Live data from Hacker News

Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

bloomberg.com

201–210 of 264 posts

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

#201
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

50m visitors != 50m uniques.

There are people who never leave their home state, occasionally city/metro are, though I'm not finding a good source on that.

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

#202

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…

Even in Tokyo, much of the place is single family homes or mid rise apartment and condo complexes. There are a number of huge skyscrapers here and there, but they are not as densely packed as manhattans.

Even Manhattan is not mostly skyscrapers. Anyone can open up Google Maps' satellite 3d view and see this.

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

#203

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.

Yeah, part of the underlying problem here is a strong view that anyone who likes low-density must be NIMBY or just trying to protect their property value. It's the typical "no one who knows what i know could possibly have a different perspective and value system than me" attitude.

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

#204

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.

The distinction can be traced to that between the liberal and mechanical arts.

Latter also goes by servile and vulgar:

Artes Mechanicae or mechanical arts, are a medieval concept of ordered practices or skills, often juxtaposed to the traditional seven liberal arts Artes liberales. Also called "servile" and "vulgar",[1] from antiquity they had been deemed unbecoming for a free man, as ministering to baser needs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artes_Mechanicae

https://quidditycirce.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/liberal-arts-...

Closely related is C.P. Snow's ""Two Cultures":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

This is reflected in educational systems, with a rough hierarchy from premier liberal arts colleges (Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Palermo, Stanford, ...), major research schools (MIT, CalTech, UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, ...), various technical schools (San Jose State, Michigan State), polytechnics and ag schools, secondary tech schools (often formerly "teachers colleges" or "normal schools") in the U.S., say, Midwest State in Wichita Falls, TX. Then two-year and strictly vocational schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_school

Interestingly, liberal arts universities are some of the oldest extand institutions, with exceptionally durable prestige: Bologna, Oxford, Salamanca, Cambridge, Padua, and Naples, dating from 1088 - 1224. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in...

The emphasis on basic skills and literacy is part of this. STEM (or STEAM) is the new "Three Rs", as is the focus on rote-work and standardised skills testing at primary and secondary levels in the U.S. and elsewhere.

J.S. Mill commented on this in the 1860s in the UK, via the late Hans Jensen:

First, the universities were given the task of providing an unceasing supply of ideologically correct candidates for vital positions in government, church, and business. The state was able to make the faculties of the "venerable institutions" of higher education, or rather indoctrination, assume this duty because it controlled appointments and held the purse from which "emoluments" flowed into the coffers of academics. Hence the members of the unversity "hierarchy" made it their "business, the business for which they ... [were] paid," to "uphold certain political as well as religious opionions," namely those of the "ruling powers of the state" (J.S. Mill, Autobiography and Literary Essays, p. 429 (1981), J.S. Mill, Journals and Debating Speaches, p. 350. (1988) ). Thus the universities pursued with vigor their assignment to inculcate in their students those political and ideological views that were cherished by the power elite. The graduates of the ancient universities were, therefore, well prepared for employment in, and by, those institutions that were instrumental inperpetuating the existing maldistribution of income. All of this might come to naught, however, if the masses of the underclass should achieve anything approaching success in ptoential attemtps at throwing off their fetters.

See: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6x7u6a/on_the_...

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

#205
post #9

As someone who's currently looking to purchase a first home in Boise after living here for the last 9 years, all I can say is "meep". There's nothing like the crazy stupid money that Californians are brining in to the housing market to make we wish articles like this would stop shining the spotlight on Boise. The housing market has been nuts this season and I can't help but think that it's all the Californians coming…

> There's nothing like the crazy stupid money that Californians are brining in to the housing market

Hi, welcome to the Our House Prices (And Other Things) Got Jacked Up By Californians club!

Sincerely, Washington, Oregon, Texas, ...

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

#206

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…

Without adjusting this for population I don't know what it really tells us. Yes, Australia with a population of 24 million has fewer "Tier 1" population centers than a country with 325 million. Just going by ratios I would expect the US to have 26 Tier 1 cities. I would also expect the US and Europe to have roughly the same number of Tier 1 cities, since they have roughly the same population. I agree that the federal…

> I would also expect the US and Europe to have roughly the same number of Tier 1 cities, since they have roughly the same population.

Europe's population is around twice that of the US and the EU itself has around 50% more people than the US, so that is not an entirely accurate statement.

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

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like around 3-4x. RentCafe gives average SF prices of: studio $2.5k, 1bd $3.2k, 2bd $4.3k. Versus Boise: studio $0.7k, 1bd $0.9k, 2bd $1k. https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/sa... https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/id/ad...

So you need to clear roughly $40K more in pre-tax salary to make up the difference between SF and Boise (accounting for both tax and rent on a studio). That seems doable. Note that the difference is less if you didn't have a car in SF (or NYC) but need one in Boise.

It does sound doable. I'd probably put the breakeven at closer to $60k pretax for me personally, since I live in a 2bd and don't really want to downsize to a studio, though I realize some people are fine living in studio apts. Depends a lot on the job though. In my line of work (academia), I don't think you could easily get $60k more by moving from a low-CoL to a high-CoL city. From offers I know of, the salary difference is closer to $20k. Even Stanford (which isn't exactly easy to get a job at in the first place) pays only marginally more than comparable universities in low-CoL areas like Georgia Tech, CMU, or UIUC. But I'm sure you could swing a $60k+ raise in some other lines of work.

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

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah, part of the underlying problem here is a strong view that anyone who likes low-density must be NIMBY or just trying to protect their property value. It's the typical "no one who knows what i know could possibly have a different perspective and value system than me" attitude.

Or just doesn't care about the wellbeing of the majority and prefers pollution with cars, sprawled cities, pushing people with low incomes always further from the center (where they might still work), yada yada. It's a terrible stance for both ecological and social matters.

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

#209

I wonder if this trend will result in further stratification of American society. I mean, we've always had enclaves where rich people lived and poorer people lived, but they generally used to be at least nearby each other in large metros. Now, though, this city stratification feels like a multi-layer sieve. E.g. San Francisco is still a super-desirable city to live, if you can afford it, so the people who can't get p…

You have to keep in mind that this economic migration to and from cities is something that's been happening for centuries and likely since the beginning of human civilization. The US is a particularly great illustration of this since it's such a new nation. Every single city in the US was a remote backwoods not all that long ago. And then the same process happens over and over. Some city begins to attract more and more people. This results in development and growth. Those that succeed during this period rise to the top and thrive. Some of those that do not move on and try to take part in what becomes the next great opportunity.

Take San Francisco for instance. The thing that brought it from being a backwoods to a major city was the gold rush of 1849, which is also where the name of the football team 'The San Francisco 49ers' comes from). You get a huge influx of people, lots of money and resources flowing, and the next thing you know it's one its way to becoming one of the largest cities in the US with massive growth.

However, the opposite can also happen. For instance Detroit used to be one of the most desirable cities in the US. It was the 4th largest city in the nation with a surplus of great high paying jobs. This wealth and opportunity ended up attracting vast numbers of people - more than there was opportunity for. And then on top of that what jobs and opportunities there began declining. And next thing you know people are leaving the cities and droves and today it's home to countless empty buildings, the second highest crime rate, and one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

In the end the point is that cities, and the demographics within them, are in constant shift. Thing's change over time and it's always up the individual to find where the greatest 'value' is, with the meaning of 'value' certainly varying quite heavily from person to person.

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

#210

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…

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN