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

71–80 of 144 posts

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#71

Post by hnra »

gnulinux wrote: post #36
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'…

I don't think you should be expecting people per square mile to scale 1:1 with mortality rate anyhow. I would guess putting twice as many people within a square would result in the virus spreading an order of magnitude faster. Similar to how increasing infection radius in an SIR model increases spread by much more.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#72

Post by Fricken »

nitrogen wrote: post #70
baggy_trough wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that suburbs and exurbs are "completely unsustainable" is a massive exaggeration.

It's a meme that just won't die even when we are currently seeing the major downsides of very high population densities. I moved from SF to a suburb in another state (with a balanced budget requirement) and have 3x the space for ⅓ the price. I am still closer in commute time to the major job centers than most of my SF coworkers were.

High density neighbourhoods are too popular, nobody lives in those places anymore.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#73

Post by burrows »

ahelwer wrote: post #56
autokad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 eve…

* World-class rock climbing, mountaineering, and hiking less than an hour's drive from downtown * I moved here from Canada, the weather really isn't that bad; it's been a beautiful spring here while all my Canadian friends are still dealing with snow * Seattle has a huge number of sakura and so the city has beautiful pink cherry blossom clouds everywhere for the entire month of April * The entire environment is so in…

> It's funny that the thing you think Seattle has going for it - low taxes - directly contributes to the issue of homelessness and half of your complaints.

We should reward non-productive people with other people's money?

You don't give the rat his meal until he completes the maze.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#74

Post by nkozyra »

Barrin92 wrote: post #28
nkozyra wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to misrepresent overall mortality with cause-specific mortality. If I'm struck by a car with stage 4 cancer, the car accident killed me, regardless of my outlook. If that car accident happens to be highly contagious, well then the cause is even more important. > Risk is not additive. It isn't always, but it very often is and it is in this case.

if someone dies in a traffic death while having stage four cancer then this would indeed not change year on year mortality (assuming the person dies of cancer). This is an awful example though because the victim profile of car deaths is generally middle aged adults, who would not have died otherwise. If your average car driver was a stage four cancer patient traffic safety would indeed be less of an issue relatively…

> It may very well be the case that covid 'crams' the deaths of people who would have died anyway into a short timeframe

You've highlighted the exact problem with your argument via this supposition.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#75

Post by tjr225 »

autokad wrote: post #32
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.

> "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 eve…

Yep. It's totally terrible. Possibly even the worst. Don't move there- and if you are there, please leave!

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#76

Post by ahelwer »

burrows wrote: post #73
ahelwer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* World-class rock climbing, mountaineering, and hiking less than an hour's drive from downtown * I moved here from Canada, the weather really isn't that bad; it's been a beautiful spring here while all my Canadian friends are still dealing with snow * Seattle has a huge number of sakura and so the city has beautiful pink cherry blossom clouds everywhere for the entire month of April * The entire environment is so in…

> It's funny that the thing you think Seattle has going for it - low taxes - directly contributes to the issue of homelessness and half of your complaints. We should reward non-productive people with other people's money? You don't give the rat his meal until he completes the maze.

Even if you want to analyze it from a psychopathic economics perspective, it still makes sense to provide socialized housing and free mental health support to people who are homeless, because there is no other way they'll become "productive" again without that base.

Or you can view it as us paying for the negative externality of rising housing prices forcing people onto the streets from so many of us software engineers moving to the area.

Or you can view people experiencing homelessness as humans inherently worthy of dignity. No matter which way you view it though, your approach of letting them die in the streets is the wrong one.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#77

Post by jaywalk »

milkytron wrote: post #44
BurningFrog wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where NYC is a city that doesn't sleep, Seattle sleeps Are there any other US cities that don't sleep?

I'd argue Las Vegas.

NYC bars close at 4am. Las Vegas bars don't close. I don't think there's much of an argument, really.

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#78

Post by beamatronic »

mdszy wrote: post #47
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.

$1500/month is absolutely insane for one bedroom lol My apartment is $850 and that gets me 2 bedrooms, 1200sqft. In a definitely not as large city mind you, but $1500 is insanely expensive for one bedroom.

Ever looked into San Francisco prices?

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#79

Post by vsef »

bestnameever wrote: post #58
crooked-v wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> California has a much lower death rate despite having cities with a population density in the same magnitude as NYC New York is denser than any city in California. "New York is far more crowded than any other major city in the United States. It has 28,000 residents per square mile, while San Francisco, the next most jammed city, has 17,000, according to data from the U.S. Census Bur" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03…

If it's just density, why does SF have so few deaths (20), fewer than cities much less dense than SF? eg Seattle is much less dense but has 15x as many deaths as SF. There is clearly an element of chance/which sub-population was infected/timing of responses in play here.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/04/07...

Re: New Yorkers consider relocating post coronavirus

#80

Post by restalis »

groby_b wrote: post #50
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #20

I think the aftermath of coronavirus is really going to be larger that most people are anticipating when it comes to work and migration patterns: 1. In the past 25 years there has been a huge re-migration back to cores of major cities. I think that is going to stop. 2. Suburbs and exurbs I think will become way more popular. The normal limiting factor on those locations is the commute, but I think so many more compan…

Disagreement on #2 and #3: #2: Suburbs/exurbs are completely unsustainable. I'd predict that after this is over, local food sources will figure prominently on people's minds. We might see a return to smaller satellite cities if zoning changes to a saner mixed zoning approach. (You don't want big box stores. You do want smaller stores embedded in the local community. I'm not sure there's the political will to go there…

"...and way too high rent in cities..."

Rental cost merely reflect the supply and demand. A significant drop in demand should put pressure on rental costs. However, I'm skeptic that such a drop will come from "the desire to be close to family/friends/social groups". People moved against that before and I don't see that changing. I also don't see any time soon people getting less interested in the opportunity that comes with city life.

Post reply on HN