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

221–230 of 264 posts

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

#221

Post by lotsofpulp »

tptacek wrote: post #123

What I don't get about this is: why Boise? Are people just moving there for the scenery? There are major US metros with affordable housing and much better job markets. There's a sort of implied dichotomy in this article: major metros are too expensive, so people will move into a succession of mid-sized towns. But, no: a couple major metros are too expensive. Others, like Miami, Chicago, Cleveland, Atlanta, DFW, and H…

Weather is a big factor. Personally, if I'm going to live somewhere cold, there better be some nice skiing options, and there are none in the eastern or middle states. Also looking to minimize humidity.

Government finances are also a concern, many of the east and middle cities are also loaded up with tons of debt from years ago.

I also think being outdoors-y is in vogue with tech and other high earners, which is also better on the west coast. It all comes down to quality of life and the type of people you want to be around, which I guess the other cities you mentioned can't compete in.

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

#222

Post by hueving »

nikofeyn wrote: post #97
pm90 wrote: post #67

This article misses an option I've seen used by the city which I live in: Austin, TX. Instead of building a serious mass transit system, the city encouraged the greenfield development of high density urban clusters outside the downtown region. So the companies moving in now have option to be located in the Downtown or the "New Downtown" (called the Domain). I think this has been a very successful strategy. But it dep…

i think you’re being generous calling austin’s city development and urban design even a “strategy”. austin for a long time didn’t want to grow at all, so they did everything to basically discourage it. then growth was forced on the city, and they’ve had to scramble to try, unsuccessfully, to catch up. that’s why there’s a double decker highway that doesn’t really help the traffic, an expensive highway that goes aroun…

Don't forget traffic worse than silicon valley.

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

#223

Post by hueving »

blhack wrote: post #167

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…

>Just absolutely insane compared even to Phoenix, where I live, and which was the last "Californians flee hiding prices" city

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Here is a house for less money in Phoenix at that square footage range: https://www.redfin.com/AZ/Phoenix/1908-E-Vista-Dr-85022/home...

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

#224

Post by humanrebar »

ryanworl wrote: post #162
mcguire wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By more than a little. The Q line helped Yorkville catch up to the rest of the UES, rent-wise.

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

#225

Post by fsloth »

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…

"Sure, absolutely. And Lamborghinis are some of the most desirable cars in the world."

Isn't this a false parable? I thought houses themselves are not expensive, but the land on which they are built, is.

I.e. high rises are expensive in US because they are built in areas with high market demand - not that 'a highrise' would necessarily need to be expensive.

I might be totally wrong here, please educate me.

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

#226

Post by CalRobert »

mayniac wrote: post #213
CalRobert wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem now, is that surburbanites vote. Suburbanites, for reasons I can't fathom, have been getting a free, bonus, car-house that comes with the big suburban house, free of charge! This car-house isn't fancy. It's just a plot of asphalt. But they get one, free of charge, * By their office * In the grocery store * Even right next to the train station in the most baffling example of all (Park and Ride) And because…

>I'm not sure how to fix this. I don't think it's possible. Maybe you can build more amenities close to where people live, and stop people using cars as much as they do. Maybe you can build public transport services more in low income areas where car ownership is lower, and people will have some way of moving around. But having lived and travelled in Europe my entire life and visiting America for the first time last…

I hope otherwise, but I don't think it is either. It's why I moved to Europe (among other reasons).

What's crazy to me is that it can be plainly obvious people WANT this from the fact that the few neighborhoods that exist where you can walk are fabulously expensive. A 2 bed craftsman bungalow in South Park, a walkable area of generally walking-hostile San Diego, can sell for $900 grand. So why aren't we building more of those? Do developers hate money?

Answer - because it's illegal to build them. Because of the aforementioned suburbanites voting that way. Because they should get free (or dirt cheap) sleeping places for their car even if someone comes along and wants to pay half a million bucks for the very same land to build a place to sleep for their family. It's lunacy.

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

#227

Post by humanrebar »

leetcrew wrote: post #155
Spooky23 wrote: post #35

Why is this a bad thing? I live in a midsize city. High quality housing is $110/sqft. I can walk to my kids school, shopping, library and dining. My kid can take a bus to malls and parks, and my commute is approximately 7-10m, and few commutes around here would exceed 20-30. I can be in NYC or Boston in Why would you want to move from such a place to NYC or SFO?

mid-size coastal cities are severely underrated imo. sure you miss out on some of the glamour, but you can get a pretty nice urban lifestyle and your tech salary goes way further. personally, i love being able to drive anywhere within the city limits in under 30 mins and being able to find parking when i get there.

> ...your tech salary goes way further...

Does it? When you are a saver, not a spender, you're better off with a higher gross salary and higher disposable income, since you're saving it anyway. It's a faster way to a nest egg, a down payment, or financial independence.

Lifestyle-wise, I'd be happier in a smaller city, but so far the tech salaries aren't even in the same league.

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

#230

Post by francisofascii »

mcguire wrote: post #139
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…

Yes and no. I can recognize the advantages of such a neighborhood, but about 25 years ago, I decided I can't handle listening to my neighbor's stereo at 2:30 in the morning.

It is a very valid gripe but a solvable one: soundproofing, noise ordinance enforcement, white noise machines :)
Post reply on HN