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

New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

movebuddha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 144 posts

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#31

Post by kolikotime »

mantas wrote: post #26
ahelwer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Seattle's a pretty great city to live in? You can still easily find rent below $1500/month for a 1 bedroom on Capitol Hill, it isn't too insane. Editing to add Seattle has world-class rock climbing, mountaineering, and hiking under an hour's drive from downtown, and if you aren't doing that you're probably missing out on half the joy of living here.

Define "great". A lot of people don't give a fuck about blings aside from cushy job. So far blings are what make up for the sad reality of city living. But if cushy jobs are not restricted to few areas anymore... Why bother.

Most companies are not going to go fully distributed. Partial remote? Sure. Maybe a few full remote roles set aside for superstars? Sure. But mass distributed remote? Highly unlikely. This experiment hasn’t gone that well.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#32

Post by autokad »

ahelwer wrote: post #16
daenz wrote: post #14

I'm considering relocating from Seattle purely based on the fact that we can make WFH commonplace. Why pay insane rents to physically be in a location I can work remotely?

Because Seattle's a pretty great city to live in? You can still easily find rent below $1500/month for a 1 bedroom on Capitol Hill, it isn't too insane. Editing to add Seattle has world-class rock climbing, mountaineering, and hiking under an hour's drive from downtown, and if you aren't doing that you're probably missing out on half the joy of living here.

> "Because Seattle's a pretty great city to live in?"

I feel like thats a minority opinion. The weather is terrible, the food is terrible, service at restaurants (or pretty much service in general) is terrible. A huge portion of the city shuts down at night. Where NYC is a city that doesn't sleep, Seattle sleeps. There are drug needles in the streets, and I routinely see homeless people defecating on sidewalks. I even saw a bus stop turned into a homeless person's 'house'.

The only thing I see that Seattle has going for it is low taxes.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#33

Post by monksy »

daenz wrote: post #21
ahelwer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Seattle's a pretty great city to live in? You can still easily find rent below $1500/month for a 1 bedroom on Capitol Hill, it isn't too insane. Editing to add Seattle has world-class rock climbing, mountaineering, and hiking under an hour's drive from downtown, and if you aren't doing that you're probably missing out on half the joy of living here.

I lived in Chicago and paid $1500/mo for a 1500 sq/ft loft in River North, AC, dishwasher, in-unit laundry. The rents here are insane compared to other places.

How long ago was this?

For a smaller place (900sqft for a 2 or 3 bedroom) they're asking $3200 in logan square.

Right arround the corner (western/armitage) they're asking $1800 for a studio.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#34

Post by Finnucane »

OrangeMango wrote: post #8

In the aftermath of 9/11, nobody wanted to live in skyscrapers. But that fear soon faded and prices went back up. It's probably too early to tell if this is a lasting trend.

Yeah, the double-wammy of 9/11/01 and the post-tech-bubble recession drove people out of NYC for a while. Vacancies went up and re prices went down. But it didn't last forever, obviously. It is hard to say if this will be different--we're going to be living with this for some time at some level, and it's still hard to say how much for how long.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#35

Post by rchaud »

The scale of the search interest is hard to understand because no numbers are provided, just percentages.

Searches are up 250%. Percent of what? 1000 searches? 1 million searches? I understand that this post is content marketing for the company, but I haven't heard of it before, so I don't know if they can simply toss out a YOY % and claim that it's a trend. Reading the article, it's also not clear that the queries were coming from users based in NYC.

I think looking at something like Google Trends might be more representative of interest, as you can filter the data by State, try different search terms and see the % change by day, week, year or 5 years.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#36

Post by gnulinux »

nugget wrote: post #2

I saw a statistic that 0.25% of NYC’s population has already died from Coronavirus (15k/6m). It seems worse there due to the density, and similarly dense cities like London are in the same boat.

There are other densely populated areas in the US, namely LA Metropolitan Area, South Florida metropolitan Area and Boston metropolitan area. E.g. NYC area is 26,403 people per mile^2, and Boston metropolitan area is 13,841 people per mile^2. But NYC seems to be doing much worse than 2 times worse than Boston. Maybe it's because NYC population is older? E.g. in Boston 52% of deaths are from LTC facilities (yesterday's data), which seems to imply virus hasn't penetrated into community that much.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#37

Post by crooked-v »

nugget wrote: post #2

I saw a statistic that 0.25% of NYC’s population has already died from Coronavirus (15k/6m). It seems worse there due to the density, and similarly dense cities like London are in the same boat.

On the other hand, California has a much lower death rate despite having cities with a population density in the same magnitude as NYC, which seems to suggest some level of luck of the draw here in initial unrecorded spread before lockdowns came into place.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#38

Post by daenz »

monksy wrote: post #33
daenz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Chicago and paid $1500/mo for a 1500 sq/ft loft in River North, AC, dishwasher, in-unit laundry. The rents here are insane compared to other places.

How long ago was this? For a smaller place (900sqft for a 2 or 3 bedroom) they're asking $3200 in logan square. Right arround the corner (western/armitage) they're asking $1800 for a studio.

This was 7 years ago. It was also on the top floor of a building with no elevator, so there were contributing factors to the $/foot. Everywhere I lived in Chicago got much more "bang for the buck" than Seattle though. Better summers and winters (I enjoy snow), and much better food as well. The difference in the homeless situation was shocking as well. The only thing Seattle has going for it, imo, is the nearby nature, but I honestly haven't taken advantage of it to warrant the cost of living increases on everything else.
Post reply on HN