Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

cityobservatory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#31

Post by rayiner »

djrogers wrote: post #12

Yet another article claiming that I, every member of my family, and all of my friends don’t actually want to live in our horrible susburbs. It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo. Nope, we’re all just lying to ourselves and really want to love in a cramped arcology.

What the article shows is that lots of people who say they want to live in an urban area are forced to live in the suburbs. This has nothing to do with people who want to live in low-density suburbs, except to the extent that those people voted to make it illegal to build anything other than low-density suburbs.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#32

Post by srbloom »

djrogers wrote: post #12

Yet another article claiming that I, every member of my family, and all of my friends don’t actually want to live in our horrible susburbs. It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo. Nope, we’re all just lying to ourselves and really want to love in a cramped arcology.

With such a thin skin I think you have found a good fit for yourself in the suburbs.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#33

Post by ebikelaw »

twblalock wrote: post #18
Steltek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Boston, everything is expensive so only the rich can afford them. Boston resident preferences might be explained by culture more than looking up through the glass ceiling of home prices. I think we might also be reaching a tipping point where school districts may not even hold people back. If you can afford a house anywhere, you probably also can afford to send your kids to private school.

You would expect that to be the case in the Bay Area, but even now people will spend several hundred thousand dollars more for a home in a good school district, even though that money could have been used to pay for private school.

My kids’ private school bills are about triple my mortgage so I think you’d better check your math.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#34

Post by rayiner »

jonathlee wrote: post #28
dreish wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's decidedly not what the article claims. It claims that there are people who live in the suburbs but would prefer not to, and provides evidence to support that claim. The same evidence acknowledges the existence of people who are happy living in suburbs.

I believe the article has failed to realize that "self-reporting" evidence is weaker than actions, not stronger. If you listen to the Freakonomics podcast for any length of time, you would realize that the weakest, most likely to not really be true, form of evidence is self-reporting. When self-reporting/answering surveys, people commonly give the answer they are "expected" to give. The actions then reveal their real…

Given that we've made it illegal to build anything other than low-density suburbs in most places, actions aren't good evidence.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#35

Post by dreish »

jonathlee wrote: post #28
dreish wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's decidedly not what the article claims. It claims that there are people who live in the suburbs but would prefer not to, and provides evidence to support that claim. The same evidence acknowledges the existence of people who are happy living in suburbs.

I believe the article has failed to realize that "self-reporting" evidence is weaker than actions, not stronger. If you listen to the Freakonomics podcast for any length of time, you would realize that the weakest, most likely to not really be true, form of evidence is self-reporting. When self-reporting/answering surveys, people commonly give the answer they are "expected" to give. The actions then reveal their real…

That's an interesting point. I would point out another problem with this article based on my own experience living in metro Atlanta since 2001: many people, especially those moving to Atlanta from the Northeast, would likely have said that there was no good urban neighborhood in which to live in Atlanta in 2005. I think that was more of a chicken-and-egg problem than a zoning one. Midtown Atlanta had the right zoning and had neighborhood civic associations that were working toward urbanizing the neighborhood, but it wasn't until several years later that significant amounts of neighborhood-serving businesses started to move in.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#36

Post by galago »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #6

In the Boston area the less dense neighborhoods are scarce so only the rich can afford them. In Atlanta the denser neighborhoods are scarce so they cost more so the rich go there. Of course if you ask people what their preference is a huge chunk of them will describe the features of whatever more upscale place that the place they currently live is compared to.

In the Boston area the less dense neighborhoods are scarce so only the rich can afford them.

I live in the Boston area and that doesn't sound right. I guess you could say Brookline is low density and rich. But you have to consider the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End (north of Mass. Ave)--really the densest areas are the most expensive. Places like Chelsea, Roxbury, are cheaper and lower in density. Proximity to jobs, transit, and amenities is the driver of cost, and density goes with it.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#37

Post by graeme »

ars wrote: post #26
exelius wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hold up Houston as the counterexample. It has zero zoning policies whatsoever and is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and everyone lives in low-density single family ranch homes with huge floor plans and drives an hour to work each way. Developers still basically just plop large single-family residential developments on random plots of land with few ways to stop them. In the absence of zoning,…

That's a counterexample to the article, not the person you are replying to, right? In fact that's such a strong counterexample to the article you can basically discount it entirely. > will not build denser properties because they’re riskier. Or because people don't want them. What's riskier about them?

I commented just before you, so you probably didn't see it. But Houston mandates parking minumum, setbacks of houses, very wide roads, and long blocks.

Those are all pro-sprawl. My dense, walkable neighbourhood in Montreal would be illegal in Houston.

https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#38

Post by [deleted] »

ars wrote: post #26
exelius wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hold up Houston as the counterexample. It has zero zoning policies whatsoever and is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and everyone lives in low-density single family ranch homes with huge floor plans and drives an hour to work each way. Developers still basically just plop large single-family residential developments on random plots of land with few ways to stop them. In the absence of zoning,…

That's a counterexample to the article, not the person you are replying to, right? In fact that's such a strong counterexample to the article you can basically discount it entirely. > will not build denser properties because they’re riskier. Or because people don't want them. What's riskier about them?

[deleted]

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#39

Post by philwelch »

jonathlee wrote: post #28
dreish wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's decidedly not what the article claims. It claims that there are people who live in the suburbs but would prefer not to, and provides evidence to support that claim. The same evidence acknowledges the existence of people who are happy living in suburbs.

I believe the article has failed to realize that "self-reporting" evidence is weaker than actions, not stronger. If you listen to the Freakonomics podcast for any length of time, you would realize that the weakest, most likely to not really be true, form of evidence is self-reporting. When self-reporting/answering surveys, people commonly give the answer they are "expected" to give. The actions then reveal their real…

OK, so tell me why housing prices in high-density cities are significantly higher than in suburbs. Isn't that a revealed preference?

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#40

Post by smileysteve »

liveoneggs wrote: post #9

this article is a little strange since Atlanta has something like a 20 year supply of condos in midtown/surrounding for very affordable prices. Single family in-town homes, however, are scarce.

The basis for the 14? New apartment buildings in Atlanta is that we are drastically understocked, also why rents are climbing to $2k for a luxury 1br.

Most evidenced by new luxury apartments at West end station with surprising rents for a studio (targeting pilots)

Most single family homes seem unattainable (going over ask price, quickly) in the North of the city, but South and West are still cheap and attainable.

Post reply on HN