7 ms·

Places that have gotten expensive because they've become desirable places to live and convinced lots of people to move there? The horror! The only real problem

Places that have gotten expensive because they've become desirable places to live and convinced lots of people to move there? The horror! The only real problem here is shitty local governance and NIMBYism that refuses to acknowledge reality and build more housing. In the end, it doesn't stop people from moving there, it just drives up costs and drives out natives and people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. If you want affordable housing markets, you have to build housing in response to demand. Regardless, we're talking about NYC here, so the fact that Google is buying some building instead of leasing like they have been is a total non-story. It'll have zero effect on NYC.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
They've only become desirable because of an influx of tech employers. Ergo, it makes sense for non-tech employed citizens to not want those employers to locate there (or expand). Also, existing citizens who own and live in these locations take priority over people who want to move in. No one is entitled to additional housing when tech companies foist externalities of additional workers (workers who could work remotely!) on a geographic region.
- RangerScience 9y ago
  > existing citizens who own and live in these locations take priority Yep, wealthy land owners, clearly the group that needs protecting. Actually, can anyone name a major US city where most of the growth came from itself, rather than an influx?
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    > Yep, wealthy land owners, clearly the group that needs protecting. Wealthy land owners = citizens who have most of their personal wealth/retirements savings tied up in the equity of their home that has slowly appreciated over years or decades. How terribly different than tech companies and employees using copyright (source code) and vast quantities of data to reap enormous returns and salaries (respectively). This isn't David vs Goliath. This is New Boss vs Old Boss. Big Tech needs to get over itself. It's the new bad guy.
    - davidcbc 9y ago
      So NYC aside, what is your answer for cities? How does a city improve itself without bringing in new jobs and tax revenue? Should a city just let buildings sit there and rot instead of selling them to a company that wants to create hundreds or thousands of jobs?
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        No tax credits for businesses (See: Amazon). You pay a tax per head of employee you intend to employee onsite that covers infrastructure and subsidizing affordable housing. If you're a going concern, affordability should not be an issue. Otherwise, you're straining infrastructure and housing with marginal benefits to the host city. Hire remote instead.
        davidcbc 9y ago
        So you would discourage businesses from coming to your city. I suspect your reelection campaign is going to be a difficult one.
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        General population voters > Tech voters making $100k/year+. Easy win when people who can't make tech salaries are barely scraping by, unable to afford food or meds sometimes because they have to make rent.
        davidcbc 9y ago
        How do you improve the quality of life for the current residents without bringing in modern jobs? Many of these cities were built around industries that just aren't relevant any more, how does a city continue to thrive without new industries to replace the ones they have lost?
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    At the same time, these tech companies moving in tend to drive rents up unsustainably, causing huge problems for the many citizens of those cities that aren't wealthy land owners.
- geofft 9y ago
  There are a lot of things tech doesn't do right. But tech, in this context, is just a growth industry. There will be another growth industry in 30-50 years, and the exact same pressures will happen again. Will these cities be capable of supporting that industry? Or do they want to remain small towns for their existing population forever? Or, worse, do they want to treat tech as some sort of special case, so they can have entire abandoned neighborhoods full of overbuilt property just for Google because they thought there will never be another Google and they have to do special things for Google in particular? NYC at least decided to take the first route decades ago, and has survived lots of industries moving in and out.
TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
There are a couple issues with this. First, people who lived in these cities often moved there because it wasn't nearly as dense or urban feeling as bigger cities like NYC. Those cities are being basically forced to change their fundamental character just so large corporations benefit. I think it's understandable that locals would be mad. Second, economic growth has been incredibly uneven and concentrated to just a handful of urban centers of the nation. This creates real problems. Economic inequality is amplified, and those sections of the population are separated from each other, insulating each other from the economic differences. Families, the poor, and the unexperienced simply don't have the leverage required to safely move away from their support structures into completely new cities without facing major issues. Why should economic growth be so constrained to such small areas just so big corporations benefit from cheaper labor?
jstarfish 9y ago
> The only real problem here is shitty local governance and NIMBYism that refuses to acknowledge reality and build more housing. In the end, it doesn't stop people from moving there, it just drives up costs and drives out natives and people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. If you want affordable housing markets, you have to build housing in response to demand. Once housing prices skyrocket and the cheapest buy-in starts at $700k+, nobody is in a rush to build housing for low-income demographics. New development is always just as unaffordably priced, and will continue to be until the current bubble bursts and a recession happens.
- dsnuh 9y ago
  Yeah, generally speaking, if you are comparing the same types of housing (Single Family Homes) isn't new construction almost always more expensive than the existing inventory? Unless OP is talking about building more of different types of housing (multi-family, condos, etc.), then I don't see how the cost for housing goes down without a recession, as you said. Another issue with the "just build more" philosophy is that it takes no account of the added infrastructure stresses that drive up other prices (gas, electricity, water, traffic, public transit, medical/police/fire) in the community and can detract from the quality of life previously enjoyed by the natives.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Thats not how supply and demand works. The purpose of building more houses, is not to make new houses for the existing, poor residents to live in. The purpose is to prevent the NEW rich residents from displacing old residents. For every million dollar condo that is built in the marina SF, that is 1 less family in the mission that will be displaced.
bfuller 9y ago
Austin has been a great place to live forever. People from all over have been moving there for quite some time. And there is plenty of housing, the problem is the poor communities are being priced out of the city center and a place that was once known for its culture has become pretty bland. That only happened once it started becoming a "tech hub"

toomuchtodo 9y ago

They've only become desirable because of an influx of tech employers. Ergo, it makes sense for non-tech employed citizens to not want those employers to locate there (or expand). Also, existing citizens who own and live in these locations take priority over people who want to move in. No one is entitled to additional housing when tech companies foist externalities of additional workers (workers who could work remotely!) on a geographic region.

RangerScience 9y ago
> existing citizens who own and live in these locations take priority Yep, wealthy land owners, clearly the group that needs protecting. Actually, can anyone name a major US city where most of the growth came from itself, rather than an influx?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > Yep, wealthy land owners, clearly the group that needs protecting. Wealthy land owners = citizens who have most of their personal wealth/retirements savings tied up in the equity of their home that has slowly appreciated over years or decades. How terribly different than tech companies and employees using copyright (source code) and vast quantities of data to reap enormous returns and salaries (respectively). This isn't David vs Goliath. This is New Boss vs Old Boss. Big Tech needs to get over itself. It's the new bad guy.
  - davidcbc 9y ago
    So NYC aside, what is your answer for cities? How does a city improve itself without bringing in new jobs and tax revenue? Should a city just let buildings sit there and rot instead of selling them to a company that wants to create hundreds or thousands of jobs?
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      No tax credits for businesses (See: Amazon). You pay a tax per head of employee you intend to employee onsite that covers infrastructure and subsidizing affordable housing. If you're a going concern, affordability should not be an issue. Otherwise, you're straining infrastructure and housing with marginal benefits to the host city. Hire remote instead.
      - davidcbc 9y ago
        So you would discourage businesses from coming to your city. I suspect your reelection campaign is going to be a difficult one.
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        General population voters > Tech voters making $100k/year+. Easy win when people who can't make tech salaries are barely scraping by, unable to afford food or meds sometimes because they have to make rent.
        davidcbc 9y ago
        How do you improve the quality of life for the current residents without bringing in modern jobs? Many of these cities were built around industries that just aren't relevant any more, how does a city continue to thrive without new industries to replace the ones they have lost?
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  At the same time, these tech companies moving in tend to drive rents up unsustainably, causing huge problems for the many citizens of those cities that aren't wealthy land owners.
geofft 9y ago
There are a lot of things tech doesn't do right. But tech, in this context, is just a growth industry. There will be another growth industry in 30-50 years, and the exact same pressures will happen again. Will these cities be capable of supporting that industry? Or do they want to remain small towns for their existing population forever? Or, worse, do they want to treat tech as some sort of special case, so they can have entire abandoned neighborhoods full of overbuilt property just for Google because they thought there will never be another Google and they have to do special things for Google in particular? NYC at least decided to take the first route decades ago, and has survived lots of industries moving in and out.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

There are a couple issues with this. First, people who lived in these cities often moved there because it wasn't nearly as dense or urban feeling as bigger cities like NYC. Those cities are being basically forced to change their fundamental character just so large corporations benefit. I think it's understandable that locals would be mad. Second, economic growth has been incredibly uneven and concentrated to just a handful of urban centers of the nation. This creates real problems. Economic inequality is amplified, and those sections of the population are separated from each other, insulating each other from the economic differences. Families, the poor, and the unexperienced simply don't have the leverage required to safely move away from their support structures into completely new cities without facing major issues. Why should economic growth be so constrained to such small areas just so big corporations benefit from cheaper labor?

jstarfish 9y ago

> The only real problem here is shitty local governance and NIMBYism that refuses to acknowledge reality and build more housing. In the end, it doesn't stop people from moving there, it just drives up costs and drives out natives and people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. If you want affordable housing markets, you have to build housing in response to demand. Once housing prices skyrocket and the cheapest buy-in starts at $700k+, nobody is in a rush to build housing for low-income demographics. New development is always just as unaffordably priced, and will continue to be until the current bubble bursts and a recession happens.

dsnuh 9y ago
Yeah, generally speaking, if you are comparing the same types of housing (Single Family Homes) isn't new construction almost always more expensive than the existing inventory? Unless OP is talking about building more of different types of housing (multi-family, condos, etc.), then I don't see how the cost for housing goes down without a recession, as you said. Another issue with the "just build more" philosophy is that it takes no account of the added infrastructure stresses that drive up other prices (gas, electricity, water, traffic, public transit, medical/police/fire) in the community and can detract from the quality of life previously enjoyed by the natives.
stale2002 9y ago
Thats not how supply and demand works. The purpose of building more houses, is not to make new houses for the existing, poor residents to live in. The purpose is to prevent the NEW rich residents from displacing old residents. For every million dollar condo that is built in the marina SF, that is 1 less family in the mission that will be displaced.

bfuller 9y ago

Austin has been a great place to live forever. People from all over have been moving there for quite some time. And there is plenty of housing, the problem is the poor communities are being priced out of the city center and a place that was once known for its culture has become pretty bland. That only happened once it started becoming a "tech hub"