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

Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 187 posts

Re: Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

#41

Post by rsynnott »

refurb wrote: post #31
nordsieck wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder whether this trend will reverse in the next 1-3 years or this is the new permanent dynamic of the SF rental market. IMO, that's completely dependent on how much SF tech companies embrace remote work.

What confuses me is the home buying far outside urban areas. I understand that people will be working from home for 12 months, but buying a home an expensive transaction. If forced to go back to the office, these folks are looking at very long commute. I assume they: 1) know for sure they can wfh permanently, 2) are betting they will be able to wfh permanently or 3) are willing to quit when asked to come back to the…

I think a lot of people _are_ assuming that the dynamic has permanently changed, and that WFH will be the default, or at least way more common, in their sector from now on.

I suspect that they may be incorrect, here.

Re: Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

#42

Post by jpindar »

mjayhn wrote: post #29
chrisseaton wrote: post #14

I think a lot of people living in cities think there's only two options - living in an apartment downtown in a megacity, and living in a car-bound wasteland suburb. But there's a third option - towns. I know you have them in the US! I've been to a few of them. Walkable towns with coffee shops, restaurants, bars, culture, dating. You can even find a few in the Bay Area if you don't want to look too far. Isn't the smal…

They almost never have decent internet if you're someone trying to wfh. Most of them are POTS lines only. The ones that have muni fiber would be a possible option but you're making definite trade offs elsewhere. Pubtrans, bike lanes, food options, travel optins, etc.

That's not true. Except for rural areas, most of the US has broadband internet, typically from their cable company.

Re: Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

#43

Post by epistasis »

alextheparrot wrote: post #26
epistasis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The picture of a house they show nestled in the trees is incredibly dangerous, incredibly resource intrnsive, and just ecologically unsound. We need to be building massive amounts of housing in city centers to let as many people live in them that would like to. Instead we lock down any new construction in cities, which requires the least amount of infrastructure and environmental damage, and instead let pretty much a…

Come on now, Truckee is half second homes - the resource intensiveness is based on gluttony not existence of housing.

A 2000 sq ft home in Truckee, be it a second home or a primary home, is going to require far more roads, more vehicle miles travelled, require cutting down far more trees, more heating and cooling, more water and waste water infrastructure than a 2000 sq ft apartment in a city.

That not to say that we should ban all Truckee homes on long roads like we ban apartments in cities, but we should definitely legalize apartments cities. And rural Truckee tree consuming development should be highly controlled and taxed in proportion to the amount of public money that needs to be spent trying to protect these fire traps.

Re: Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

#44

Post by ghaff »

mjayhn wrote: post #29
chrisseaton wrote: post #14

I think a lot of people living in cities think there's only two options - living in an apartment downtown in a megacity, and living in a car-bound wasteland suburb. But there's a third option - towns. I know you have them in the US! I've been to a few of them. Walkable towns with coffee shops, restaurants, bars, culture, dating. You can even find a few in the Bay Area if you don't want to look too far. Isn't the smal…

They almost never have decent internet if you're someone trying to wfh. Most of them are POTS lines only. The ones that have muni fiber would be a possible option but you're making definite trade offs elsewhere. Pubtrans, bike lanes, food options, travel optins, etc.

Rural broadband is certainly an issue generally. But a lot of people seem to be under the impression that as soon as you leave the city limits of a major city, you're in the wilds of Wyoming. Somewhere like Massachusetts, there are a ton of towns and smaller cities not called Boston that have broadband.

Re: Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

#45

Post by cactus2093 »

epistasis wrote: post #6
almost_usual wrote: post #3

You’re also living in a prime wildfire area in Truckee. There’s too much fuel in the Sierras as it is, it’ll burn sooner or later.

The picture of a house they show nestled in the trees is incredibly dangerous, incredibly resource intrnsive, and just ecologically unsound. We need to be building massive amounts of housing in city centers to let as many people live in them that would like to. Instead we lock down any new construction in cities, which requires the least amount of infrastructure and environmental damage, and instead let pretty much a…

> A generation of conservatives

Very true, even though they convinced themselves and everyone else that they were progressives and environmentalists, just because they don't hate minorities and they like the vibe of trees. (Not to downplay the importance of socially progressive measures, but it's one dimension and they are very conservative on most other dimensions).

Re: Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

#46

Post by dcolkitt »

yalogin wrote: post #39

I wonder how sustainable this is. Part of this is obviously going to remain but I can see a big swing in the other direction saying employees and groups need to be together to generate the feeling of a team and that remote work doesn't give you that.

That’s likely true. But it's probably cheaper to fly the entire company and their families to a ski resort every quarter, then it is to pay for Bay Area cost-of-living and office space.

Re: Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

#47

Post by 8note »

refurb wrote: post #27
nimish wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wild that landlords having to deal with their investments losing value and having to negotiate a commercial transaction is "grim" The market dynamics shifted. No big deal.

You have the same attitude when prices go up? “Wild that tenants having to deal with rent going up and having to negotiate a commercial transaction is “grim””. “The market dynamics shifted. No big deal.”

I think there's a difference between needing a roof over your head vs needing to protect your investment portfolio.

Re: Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

#48

Post by [deleted] »

mjayhn wrote: post #29
chrisseaton wrote: post #14

I think a lot of people living in cities think there's only two options - living in an apartment downtown in a megacity, and living in a car-bound wasteland suburb. But there's a third option - towns. I know you have them in the US! I've been to a few of them. Walkable towns with coffee shops, restaurants, bars, culture, dating. You can even find a few in the Bay Area if you don't want to look too far. Isn't the smal…

They almost never have decent internet if you're someone trying to wfh. Most of them are POTS lines only. The ones that have muni fiber would be a possible option but you're making definite trade offs elsewhere. Pubtrans, bike lanes, food options, travel optins, etc.

[deleted]

Re: Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

#49

Post by epistasis »

silveroriole wrote: post #34
epistasis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The picture of a house they show nestled in the trees is incredibly dangerous, incredibly resource intrnsive, and just ecologically unsound. We need to be building massive amounts of housing in city centers to let as many people live in them that would like to. Instead we lock down any new construction in cities, which requires the least amount of infrastructure and environmental damage, and instead let pretty much a…

> We need to be building massive amounts of housing in city centers to let as many people live in them that would like to. How many people would ‘like’ to live in a city centre if they didn’t have to for work?

I would! And I’m constantly surprised at the number of people that don’t like cities that assume that everybody else just must be like them somehow.

Cities are expensive because they attract lots of people to them because lots of people prefer them. So when you say “how many” the answer is clearly far more people Han are currently allowed to live there. We should build in cities until it’s cheaper to live in them than it is to live in less environmentally friendly ways.

Re: Zoom towns and the new housing market for the two Americas

#50

Post by rconti »

katzgrau wrote: post #18
almost_usual wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares about NPR elitism. Why shame people for doing what they want. Hell, the Buffalo Wild Wings in Daly City has a more diverse crowd than any bar or restaurant in SF.

Honestly, BWW had the best tap lineup in my area for a long time, which has no shortage of trendy bars.

The first time I walked into a BWW (maybe 10 or 15 years ago) my eyes opened wide when I saw all the taps.

My excitement wore off when I realized that it was literally all budweiser products and most of them had the exact same thing.

Post reply on HN