America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births • Hacker News Board

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#371

Post by peanutgal2600 » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:02 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #370

peanutgal2600 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, are you telling me that 50% of all strollers in Toronto have dogs in them? You would be lying as much as the op. People who hate San Franciscio move here to take our money, to complain about us not being boring like Palo Alto or Orange County. They don't contribute anything to our culture, they whine, moan, and think that we owe them something because they make $150k at a lame startup. Whoop de doo. They make us…

> So, are you telling me that 50% of all strollers in Toronto have dogs in them? You would be lying as much as the op. I'll tell you something else in response: Starting a response by suggesting that someone is acting in bad faith is not a productive way to engage people in discussion. You may misunderstand something about the subject. You may misunderstand the person's comment. The comment may have several interpret…

Lying is always in bad faith bro. Show me one place in the world with more than 2 people that has a 50% dog-in-stroller rate.

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#372

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:04 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #329

elliekelly wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of race would you measure equality against the standard of “white?” I should hope not. For the same reason measuring women against the standard of “men” isn’t equality.

Yes, race equality is measured against the standard of "white" - people advocate for blacks to become richer and less harrassed by the police, not for whites to become poorer and be harrassed more (btw, both would achieve the same amount of "equality"). Same for men vs. women - the drive wasn't/isn't to make men work less (and stay at home more, i.e. like women used to be and like my ideal world would look like), but…

> Same for men vs. women - the drive wasn't/isn't to make men work less (and stay at home more, i.e. like women used to be and like my ideal world would look like), but to make women work more.

Indeed. My wife is not a stay at home mom because I force her to be. It it her voluntary choice (and I am happy to support her decision and be the sole income earner in the family) that she gets more happiness and joy from raising our children than as a drone at a desk job or climbing an unfulfilling and meaningless career ladder (her words, not mine).

I think what isn't reasonable is when both parents want to work and expect to achieve similar results. You can't have it all, and you're going to be deeply disappointed when you try and fail.

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#373

Post by ajross » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

pattrn wrote: post #357

ajross wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but... have you actually lived in a city? Actually spent time in a public park? Dined at an urban restaurant? Actually been (???!?) unable to reach a public library? This sounds just crazy to me. Literally everything you do in the suburbs, absent long hikes and home gardening, is more conveniently available in an urban center. You don't have to like it, but... that list of complaints just reads as nonsense…

This mirrors my sentiment prior to moving to Boston. It turned out to be the opposite. It took more time to get to most places in the city than it took to get to equivalent places when I lived in New Hampshire. You name it: grocery stores, restaurants, pubs, cafes, shopping, parks, markets, etc. My wife and I moved back to NH after a year due to our quality of life dropping so drastically. Two of my childhood friends…

> Now I can get to [grocery stores, restaurants, pubs, cafes, shopping, parks, markets, etc.] via car in under 5 minutes

I... sorry, I don't believe that. I've never seen a suburb anywhere with ALL that stuff within the 1.5 mile radius you postulate. Sure, you get some of it locally. We have restaurants within 5 minutes, but the place we want to go tonight is 11 minutes away. There's a park next to the local school, sure, but the kids want to go swimming at the place with the good slide and it's 22 minutes away.

And FWIW: I literally grew up in urban Boston, and live in west coast suburbs now.

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#374

Post by CalRobert » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #352

CalRobert wrote: post #316

A city has 100 homes. Local homeowners vote against any new construction to preserve taxpayer-funded parking welfare (aka neighborhood character) This means that house prices are a race to the top so to speak. You're always competing with your neighbors. The first thing you do is have both of them work (this happened ~4 decades ago). Even if you don't want to, you have to, because your neighbors are doing it and they…

I don't doubt that increasing their own home values is part of it, but here in the North East where I live when I hear co-workers making the case for restricting housing development they're concerned about one of two things. Either that if their town was more affordable the wrong sort of person would move in, they'd go to school with their kids, and either harm their kids or teach them bad habits. Or that more people…

Anecdata, but when I went to community planning boards it was very much:

"this will hurt home values"

"I like being able to park on the [public, taxpayer-funded] street instead of paying for land to store my car on"

"This will bring more cars"

but it was telling that nobody at the meetings had school-age kids. They also fought like hell against bike lanes, which would help with the whole "people === cars" relation. I'm sure what you describe is a concern for people too.

Ironically the neighborhood was a huge draw for people from _other_ neighborhoods because it was so nice (South Park San Diego). Known for its small bungalow-style housing and pleasant, narrow streets - both illegal to build now. More housing would allow more folks to live walking distance from the nice bars, restaurants, etc. (and the well-regarded German-language school I would've wanted to send my kid to if I had one), instead of driving in and consuming available parking.

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#375

Post by asveikau » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

ssharp wrote: post #331

asveikau wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> driving downtown This is your problem. In a city you don't need to put yourself and your family in a deadly metallic stress machine to get places. And as a result you will feel happier and more connected. Even in a city I am sometimes very shocked at what we put ourselves through to use a car. People constantly honking and flicking each other off with various insults and me on the sidewalk wishing they'd all calm d…

You know it's okay that other people don't want the same thing as you, right? It's difficult to go anywhere without putting yourself in a "deadly metallic stress machine", whether it be a car, plane, train, boat, etc. I suppose if you have that much fear of transportation, living somewhere with ample options within walking distance is best.

So other than call me afraid or claim I want to monopolize opinions in the universe, have you addressed the point that a good train system is much less deadly and much less stressful than single occupant vehicles?

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#376

Post by CalRobert » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

AvocadoPanic wrote: post #355

Symmetry wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt that increasing their own home values is part of it, but here in the North East where I live when I hear co-workers making the case for restricting housing development they're concerned about one of two things. Either that if their town was more affordable the wrong sort of person would move in, they'd go to school with their kids, and either harm their kids or teach them bad habits. Or that more people…

We're also concerned that there may be too many kids for the existing school, especially higher density residential construction, and then existing homeowners will be asked to pay for the expansion / new school.

Adding facilities can be a condition of planning permission for new homes. A growing population of kids means more schools, so whether they're in infill or in suburbia can be addressed through similar mechanisms.

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#377

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

peanutgal2600 wrote: post #371

braythwayt wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, are you telling me that 50% of all strollers in Toronto have dogs in them? You would be lying as much as the op. I'll tell you something else in response: Starting a response by suggesting that someone is acting in bad faith is not a productive way to engage people in discussion. You may misunderstand something about the subject. You may misunderstand the person's comment. The comment may have several interpret…

Lying is always in bad faith bro. Show me one place in the world with more than 2 people that has a 50% dog-in-stroller rate.

[deleted]

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#378

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

thrwayxyz wrote: post #188

abootstrapper wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be surprised to learn, men need women to have children. If women are waiting later to have children, it doesn't mater how old the man is. Further, even if it were a problem only for women, that doesn't make the problem moot.

It's a problem for women over 30. If men merely have to delay reproduction by 40 years to their 70s you can quite easily kick the can down the road for the next generation to deal with. Given how much worse each next generation is doing this may well seem like a great deal in 2060 to the women who are born in 10 years time.

Fun fact: millennial households earn more than their parents’ did at the same age: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/FT_18...

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#379

Post by dahfizz » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

matchbok wrote: post #216

dahfizz wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's highly dependent on your area. In my smaller town I never have traffic. I have plenty of restaurants and activities and more "parkland" and nature than a city dweller could dream. City dwellers seem to think of smaller towns as some sort of dessert wasteland, but I can get to anything a city dweller can in the same amount of time. There's just as much stuff out here, we just also have enough room to live…

Same amount of time? I have 20 restaurants within a 30 second walk. There also is never, ever the diversity of food or entertainment. Also, many small towns have higher crime rates per capita than cities.

> Also, many small towns have higher crime rates per capita than cities.

Per capita crime rates do not matter. What matters is the question "How likely am I to be the victim of a crime if I live in area X?".

Depending on the type of crime, you are around 4x as likely to be the victim of a violent crime if you live in a city[1].

Per capita rates is a statistical curiosity. Being 4x more likely to be shot is what people actually care about. When the population density is 10 - 100x different, a small difference in per capita rates is meaningless.

[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#380

Post by dahfizz » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

fountainofage wrote: post #201

dahfizz wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's highly dependent on your area. In my smaller town I never have traffic. I have plenty of restaurants and activities and more "parkland" and nature than a city dweller could dream. City dwellers seem to think of smaller towns as some sort of dessert wasteland, but I can get to anything a city dweller can in the same amount of time. There's just as much stuff out here, we just also have enough room to live…

Well, are you in support of a suburb or a small town? A suburb is wildly distinct from a small town. Most would agree that a suburb solely exists to house people that work in a nearby city, whereas a small town is self-sufficient (in the sense any area can be "self-sufficient").

This is where the conversation tends to break down. What you would call a suburb, I would probably call part of the city. What I would call a suburb, you would probably call rural.

I do think hit the nail on the head with the self sufficiency. I have absolutely no need or desire to commute into the nearest big city (big it is fun for day trips every once in a while).

The area directly outside the urban core that contains only housing and bad traffic is definitely not somewhere I would want to live, although owning a proper house instead of renting an apartment is very important to some people.