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

Who killed the rave?

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#651

Post by apwell23 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #262
apwell23 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why doesn't someone introduce a legislation to tax vacant second homes at astronomical rates

> why doesn't someone introduce a legislation to tax vacant second homes at astronomical rates They tried this in China. People would just get divorced so each partner had their own home. It turns out you can easily find someone in your family to "buy" a house as well.

Vacant home doesn't mean a house with no owner. I am not sure how getting divorced makes vacant home occupied.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#652

Post by apwell23 »

freedomben wrote: post #427
apwell23 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why doesn't someone introduce a legislation to tax vacant second homes at astronomical rates

This becomes devastating to people who are trying to sell the "second" home in a market where it often takes months to get sold.

fuck them!!

Re: Who killed the rave?

#653

Post by apwell23 »

throw5959 wrote: post #219
apwell23 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why doesn't someone introduce a legislation to tax vacant second homes at astronomical rates

Do you know who owns most real estate either directly or indirectly? Pension funds. And who wants to shake up their pension? Nobody. It's the most democratized form of asset ownership, literally everybody is going to get angry. And secondly... Are the second vacation homes really the problem? I'd guess the problem begins around 3rd or 5th, not the second one, which is a fairly common and usually also a good thing to…

not talking about real estate in general. whats the proof that most vacant homes are owned by pension funds ? I don't think so.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#654

Post by [deleted] »

ty6853 wrote: post #549
andrewjl wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you suppose we do that in the US? Exempt or lighten planning requirements for affordable housing construction. California is going in this direction now. There are other levers like subsidized financing for developers building homes targeting a certain price range as well as favorable tax treatment of those profits. A lot of these have would probably have some bipartisan support.

This is what they did in my county. If you build a house as the actual owner (not as an LLC or for rent or sale) and promise not to sell within 1 year there are no design, code, inspection or planning requirements. Lots of people taken advantage of this here. It is a pressure release valve available to those who can't afford commercial construction or boomers wanting 5x the real value they paid for their home. You ca…

[deleted]

Re: Who killed the rave?

#655

Post by cyberax »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #618
cyberax wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The calculation changes Nope. It becomes slightly further from the record high numbers, but still better than at any time before 90-s. At this point, the misery caucus is just grasping at straws. In a couple of years, the housing inventory will make even that metric irrelevant, but the price of housing will still be going up. > The solution is to remove the very much existent density and other supply restrictions N…

“Flat earth” style economic denialism is not as cool as you seem to think. Govt interference propping housing prices through various means was previously mentioned as well.

> “Flat earth” style economic denialism is not as cool as you seem to think.

Yeah, can you then point out an example of a city where densification worked to decrease the housing sale prices?

Tokyo? Nope. Seattle? Definitely nope, even though its housing inventory grew by 25% within 12 years. Moscow? Nope.

If it's so "round Earth", then there must be some early metrics that can indicate the success of densification railroading in places where it's been tried?

For example, Minneapolis went full cookoo nuts by abolishing parking requirements and the SFH zoning in 2019. They gave out the city to be screwed up by developers. How's it faring now? Oh, the price growth not only not slowed down, it ACCELERATED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS33460Q

Do you know Mark Twain's definition of "insanity"?

Re: Who killed the rave?

#656

Post by Tade0 »

apwell23 wrote: post #651
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why doesn't someone introduce a legislation to tax vacant second homes at astronomical rates They tried this in China. People would just get divorced so each partner had their own home. It turns out you can easily find someone in your family to "buy" a house as well.

Vacant home doesn't mean a house with no owner. I am not sure how getting divorced makes vacant home occupied.

Vacancy is hard to prove and typically proxies like water usage or having lights on are used, but they're inaccurate.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#657

Post by Gene5ive »

I don't know but In Portland there's a ton of them, the venues are great, and in the summer we go do it in the forest. And now that the RA app has it's shit together, I no longer have to get on Instagram to find out about stuff.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#658

Post by GuB-42 »

spydum wrote: post #634
GuB-42 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covid definitely shook things up, but clubs didn't do well even before covid, while festivals were thriving. Now, it is a bit hard to tell as 2024 was just the second "normal" year, and it can take many years to grow a successful event. It seems like now, we are indeed seeing less festivals, but the remaining ones are becoming bigger and more expensive. So, maybe less festivals but higher budgets.

Weren't there several mass casualties at clubs? I wonder if those had an effect overall. Anecdotally, I remember after several of the movie theatre shootings in the US, my immediate peer group self included decided it just wasn't worth it. Only in the last year or so have I started coming back to theatres.

I live in France and I saw many night clubs close for reasons I think are unrelated to security. I remembrer an entire street with nothing but night clubs, some of them quite famous, they closed down one after the other, the last one was in 2017 I think. I lived next to the beach for most of my teens, we had two night clubs, none of them remain, the next town has one that still remains but another one that closed in the early 2000s not to open again, a major electronic music came in its place, incidentally cancelled last year for financial fraud raisons. Where I live today, I saw one night club close, I think in 2019 (before covid) but I didn't see one open. In fact, I don't remember seeing a night club open since the early 2000s. Plenty of bars, but not night clubs.

These are anecdotal evidence, but that's a lot of anecdotes.

In none of these case I saw a particular event motivating this, I guess it was just not profitable. Also worth noting that most night clubs that are still open tend to get terrible reviews on Google (less than 3/5 on average). It is kind of a meme to complain about nightclubs you go to, especially if you get denied entry, but still, not very encouraging.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#659

Post by mylies43 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #532
xeromal wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people want to live in particular areas

This is really the issue. There are plenty of places people can live and afford. But everyone wants a particular lifestyle and a certain job in their desired field and maybe proximity to certain people. That sense of entitlement has been rebranded as an affordability crisis but it isn’t that. It’s just entitlement. People should instead live within their means and make sacrifices. Not everyone gets to live in highly…

Is it entitled to want to live in the city you were born in and grew up in?

Re: Who killed the rave?

#660

Post by anigbrowl »

It's not really surprising, but the article seems to conflate raves with nightclubs, with numerous remarks about the cost of being out at a club all night and paying for things like expensive bottle service.

Raves are not clubs, and historically have never done that well in club environments. People who are really into staying up all night dancing to techno music aren't buying expensive alcoholic drinks, they're buying cheap water to stay hydrated. Many (though by no means all) take drugs, but generally that means one dose of a drug like MDMA at the beginning of the evening. Psychedelic drugs like LSD are also associated with the rave scene but are less compatible with a nightclub environment (bars, security, overgrown disco lights). People are more likely to consume psychedelics at an outdoor party or a warehouse space.

In my view what has killed raves was the declining availability of cheap accessible commercial spaces, police/administrative hostility to informal economic activity, and overcommercialization, which has tended to select for the shittiest music/DJs.

Post reply on HN