Live data from Hacker News

Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

bloomberg.com

251–260 of 264 posts

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

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too bad, really, because as you say Boise is quite beautiful. But yeah, there was no plan for handling population growth. Too many people wanted to leave out by Eagle / Nampa, but work in downtown or at Micron. And of course there is absolutely no way to get anywhere except by car.

It is indeed beautiful, which makes it terribly difficult for me to even consider leaving - especially having a five year old daughter to whom Boise is all she's ever known as home. I wish I could stay, but between the increasing pollution, lack of transit options (I don't drive, so this is huge to me), lack of jobs I'd actually want should I need new employment (ClearWater, HP, T-Sheets, Kount, etc. all suck in some…

I can hardly imagine trying to live in Boise without driving. Not because I love my car (now that I live in Silicon Valley I'm one of the few people who commutes by train), but because Boise is notably unfriendly to non-drivers. I agree that (every says) Portland should be much better for that.

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

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You demonstrate a perfect example of that self-sure self-righteousness. I'd strongly suggest you maybe try to understand the perspective of other people more, instead of trying to paint it into a story that you can oppose.

A whole continent doesn't get it ; oppose this to most europeans, for whom it's very normal. I get the perspective, doesn't mean it's better for mankind/society/the earth. Having one's own, shallow interests (because it's often revolving around sacred concept of space, which mostly exists to stash more of the shit one can buy) to the detriment of global ones is not something to be proud of.

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

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diffe…

Yeah, academia is another whole can of words. Apologies if I didn't make it explicit, but I was talking about SWEs. And anecdotally I added a lot more than $60K to my salary by moving to NYC, so I'd have been fine to cover an increased CoL of up to $34K/year; in actuality, it increased by far less than that, less than $10K/year, thanks in large part to saving $600 per month after selling my car which I don't need here. Also, my current employer provides three meals a day, which saves a surprising amount of money (even if I don't eat dinner at the office everyday). That kind of perk simply wasn't available at most tech companies where I moved from.

Speaking of Stanford, one of my coworkers left to go teach there for a year and then came right back. She was actually losing net worth there because they didn't pay her enough for the area, and she didn't want to cut back on her lifestyle and live frugally like one would have to to make a future on that salary. It's sad, but there you go. Maybe there should be a tuition surcharge on CS majors to allow them to actually pay instructors enough to retain them, vs running right back to industry.

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

#254
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way income/CoL works, though, the majority of SWEs will still do better in a tech hub where the highest salaries can be found, for SWEs of all skill levels. There's plenty of "mediocre" SWEs (I hate writing this, it feels judgmental) still pulling six figures in the Bay Area; in Boise they might only be making half of that. As long as you're good enough to be employed, it makes sense to go to one of the tech hubs…

This is absolutely true. Working in good teams has the great benefit that even a mediocre person's productivity and skills go up if they're curious and open-minded enough to learn. And working in SV means that hopefully you have a better chance of working with high-performance and highly-functional teams. I guess what I wonder is that even after getting all the benefits of working in the bay, whether everyone can rea…

Excellent point, and very true. I wasn't a great SWE when I first graduated. I've always been smart, but I wasn't learning great development practices at my previous companies. None of them even had a great culture of code reviews, testing, or continuous integration. I've become a much stronger developer now that I am at a top tier company working with very smart people who have very high standards; in a way it's allowed me to reach my potential.

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

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indeed beautiful, which makes it terribly difficult for me to even consider leaving - especially having a five year old daughter to whom Boise is all she's ever known as home. I wish I could stay, but between the increasing pollution, lack of transit options (I don't drive, so this is huge to me), lack of jobs I'd actually want should I need new employment (ClearWater, HP, T-Sheets, Kount, etc. all suck in some…

I can hardly imagine trying to live in Boise without driving. Not because I love my car (now that I live in Silicon Valley I'm one of the few people who commutes by train), but because Boise is notably unfriendly to non-drivers. I agree that (every says) Portland should be much better for that.

Thankfully my wife drives, we made it work with bikes after we got married living by Capital High but after we had a child the car was a necessity. It’s hard for me because even if I wanted to drive my lack of peripheral vision on the left makes it unsafe (severe amblyopia as a child, my eye is aligned now but the vision center in my brain didn’t develop properly as a result).

Boise drivers are terrible as of late too, my wife hates getting in the car - just glad she is a stay-at-home mom so she doesn’t need to deal with I84 or the east-west arterials at rush hour :/

VRT is finally looking at expanding their hours and service area but it’s going to take a decade or more to even get to a point where they can invest in a rail line from Caldwell to Boise - I can’t wait that long, traffic is bad enough and the lane increases ACHD has been working on aren’t going to cut it. Pine Ave from Meridian Rd to Locust Grove is going to four lanes and it’s going to get clogged right back up.

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

#256

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…

The high price is because there isn't enough of it now. If you make more of it (or something even sort of close to it), the price will fall.

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

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh sure, there are plenty of objections to the process of change. I'm more interested in why Manhattan is a boogeyman for the end result.

The Financial District of Manhattan (and Midtown) is the only place like that in the U.S., and most people have been to Times Square, so it does a good job conjuring up an emotional reaction in voters.

As a European I was surprised how many buildings in Manhattan are not sky scrapers.

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You demonstrate a perfect example of that self-sure self-righteousness. I'd strongly suggest you maybe try to understand the perspective of other people more, instead of trying to paint it into a story that you can oppose.

A whole continent doesn't get it ; oppose this to most europeans, for whom it's very normal. I get the perspective, doesn't mean it's better for mankind/society/the earth. Having one's own, shallow interests (because it's often revolving around sacred concept of space, which mostly exists to stash more of the shit one can buy) to the detriment of global ones is not something to be proud of.

Oh boy, more self-sure self-righteousness. You obviously don't get the perspective, because you literally aren't telling me their perspective, you are telling me a caricature you've made up about their perspective.

You've combined that with some moralizing about why your personal view is the only possible morally right one, and how it's not just the right personal view, it's the only possible sane and moral view of global interests when it's definitely not. It's a particular perspective, and the sooner you realize there are valid other ones, the better off you'll be[1], because your approach is a sure-fire way to succeed in not convincing people. Or is your plan to just try to force your view on them? Because that's another thing that works great!

[1] It's also one definitely not shared by "The entire continent", because the entire continent's worth of people are not able to be pigeon-holed in their views so easily.

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

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A whole continent doesn't get it ; oppose this to most europeans, for whom it's very normal. I get the perspective, doesn't mean it's better for mankind/society/the earth. Having one's own, shallow interests (because it's often revolving around sacred concept of space, which mostly exists to stash more of the shit one can buy) to the detriment of global ones is not something to be proud of.

Oh boy, more self-sure self-righteousness. You obviously don't get the perspective, because you literally aren't telling me their perspective, you are telling me a caricature you've made up about their perspective. You've combined that with some moralizing about why your personal view is the only possible morally right one, and how it's not just the right personal view, it's the only possible sane and moral view of g…

I'm sorry that this issue leads you to attack me personnally, twice now.

Also nowhere have I said that I wanted to force anything on anyone. I pointed out effects that this choice for sprawled suburbs (so in a city setting, and not rural, which is a different deal) has real consequences. And that maybe it's not frowned upon because those people are seen as NIMBY's or speculators, but simply that those choices are unconsiderate to our future challenges as a species (ie global warming, social fissure, ...).

So maybe if one doesn't care at all about environment and sustainability, and only about his own individual life, sprawled cities and suburbs can seem like a good idea. But roads and infrastructure are polluting, sometimes to the detriment of arable land. Such suburbs exists on dependance of the personal vehicle so far (shared ones will help matters a bit, sure but this still faces the issue) so more GHG pollution and so on.

Ecology is the most worrying aspect of it to me, but sadly socially it's also desastrous. I have read urbanist books that focused more that matter but in my native tongue so probably no point in making references but still : http://www.lechappee.org/collections/pour-en-finir-avec/le-c...

The problen is that if most people own vehicles, there's no need for PT, which consequently does not develop, and so a whole fringe of population that can't afford a car is isolated. Density brings populations together, if you live in a sprawled neighborhood you never meet other people, narrowing your perspective on your society.

Also note that this was not always the case. Cities used to have active centers, people lived around and did most errands by foot, streets were narrower... Now we go to malls, often peripherial, and single, private owned businesses are eaten up.

As for why people are attracted to suburbs (also largely sourced in books interested in the social phenomenon). More living space (so more volume to heat, see ecological concerns), which largely exceeds the actual comfortable need we have for it (and enables the stashing of shit, shit we don't need and that pollutes, consuming as much as one can, see ecological and social concerns). The garden, which is seemingly essential to some idyllistic upbringing of children, but probably nothing more (at least I don't feel people who grew up with gardens are significantly more attracted and careful towards nature but YMMV).

So yeah, sometimes specific hobbies (car collection, woodworking, gardening, whatever) can make sense of such choices. But that doesn't make it's inconvenients less real. And tbqh, most often people don't even think much of them in the first place.

Enough posts in the thread described European cities that I don't need to do so. But there's a need for density in the US, and the suburbian nightmare (which is also prevalent here) has to be taken control of.

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

#260
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...

A homes value is a lot more than the square footage. The house in Boise was modern, had a very large yard, was a private, gated lot etc.

Very different than the house you linked.

Post reply on HN