251–260 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, I get that too. But then: is the article correct? Are middle class families being priced out of LA?
I live in L.A. and as far as I'm concerned, yes they (we) are being priced out. You can live an hour away from your job or in a dangerous neighborhood, but that doesn't really mean the city is affordable.
The problem could be lessened if NIMBY's would stop trying to dictate how property they don't own should be used (that is, we allow construction) and if we'd stop subsidizing people who can't even marginally afford to live there. I figure if we'd eliminate the latter, we'd take care of a lot of the former. In NYC, we have recently seen rents reduce due to new housing supply coming on the market.
"Howdy, neighbor! I'm gonna build 70'-high sludge containment tower on these vacant lots I just bought next to your property. Got a problem with that?"
Of course you would. Everyone is a NIMBYist, to dome degree or another. It's just a question of degree.
This article mentions "hot cities" including Austin, which not too long ago was just another small eclectic city with steady growth. Once it grew large enough and provided the ingredients to hold it's own, industry wise, against other "hot cities" it became what it is today. Austin was just a little weird city in Texas when I grew up in Dallas, but now it's up there with the big boys. What this tells me is there are…
Until those cities inevitably become too expensive, too, just like Austin did. (I desperately hope I'm eventually proved wrong) "I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked like mice, and said, 'I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre.' Like a f…
This article fails to mention that the middle class can't afford to live in the "nicest parts" of cities, but many cities have other areas as well. Take NYC for example. Sure, if you want to live in the Chelsea or West Village neighborhoods in Manhattan, it's going to cost you. But there are tons of available houses in Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx that are plenty affordable. The other day I saw a house for sale in…
> But there are tons of available houses in Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx that are plenty affordable. The other day I saw a house for sale in a decent part of Queens for $240k - definitely affordable for middle class. Do you have kids? Because this glib reaction signals that you don't, or you'd be aware that the areas you are touting as affordable have terrible public schools. That's why they're relatively cheap. T…
Sooner or later, society will have to realize that white/middle class flight is a direct cause of terrible public schools; and that by reversing the trend these schools will become less terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Some people don't want that--they want the restaurants and nightclubs and parks with rotating art installations that only emerge and make sense when you pack people together. You really think a neighborhood of 70-story buildings can sustain these things as long as people share bedrooms, but can't the instant that children and young adults have their own doors to close? >More density means fewer people within walking…
Manhattan contained 854,000 housing units in 2014 [1] and 1.6 million residents between 2010 [2] and 2013 [3]. The average Manhattan unit has 1.2 to 1.3 bedrooms [4]. (For Core Manhattan, that average falls to 1.0 to 1.2.) So 1 to 1.1 million bedrooms. If you mandated one bedroom per person you'd have to expel 31 to 38% of the population or increase the number of bedrooms by 45 to 60%. Manhattan's 33.6 square miles […
Of course, the proportion of married couples could be much lower in Manhattan, and it's not necessarily the same 43%, but you get the idea.
More to the point I'm very interested what tradeoffs you think are worth literally never having the chance to be alone in a room. Without a shadow of a doubt I'd kill myself, and I'd never dream of brining a child into that miserable existence.
[0] https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US3651000-new-york-...
Huge cities...good riddance. I live nearish to Salt Lake City (whose metro pop. is less than a quarter of Boston's), have tons of software job opportunities, have a 17-20 min commute, and bought a 2k sqft house on 0.19 acres for less than 200k. Big cities are crowded. They have their advantages, but even if they weren't overpriced, I'd probably still prefer my elbow room.
Do you mind sharing what area you live in specifically? I've been seeing a lot of software jobs in SLC and I'm curious.
Utah's always had a strong software industry, dating back to WordPerfect and Novell. Lots of jobs are in SLC of course, but the rest of Utah Valley has even more, e.g. Lehi and Thanksgiving Point. Known as "Silicon Slopes" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Slopes)
Great place for families or outdoorsy people.
I live in SF, and am flabbergasted at the number of 1- or 2- floor single-family homes. A city the size of SF (46 sq mi) and population (850K+ and growing) simply can't afford so many SFHs. I was in Barcelona recently (yay NIPS!) and Barcelona is smaller than SF (36 sq mi) and has nearly twice the population! Everywhere you see are 6-floor buildings, with the bottom reserved for shops and people living above them. It…
I have too many hobbies that take space to live in a place like Barcelona. Where do people work on their hobby car or motorcycle? Where do you do woodworking? Where do you keep your boat or paddle board? Do they have gardens? What about an outdoor kitchen for grilling and smoking? Do their kids have bicycles and scooters and skateboards and baseball gear?
Upper middle class == ~ 170k a year. Welcome to northern virginia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> The one and only fix is more houses Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The heart of the problem in many parts of the country is that we fund our schools with property taxes. Hence, a cycle of better schools and increased demand in concentrated areas, which causes the supply-demand imbalance and price increases. Compounding this is the fact that people in such areas actively block "higher density" housing, which n…
[0] http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-retirement-wave-changing-sydne...