and hard to do, but concerns like a good neighborhood or decent commute when looking for living arrangements in the cities is definitely not as common in Europe as it is in the US.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#198

Post by alistairSH » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:47 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #91

wavefunction wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 'entry-level' houses are being bought up by idle capital and rented on AirBnB.

The entry level houses aren't even being built in the first place.

That's true in my area. While there is plenty of construction, the land is too valuable for entry-level homes. If it's zoned for SFHs, the market will tolerate a 3000sqft+ mini-mansion with a high level of finish. If it's zoned for THs, they'll be 4 stories with an elevator. Condo development caters more to rich retirees than young professionals. The underground parking at the nearest high-rise is full of $100 cars.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#199

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:49 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #192

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you gain from advocating against mobility and personal space? What works in the suburbs isn't sustainable in cities. Suburbia is built for personal spaces. It's terrible, however, at supporting the rich social fabrics densely-packed humans spontaneously weave. (There's also the problems of commute and it's environmental impact.) City-centre richness is a direct product of density. If everyone gets large, pe…

>If everyone gets large, personal spaces you're back to suburbia and all it's disadvantages. This is true on the x-y plane but not the z-axis. We can have substantially more sqft available per sqft desired in the same land footprint by building up, which is currently heavily regulated or outright illegal.

I support more density, but the relationship between density and personal space isn't side-stepped by building up. You're just adding a vertical commute component.

It's better than yards and boulevards, but a building of three-bedroom apartments to the edge of space will have a different human dynamic from one with mostly one-bedrooms.

Re: The Middle Class Can't Afford to Live in Cities Anymore

#200

Post by alistairSH » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #177

alistairSH wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a lot more space in the US. A typical 4-bedroom suburban home is somewhere around 1800sq/ft and, anecdotally, that number has been creeping up. Of course, all the space also has massive drawbacks... car-centric culture, sprawl, long commutes, harder to implement public transit, etc.

Other drawbacks to house size inflation: more space that needs cleaning/maintaining/heating/cooling, higher costs for buyers who want to own a house in a neighborhood but don't need or want to pay for extra space. In the area I live in -- not even a big city -- you're basically forced to choose house size and house age at the same time. If you want only 1400 SF you're buying an old house with old quirks (asbestos, a…

The size vs age problem exists in DC as well. And it's exacerbated by the land value - many of the older, smaller homes are torn down to build mansions, even if the original house is perfectly livable. And it's even worse because the older house frequently has "better bones".