5 ms·

I have 2 questions: (1) Do not such articles sound like "not everyone can afford a holiday in Hawai"? Or "all my friends have a Mercedes AMG but I don't"? What

by ctulek 10y ago

I have 2 questions: (1) Do not such articles sound like "not everyone can afford a holiday in Hawai"? Or "all my friends have a Mercedes AMG but I don't"? What is the difference? * (2) In Bay Area, the daily commute itself is an obvious sign of overpopulation. How does more housing not make it even worse? * I exclude the gentrification problem which is really affecting the lives of poor and old people as their mobility is far worse than middle class, and most of the time they won't be able to buy the new houses and apartments anyway.

ohwello 10y ago
Cities are expensive for a reason - they are not just a Veblen good like a Mercedes AMG, mainly valuable due to scarcity. Cities are more like doctors - they are extremely useful, and we would all be better off if there were enough to go around. Throughout US history there have been economically booming areas where people could move to become more prosperous. The majority of good new jobs are in cities. The fact that we are not building enough housing and transit infrastructure so people can actually live somewhere while working those jobs is a problem for national employment and economic growth. The landlords end up taking home a great share of the economic benefit instead of the workers as the price for scarce housing is bid up. This is also the root cause of gentrification. This leads to megacommutes as people occupy housing further and further from the booming economy. That's clearly the case in the Bay Area, where many cities have built more units of office space than housing, guaranteeing a rough commute for the people who work in those buildings.
closeparen 10y ago
>(1) Do not such articles sound like "not everyone can afford a holiday in Hawai"? Or "all my friends have a Mercedes AMG but I don't"? What is the difference? * It would be useful, for many reasons, to have a greater proportion of people living in cities. So, it's useful to challenge your implicit assumption that doing so ought to be a luxury. (2) In Bay Area, the daily commute itself is an obvious sign of overpopulation. How does more housing not make it even worse? a) The commute is awful because the Bay Area is overpopulated relative to its transit infrastructure, not some natural limit. Or, conversely, the Bay Area's transit infrastructure is under-provisioned relative to its population. Faster, more extensive transit infrastructure can drastically improve the commute at both current and higher population levels. b) We also underutilize the land close to commute destinations, so everyone (but the residents of single-family homes near downtown) has to travel further than they should. Pedestrians don't need much in the way of infrastructure (just sidewalks, which most of SF already has). Building more residential skyscrapers in the midst of business districts lets more people walk to work in a short time. Building more mid-rises (~6 stories) where there are currently single-family homes gets more people into commute distances that are reasonably quick on a bicycle, motor scooter, or public transit. Density of residents also promotes density of stores, so that i.e. everyone can be a short walk from their grocery store, rather than needing a car to shop, and the reclaimed land previously dedicated to parking can house more people.
- ctulek 10y ago
  (1) For the sake of extending the same analogy, the question is not whether people should have vacations and cars or not, it is about everybody asking for luxury vacations or cars. (2) IMHO, housing may for sure move some people closer to their work but it also means more service workers and other jobs to move to the same spot; this sounds to me like a vicious circle. At the end isn't it this vicious circle that drives city growth? Even if the commute problem is solved, which I doubt looking all the cities I lived or know a little bit, how are we going to prevent the classic environmental challenges: clean water, or effects on natural habitat?
- ghaff 10y ago
  It might be better as a matter of policy for more people to live in cities. I get the arguments even if I might not personally care to follow that path. However, that doesn't make it better as a matter of policy to cram people into as few different cities as possible. There's plenty of housing to be had at reasonable prices in Detroit, for example. In general, city living is not a luxury. Living in what are generally viewed as desirable neighborhoods of certain cities is.

by ctulek 10y ago

ohwello 10y ago

Cities are expensive for a reason - they are not just a Veblen good like a Mercedes AMG, mainly valuable due to scarcity. Cities are more like doctors - they are extremely useful, and we would all be better off if there were enough to go around. Throughout US history there have been economically booming areas where people could move to become more prosperous. The majority of good new jobs are in cities. The fact that we are not building enough housing and transit infrastructure so people can actually live somewhere while working those jobs is a problem for national employment and economic growth. The landlords end up taking home a great share of the economic benefit instead of the workers as the price for scarce housing is bid up. This is also the root cause of gentrification. This leads to megacommutes as people occupy housing further and further from the booming economy. That's clearly the case in the Bay Area, where many cities have built more units of office space than housing, guaranteeing a rough commute for the people who work in those buildings.

closeparen 10y ago

>(1) Do not such articles sound like "not everyone can afford a holiday in Hawai"? Or "all my friends have a Mercedes AMG but I don't"? What is the difference? * It would be useful, for many reasons, to have a greater proportion of people living in cities. So, it's useful to challenge your implicit assumption that doing so ought to be a luxury. (2) In Bay Area, the daily commute itself is an obvious sign of overpopulation. How does more housing not make it even worse? a) The commute is awful because the Bay Area is overpopulated relative to its transit infrastructure, not some natural limit. Or, conversely, the Bay Area's transit infrastructure is under-provisioned relative to its population. Faster, more extensive transit infrastructure can drastically improve the commute at both current and higher population levels. b) We also underutilize the land close to commute destinations, so everyone (but the residents of single-family homes near downtown) has to travel further than they should. Pedestrians don't need much in the way of infrastructure (just sidewalks, which most of SF already has). Building more residential skyscrapers in the midst of business districts lets more people walk to work in a short time. Building more mid-rises (~6 stories) where there are currently single-family homes gets more people into commute distances that are reasonably quick on a bicycle, motor scooter, or public transit. Density of residents also promotes density of stores, so that i.e. everyone can be a short walk from their grocery store, rather than needing a car to shop, and the reclaimed land previously dedicated to parking can house more people.

ctulek 10y ago
(1) For the sake of extending the same analogy, the question is not whether people should have vacations and cars or not, it is about everybody asking for luxury vacations or cars. (2) IMHO, housing may for sure move some people closer to their work but it also means more service workers and other jobs to move to the same spot; this sounds to me like a vicious circle. At the end isn't it this vicious circle that drives city growth? Even if the commute problem is solved, which I doubt looking all the cities I lived or know a little bit, how are we going to prevent the classic environmental challenges: clean water, or effects on natural habitat?
ghaff 10y ago
It might be better as a matter of policy for more people to live in cities. I get the arguments even if I might not personally care to follow that path. However, that doesn't make it better as a matter of policy to cram people into as few different cities as possible. There's plenty of housing to be had at reasonable prices in Detroit, for example. In general, city living is not a luxury. Living in what are generally viewed as desirable neighborhoods of certain cities is.