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

A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

freerange.city

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#91

Post by Schiendelman »

em-bee wrote: post #77
Schiendelman wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And both have become massively unaffordable as a result, and have long lines to wait for housing. Vienna can't grow anymore as a result. The Christmas markets are still nice, but the city is frozen in amber. Controls on housing prices make it easy to claim "look we made it cheaper" at the cost of forcing people to move away.

both have become massively unaffordable that's every large city in germany too. except in vienna it only affects 1/3rd of the population because everyone else lives in affordable subsidized housing. exactly who has been forced to move away? Vienna can't grow anymore as a result. huh? vienna has been growing from 1.5 million to 2 million in the last 3 decades. and it hasn't even reached the peak population it had a ce…

Everyone who doesn't win the lottery for affordable housing has to leave.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#92

Post by cyberax »

cman1444 wrote: post #86
cyberax wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not a lot of good literature, actually. I'm not saying anything even remotely factually controversial. Housing units per household: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tRv It's also not controversial that major job density increases are happening in a few select metros: https://www.route-fifty.com/workforce/2019/06/job-density-re... or if you look more broadly, that smaller cities in the US are dying out.…

That st louis fed link doesn't seem to show any clear trend to me. Looks like we're actually on a downturn after a peak. Regardless, I don't understand what your proposed solution to this supposed "jobs crisis" is.

It's a bit misleading because the Y axis is not starting at 0.

> Regardless, I don't understand what your proposed solution to this supposed "jobs crisis" is.

Tax the dense office space, or do cap&trade. Incentivize remote work. Treat commute time as work time. Prohibit dense housing except in special cases (university campuses, military bases, senior living, etc.). Promote and subsidize self-driving cars.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#93

Post by cyberax »

cman1444 wrote: post #85
cyberax wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not "economy of scale", this is more of a "pollution death spiral" and "unpriced externalities". A factory that dumps raw waste into rivers is more efficient and can produce widgets more cheaply than a factory that takes care to clean up the waste. A firm in a dense city core can get talent more easily, and it'll have advantage (on average, in the long run) over a firm that has a fully remote workforce. The n…

That article has cherrypicked dates. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPSFLAM1FQ Also, firm in a dense city can get better talent, but those negative externalities (and I would argue these externalities are not clearly caused by the mployer) are made up for through increased salaries the firm must pay compared to areas with lower living costs.

Care to explain the cherry-picking? The average square footage was growing steadily (except for the 2008 crisis) and the inflection point happened around 2012 when the death spiral started in earnest.

It has been on the downward trend since then.

> Also, firm in a dense city can get better talent, but those negative externalities (and I would argue these externalities are not clearly caused by the mployer) are made up for through increased salaries the firm must pay compared to areas with lower living costs.

Except that the increased salary does NOT compensate for the increased cost of living. And firms absolutely don't pay for their impact on infrastructure.

My favorite example: Seattle. Each household will end up paying around $150k in additional taxes for the new transit that will benefit primarily dense office holders in the downtown.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#94

Post by cyberax »

kasey_junk wrote: post #82
cyberax wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cities are more efficient in practically every way than subsidized rural developments No, they're not. It's the other way around, in fact. Suburbs subsidize cities (on average, again). The dense city cores produce most of the _corporate_ income tax, because that's where the companies are headquartered. But most of _personal_ income tax comes from suburbs. This is only now getting close to flipping around. Cities al…

Do you have any citations on that? Very curious because it’s a very heterodox viewpoint you are expressing.

The thing is, I don't actually know good sources that aggregate all this data. I'm collecting all the references and I'm planning to write a book.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#95

Post by xg15 »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #5

> Today, the neighborhood is mixed-income with a range of families from different backgrounds This is a good thing! Overall I think this is simply an outcome of NIMBYism, regulators over regulating to justify their existence, and a K shaped economy. There's nothing wrong with the market building what there is actual money in. No one should be forced to lose money to serve those who cannot afford the product. (That's…

> No one should be forced to lose money to serve those who cannot afford the product. (That's the space of charities)

So, homelessness for the rest then?

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#96

Post by em-bee »

Schiendelman wrote: post #91
em-bee wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both have become massively unaffordable that's every large city in germany too. except in vienna it only affects 1/3rd of the population because everyone else lives in affordable subsidized housing. exactly who has been forced to move away? Vienna can't grow anymore as a result. huh? vienna has been growing from 1.5 million to 2 million in the last 3 decades. and it hasn't even reached the peak population it had a ce…

Everyone who doesn't win the lottery for affordable housing has to leave.

it's not a lottery. it's based on need. if your income is high enough that you don't qualify then most likely you can afford regular housing. sure here are always edge cases, and some people slip through the gaps, and you also already have to be living in the city for a few years (the rule is now two years, it used to be longer), so it's not available to everyone, but if you are already a resident then it's unlikely that you'll have to leave.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#97

Post by JumpCrisscross »

cyberax wrote: post #94
kasey_junk wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any citations on that? Very curious because it’s a very heterodox viewpoint you are expressing.

The thing is, I don't actually know good sources that aggregate all this data. I'm collecting all the references and I'm planning to write a book.

If you have a refutation of Triumph of the City, it will be groundbreaking. Until it’s published, throwing in like one credible source would make your comments more serious.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#98

Post by Schiendelman »

em-bee wrote: post #96
Schiendelman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone who doesn't win the lottery for affordable housing has to leave.

it's not a lottery. it's based on need. if your income is high enough that you don't qualify then most likely you can afford regular housing. sure here are always edge cases, and some people slip through the gaps, and you also already have to be living in the city for a few years (the rule is now two years, it used to be longer), so it's not available to everyone, but if you are already a resident then it's unlikely…

I get that you really dislike what I'm saying. I'm sorry. I wish you understood that there were real criticisms.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#99

Post by em-bee »

Schiendelman wrote: post #98
em-bee wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not a lottery. it's based on need. if your income is high enough that you don't qualify then most likely you can afford regular housing. sure here are always edge cases, and some people slip through the gaps, and you also already have to be living in the city for a few years (the rule is now two years, it used to be longer), so it's not available to everyone, but if you are already a resident then it's unlikely…

I get that you really dislike what I'm saying. I'm sorry. I wish you understood that there were real criticisms.

i might understand that if you showed me the actual criticism and evidence that substantiated it.

the system in vienna may not be perfect, but it does better than any other large city in austria and germany and maybe even in europe. criticizing is easy, but i don't think it's fair when the situation everywhere else is worse.

Re: A look at Denver’s “Unlocking Housing Choices” plan

#100

Post by maerF0x0 »

xg15 wrote: post #95
maerF0x0 wrote: post #5

> Today, the neighborhood is mixed-income with a range of families from different backgrounds This is a good thing! Overall I think this is simply an outcome of NIMBYism, regulators over regulating to justify their existence, and a K shaped economy. There's nothing wrong with the market building what there is actual money in. No one should be forced to lose money to serve those who cannot afford the product. (That's…

> No one should be forced to lose money to serve those who cannot afford the product. (That's the space of charities) So, homelessness for the rest then?

(That's the space of charities)
Post reply on HN