6 ms·

> You can already make these tradeoffs for yourself by moving to SF or Manhattan, which is generally ill-advised unless you make so much that the astronomical h

by verbify 10y ago

> You can already make these tradeoffs for yourself by moving to SF or Manhattan, which is generally ill-advised unless you make so much that the astronomical housing costs don't hurt too badly. The shoe is on the other foot. The reason why rent is so high in these places is because there's a lot of demand to live there - people do find it desirable. If more cities were built like SF or Manhattan (i.e. there was more supply) then it would be more affordable to more people. The reason these places should be built is because people clearly like it. That's the advantage.

tjic 10y ago
> The reason why rent is so high in these places is because there's a lot of demand to live there - No. Mere demand alone does not raise costs. There is a lot of demand for water, but it is still super cheap. Prices are high when demand is high and supply is low. The reason that prices in Manhattan and SF are high is because (a) lots of people want to live there, and simultaneously (b) government policies severely limit the ability of developers to generate more housing units there.
- verbify 10y ago
  You've worded it better, so thank you, but I believe my main point stands.
- Klockan 10y ago
  Exactly, and since high density cities are more common in Europe it is also more affordable there.
- freehunter 10y ago
  I've heard stories about SF's housing problems, but not about Manhattan. I know Manhattan is expensive, but it's also full of some of the tallest buildings in the world, and more are built every day. Are there actually policies restricting housing in Manhattan?
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    Hugely. It's possible to build extremely tall buildings in certain specific areas of Manhattan (and New York in general, like in Downtown Brooklyn), but most of the city is "maxed out" to its zoning - that is, the tallest building that can be legally built is already there. Indeed, in many places, the existing buildings are taller than the zoning code allows - so if you demolished an old building, you'd have to build a shorter one in its place!
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    Actually, yes. If you look at an aerial view[1], you can see that there are only skyscrapers in two fairly small parts of the island. Much of the rest has zoning rules that don't allow taller buildings. Even when the taller buildings are allowed, there are things like setback requirements that lower the amount of floor space that the building can contain. Frequently, the buildings that you can see aren't even representative of what the current restrictions allow. Many building in Manhattan were built long ago when zoning was less strict. Forty percent of the buildings in Manhattan could not be built today because they don't meet zoning requirements[2]. [1] https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9e/13/54/9e13549111a1585842d6ac562f4e1ddc.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9e/13/54/9e13... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-p...
criddell 10y ago
SF isn't particularly dense, is it?
- verbify 10y ago
  21st, although it's not a like-and-like comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
VLM 10y ago
"people do find it desirable" Americans are culturally completely blind to narrowcasting, in this case narrowcasted beliefs about lifestyle. For example, millions of people are rabid extreme fans of the TV show "Survivor". Its economically important. Its culturally and socially relevant (well, to its super fans who insist on seeing life thru a "Survivor" lens). Enormous sums of money change hands over this one TV show, from its production to its marketing to small time betting. Large amounts of social signalling happen about this TV show. There's nothing wrong with this little hobby of theirs, and they should be left alone. And there's a lot of them. Yet... yet 29 in 30 people won't watch that TV show for free. Regardless of its economic activity or price or value to an extremely small minority of the population, its value to 97% of the population is zero to negative. For 29 out of 30 people doing anything else is preferable to watching that free TV show. Someone not blind to narrowcasting can hold both interpretations in their head at the same time. I would theorize the numbers are not all that different with an analogy of urban living. You can slap any price you'd want on a NYC, SF, SV condo or house, and maybe even get it from another urbanite, but for 29 out of 30 people the value of that property would be zero to negative regardless of the price. That's kinda why almost no one lives there now. There's nothing "wrong" with living there although statistically roughly no one wants to. I think that philosophical outlook mixes well with that 1984 style authoritarian streak that Americans have, "everything that is permissible must be compulsory" Because we're not going to disassemble and resettle the cities Pol Pot style, we must permit them, and if we permit something it must be compulsory for all, therefore all humans must be moved into cities for their own good regardless of their own opinions on the topic and any deviation from the party line that its a universal good with no downsides is double plus badthink not to be tolerated. There is likely a lot of "crab pot" thinking where people suffering will do anything to stop others from ending their suffering. Every broken into car, every mugging, every raping, every shooting, all are proof we must stick together to keep everyone else in the city or else I'll have to run for it too. How dare he think himself better than us, we better drag him back down into this crab pot of a city.
- verbify 10y ago
  I did not advocate for everyone living in cities. I advocated for more city housing, as currently it is unaffordable to many who do want to live in them due to demand outstripping supply. If you want to see my view as Pol Pot style authoritanrianism, well, I'm not even sure where to start. We need more city housing because there's plenty of demand. I understand plenty of people want to live in rural areas, and I wish them well.

by verbify 10y ago

tjic 10y ago

> The reason why rent is so high in these places is because there's a lot of demand to live there - No. Mere demand alone does not raise costs. There is a lot of demand for water, but it is still super cheap. Prices are high when demand is high and supply is low. The reason that prices in Manhattan and SF are high is because (a) lots of people want to live there, and simultaneously (b) government policies severely limit the ability of developers to generate more housing units there.

verbify 10y ago
You've worded it better, so thank you, but I believe my main point stands.
Klockan 10y ago
Exactly, and since high density cities are more common in Europe it is also more affordable there.
freehunter 10y ago
I've heard stories about SF's housing problems, but not about Manhattan. I know Manhattan is expensive, but it's also full of some of the tallest buildings in the world, and more are built every day. Are there actually policies restricting housing in Manhattan?
- snrplfth 10y ago
  Hugely. It's possible to build extremely tall buildings in certain specific areas of Manhattan (and New York in general, like in Downtown Brooklyn), but most of the city is "maxed out" to its zoning - that is, the tallest building that can be legally built is already there. Indeed, in many places, the existing buildings are taller than the zoning code allows - so if you demolished an old building, you'd have to build a shorter one in its place!
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Actually, yes. If you look at an aerial view[1], you can see that there are only skyscrapers in two fairly small parts of the island. Much of the rest has zoning rules that don't allow taller buildings. Even when the taller buildings are allowed, there are things like setback requirements that lower the amount of floor space that the building can contain. Frequently, the buildings that you can see aren't even representative of what the current restrictions allow. Many building in Manhattan were built long ago when zoning was less strict. Forty percent of the buildings in Manhattan could not be built today because they don't meet zoning requirements[2]. [1] https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9e/13/54/9e13549111a1585842d6ac562f4e1ddc.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9e/13/54/9e13... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-p...

criddell 10y ago

SF isn't particularly dense, is it?

verbify 10y ago
21st, although it's not a like-and-like comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

VLM 10y ago

"people do find it desirable" Americans are culturally completely blind to narrowcasting, in this case narrowcasted beliefs about lifestyle. For example, millions of people are rabid extreme fans of the TV show "Survivor". Its economically important. Its culturally and socially relevant (well, to its super fans who insist on seeing life thru a "Survivor" lens). Enormous sums of money change hands over this one TV show, from its production to its marketing to small time betting. Large amounts of social signalling happen about this TV show. There's nothing wrong with this little hobby of theirs, and they should be left alone. And there's a lot of them. Yet... yet 29 in 30 people won't watch that TV show for free. Regardless of its economic activity or price or value to an extremely small minority of the population, its value to 97% of the population is zero to negative. For 29 out of 30 people doing anything else is preferable to watching that free TV show. Someone not blind to narrowcasting can hold both interpretations in their head at the same time. I would theorize the numbers are not all that different with an analogy of urban living. You can slap any price you'd want on a NYC, SF, SV condo or house, and maybe even get it from another urbanite, but for 29 out of 30 people the value of that property would be zero to negative regardless of the price. That's kinda why almost no one lives there now. There's nothing "wrong" with living there although statistically roughly no one wants to. I think that philosophical outlook mixes well with that 1984 style authoritarian streak that Americans have, "everything that is permissible must be compulsory" Because we're not going to disassemble and resettle the cities Pol Pot style, we must permit them, and if we permit something it must be compulsory for all, therefore all humans must be moved into cities for their own good regardless of their own opinions on the topic and any deviation from the party line that its a universal good with no downsides is double plus badthink not to be tolerated. There is likely a lot of "crab pot" thinking where people suffering will do anything to stop others from ending their suffering. Every broken into car, every mugging, every raping, every shooting, all are proof we must stick together to keep everyone else in the city or else I'll have to run for it too. How dare he think himself better than us, we better drag him back down into this crab pot of a city.

verbify 10y ago
I did not advocate for everyone living in cities. I advocated for more city housing, as currently it is unaffordable to many who do want to live in them due to demand outstripping supply. If you want to see my view as Pol Pot style authoritanrianism, well, I'm not even sure where to start. We need more city housing because there's plenty of demand. I understand plenty of people want to live in rural areas, and I wish them well.