6 ms·

> I get the supply and demand laws but there comes a point where we have to decide of continuous and infinite growth at the cost of literally every other metric

> I get the supply and demand laws but there comes a point where we have to decide of continuous and infinite growth at the cost of literally every other metric of importance to a city is worth burning it down for. People keep saying this, and my response is: what is your solution? Rents aren't going up (solely) because of sinister plutocratic plots; it's because people want to move to New York. Big cities are where the jobs are, and Millenials hate suburbs, so that's where white-collar workers are going. Is your plan to forbid people from moving to New York so you can freeze time in the 70's? People complaining about gentrification hem and haw when you ask them this forthright, and then try to dodge the question and pretend there's a simple solution involving rent control or millionaire taxes. But at some point you have to face facts and understand that, as long as the dynamics of the modern economy keeps favoring big cities, you can't stop gentrification without forbidding people from moving in.

lmm 8y ago
> But at some point you have to face facts and understand that, as long as the dynamics of the modern economy keeps favoring big cities, you can't stop gentrification without forbidding people from moving in. Or building more homes and lowering housing standards.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  I agree, but the people griping about gentrification (including the author of this article) almost always make sure to toss in unsupported claims that this won't fix the problem and will actually make it worse, and then usually follow that up by saying people advocating for more housing are just being bribed by developers. It's infuriating, and one of the reasons why, as much of a tax-the-rich democratic socialist as I am, I have no damn patience for the NIMBY segment of the urban Left.
sp332 8y ago
Is your plan to forbid people from moving to New York so you can freeze time in the 70's? I don't see why people outside NYC wanting to move in means people already in NYC must accommodate them. SF for example prevents buildings over 4 stories in the downtown area. I live in a much smaller city that mandated brick fronts on all buildings on the main street. And from one perspective it's petty and limiting but my point is, yes NYC residents get to choose what about their city is important to them and protect it. That includes preventing people from moving in if it comes to that.
- dbmikus 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure that SF restricting building height is a major reason for high real-estate prices that people complain about pricing them out of their homes.
  - sp332 8y ago
    Yeah, never quite figured that one out myself.
    - kentosi 8y ago
      Same. When I visited SF I was told that the restriction was due to earthquakes. When I then pointed out the skyscrapers in the city center I was met with shrugs...
      - naravara 8y ago
        I don't really understand this blind-spot people have when it comes to density. There is a vast, vast gulf of building scale in between sprawling suburbs and mid-town Manhattan. Yet any time people want to advocate for densification it's so often insistence that we bulldoze all the townhomes and build up a bunch of towering skyscrapers overnight. You can get really damn dense while still maintaining a human scale. In fact, your city will evolve in a way that makes it more livable and gives it more charming character if you let it go that way. Trying to flip from one layout to another instantly is just going to get you something like Dubai.
- jcadam 8y ago
  > I don't see why people outside NYC wanting to move in means people already in NYC must accommodate them. I'm rather tired of accommodating snowbirds from NYC down here in Florida during the winter months. But citizens tend to demand freedom of movement within their own country, so...
  - sp332 8y ago
    Yeah visiting is a lot different from moving. But you're right that there are some strict regulations on equal access to housing. I think it's going to have to be more specific than just banning people based on geography.
ebikelaw 8y ago
Population increase in the Bay Area has been driven more by longevity than by migration. If incumbents aren't willing to make room for their own offspring, then it's important for them to die in a timely fashion. If instead they persist in life, then they should be making room, by building.
niftich 8y ago
People move for one of three reasons, which to me feel successively less discretionary: (a) they get a job offer (e.g. Wall Street, Chicago), (b) they're moving to a job cluster hoping to find something eventually (e.g. LA, NYC, SF, Vegas, DC), or (c) they are priced out of every other place. Typically, their economic precariousness increases with each category. It's true that many well-to-do young adults move to big cities, but plenty are moving to 1950s-1980s era suburbs too [1], where they're living in cheaper, older housing stock and neighborhoods that are less affected by developmental pressures [2][3]. International working-class immigrants, subject to many of the same pressures, are following suit. This system is really difficult for an average person (or family) to game. Most people are caught in economic pressure to go either where the jobs are or shift within the same metro to find their acceptable balance between amenities and cost. And anyone willing to take a chance on cross-country relocation to some second or third-tier metro is probably being taken for a fool; by the time they read about a place being a 'great place to raise a family' it's probably already experiencing rising costs of living [4]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16744401#16746390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16744401#16746390 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17079269#17080117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17079269#17080117 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898200#16898850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898200#16898850 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898200#16899874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898200#16899874
maxxxxx 8y ago
We have policies like subsidies and others to keep food prices stable. If there was a pure free market in food we may see more food shortages or even starvation. Maybe we should think about limiting the impacts of the free market on other things like housing. Outside the US a lot of countries have realized that health care is not suitable for an unregulated free market and have taken measures accordingly. I know the US has a ton of regulation in housing and health care but none of them seem to help with affordability. Another thing to consider is to somehow discourage concentration of industry in one place. It's not healthy that there is a place that sucks up so many people because the pay is much, much higher than anywhere else.
munificent 8y ago
> what is your solution? * Progressive taxes on corporations. Use it to fund important social safety nets like healthcare. One reason people move to big cities is because the only modicum of security you have in the US today is to be in a place where there are multiple jobs in your profession. If you get fired, sorry "downsized", oops I mean "rightsized", oops, "restructured", you need to be able to find a new job fast or you'll end up on the street or dead if you get sick. One of the reasons people concentrate in large cities despite the insane rent is out of fear. * Progressive taxes on individuals. A society that allows someone to be as rich as Jeff Bezos while his own employees are barely scraping by has failed. You should, of course, be rich-er if you work harder or provide more value to society. The graph should not be flat, but the slope should not be as insanely high at one end like it is now. A billionaire could sacrifice most of their wealth without losing any measurable quality of life. Use these taxes to lower taxes on the working and middle classes and to: * Invest in significant infrastructure improvements in the urban core of mid-size cities. Thanks to automation, the balancing force that pulled people to spread across the country into small rural towns is gone. Without that, cities are the natural locus, but most don't have the infrastructure or amenities to be appealing or handle growth, so you get concentration mostly in the handful of megalopolises. Pour money into mid-size cities like Bakersfield, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Plano, and Des Moines. Fund the arts and other cultural properties that turn a city into the kind of unique place that makes people want to actually live there. Learn from Austin, Portland, and Athens. Learn from the slew of mid-sized European cities that each have their own character and feel. Acknowledge that the US is never going to function like it did in the 50s and start building the social, financial, and geographical structure needed for it to be a thriving country in the Information Age.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  I support a lot of your goals, but I think increasing taxation is a bad way to do it. Do you think the government spends money efficiently now? I don't think even the most left-leaning person could argue that. I would rather see the current welfare system made more efficient before we start giving more money to it. Our healthcare system already spends 1.5-2x more than other developed countries for similar outcomes. Addressing that would be a good place to start.
FussyZeus 8y ago
> People keep saying this, and my response is: what is your solution? Rents aren't going up (solely) because of sinister plutocratic plots; it's because people want to move to New York. Big cities are where the jobs are, and Millenials hate suburbs, so that's where white-collar workers are going. Is your plan to forbid people from moving to New York so you can freeze time in the 70's? I wasn't born until 1989 so I don't have an attachment to the 70's. I'm not saying it's even a problem, I'm just stating the fact that the prices going up on housing prices out the elements of a city that people complain are leaving. > People complaining about gentrification hem and haw when you ask them this forthright, and then try to dodge the question and pretend there's a simple solution involving rent control or millionaire taxes. But at some point you have to face facts and understand that, as long as the dynamics of the modern economy keeps favoring big cities, you can't stop gentrification without forbidding people from moving in. Actually I think taxing the corporations would be far more effective, but millionaires should be taxed too, especially the kind who keep non-primary residences in highrise buildings. The simple fact is that the wealthy people and the rich corporations just take up more space in a city, period. How many low-cost apartments could be built where the 1%'s high rise suites are now, that are only occupied 20 days out of the year? How many buildings have floors upon floors of empty space because a company doesn't need the room but doesn't want to give up their exclusive plot of land in an in-demand area? I'm not arguing for anything in particular, but the problem is all the current incentives are favoring developers to build expensive properties and living spaces in very in-demand areas, and it's causing a dearth of affordable housing that everyone claims to want but no one is ready to pay for or live near. You can't have it both ways; if you want the colorful and interesting aspects of a city, then yes, you must be ready to leave some of the money you could be making on the table and sell/rent to people who can't afford $2,500 per month in housing, or raise wages so you don't need a white collar job to afford them. Again, I don't care either way, it's not my problem to solve. I'm just stating fact. Edit: I guess the main thrust of what I'm saying is that cities know all of this, know both sides of the equation, but keep throwing up their hands at the plummeting levels of culture and "weird" that they all seem to want, whilist their lower-class residents are being evicted at insane rates to build more condos for tech workers like it's "just happening" and nobody knows why. They know exactly why, and if they really are against it, they should be pressuring their leadership to actually work on the problem instead of just blowing each other in the press for being so concerned about it while continuing to reap the rewards.

lmm 8y ago

> But at some point you have to face facts and understand that, as long as the dynamics of the modern economy keeps favoring big cities, you can't stop gentrification without forbidding people from moving in. Or building more homes and lowering housing standards.

Analemma_ 8y ago
I agree, but the people griping about gentrification (including the author of this article) almost always make sure to toss in unsupported claims that this won't fix the problem and will actually make it worse, and then usually follow that up by saying people advocating for more housing are just being bribed by developers. It's infuriating, and one of the reasons why, as much of a tax-the-rich democratic socialist as I am, I have no damn patience for the NIMBY segment of the urban Left.

sp332 8y ago

Is your plan to forbid people from moving to New York so you can freeze time in the 70's? I don't see why people outside NYC wanting to move in means people already in NYC must accommodate them. SF for example prevents buildings over 4 stories in the downtown area. I live in a much smaller city that mandated brick fronts on all buildings on the main street. And from one perspective it's petty and limiting but my point is, yes NYC residents get to choose what about their city is important to them and protect it. That includes preventing people from moving in if it comes to that.

dbmikus 8y ago
I'm pretty sure that SF restricting building height is a major reason for high real-estate prices that people complain about pricing them out of their homes.
- sp332 8y ago
  Yeah, never quite figured that one out myself.
  - kentosi 8y ago
    Same. When I visited SF I was told that the restriction was due to earthquakes. When I then pointed out the skyscrapers in the city center I was met with shrugs...
    - naravara 8y ago
      I don't really understand this blind-spot people have when it comes to density. There is a vast, vast gulf of building scale in between sprawling suburbs and mid-town Manhattan. Yet any time people want to advocate for densification it's so often insistence that we bulldoze all the townhomes and build up a bunch of towering skyscrapers overnight. You can get really damn dense while still maintaining a human scale. In fact, your city will evolve in a way that makes it more livable and gives it more charming character if you let it go that way. Trying to flip from one layout to another instantly is just going to get you something like Dubai.
jcadam 8y ago
> I don't see why people outside NYC wanting to move in means people already in NYC must accommodate them. I'm rather tired of accommodating snowbirds from NYC down here in Florida during the winter months. But citizens tend to demand freedom of movement within their own country, so...
- sp332 8y ago
  Yeah visiting is a lot different from moving. But you're right that there are some strict regulations on equal access to housing. I think it's going to have to be more specific than just banning people based on geography.

ebikelaw 8y ago

Population increase in the Bay Area has been driven more by longevity than by migration. If incumbents aren't willing to make room for their own offspring, then it's important for them to die in a timely fashion. If instead they persist in life, then they should be making room, by building.

niftich 8y ago

People move for one of three reasons, which to me feel successively less discretionary: (a) they get a job offer (e.g. Wall Street, Chicago), (b) they're moving to a job cluster hoping to find something eventually (e.g. LA, NYC, SF, Vegas, DC), or (c) they are priced out of every other place. Typically, their economic precariousness increases with each category. It's true that many well-to-do young adults move to big cities, but plenty are moving to 1950s-1980s era suburbs too [1], where they're living in cheaper, older housing stock and neighborhoods that are less affected by developmental pressures [2][3]. International working-class immigrants, subject to many of the same pressures, are following suit. This system is really difficult for an average person (or family) to game. Most people are caught in economic pressure to go either where the jobs are or shift within the same metro to find their acceptable balance between amenities and cost. And anyone willing to take a chance on cross-country relocation to some second or third-tier metro is probably being taken for a fool; by the time they read about a place being a 'great place to raise a family' it's probably already experiencing rising costs of living [4]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16744401#16746390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16744401#16746390 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17079269#17080117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17079269#17080117 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898200#16898850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898200#16898850 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898200#16899874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898200#16899874

maxxxxx 8y ago

We have policies like subsidies and others to keep food prices stable. If there was a pure free market in food we may see more food shortages or even starvation. Maybe we should think about limiting the impacts of the free market on other things like housing. Outside the US a lot of countries have realized that health care is not suitable for an unregulated free market and have taken measures accordingly. I know the US has a ton of regulation in housing and health care but none of them seem to help with affordability. Another thing to consider is to somehow discourage concentration of industry in one place. It's not healthy that there is a place that sucks up so many people because the pay is much, much higher than anywhere else.

munificent 8y ago

> what is your solution? * Progressive taxes on corporations. Use it to fund important social safety nets like healthcare. One reason people move to big cities is because the only modicum of security you have in the US today is to be in a place where there are multiple jobs in your profession. If you get fired, sorry "downsized", oops I mean "rightsized", oops, "restructured", you need to be able to find a new job fast or you'll end up on the street or dead if you get sick. One of the reasons people concentrate in large cities despite the insane rent is out of fear. * Progressive taxes on individuals. A society that allows someone to be as rich as Jeff Bezos while his own employees are barely scraping by has failed. You should, of course, be rich-er if you work harder or provide more value to society. The graph should not be flat, but the slope should not be as insanely high at one end like it is now. A billionaire could sacrifice most of their wealth without losing any measurable quality of life. Use these taxes to lower taxes on the working and middle classes and to: * Invest in significant infrastructure improvements in the urban core of mid-size cities. Thanks to automation, the balancing force that pulled people to spread across the country into small rural towns is gone. Without that, cities are the natural locus, but most don't have the infrastructure or amenities to be appealing or handle growth, so you get concentration mostly in the handful of megalopolises. Pour money into mid-size cities like Bakersfield, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Plano, and Des Moines. Fund the arts and other cultural properties that turn a city into the kind of unique place that makes people want to actually live there. Learn from Austin, Portland, and Athens. Learn from the slew of mid-sized European cities that each have their own character and feel. Acknowledge that the US is never going to function like it did in the 50s and start building the social, financial, and geographical structure needed for it to be a thriving country in the Information Age.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
I support a lot of your goals, but I think increasing taxation is a bad way to do it. Do you think the government spends money efficiently now? I don't think even the most left-leaning person could argue that. I would rather see the current welfare system made more efficient before we start giving more money to it. Our healthcare system already spends 1.5-2x more than other developed countries for similar outcomes. Addressing that would be a good place to start.

FussyZeus 8y ago

> People keep saying this, and my response is: what is your solution? Rents aren't going up (solely) because of sinister plutocratic plots; it's because people want to move to New York. Big cities are where the jobs are, and Millenials hate suburbs, so that's where white-collar workers are going. Is your plan to forbid people from moving to New York so you can freeze time in the 70's? I wasn't born until 1989 so I don't have an attachment to the 70's. I'm not saying it's even a problem, I'm just stating the fact that the prices going up on housing prices out the elements of a city that people complain are leaving. > People complaining about gentrification hem and haw when you ask them this forthright, and then try to dodge the question and pretend there's a simple solution involving rent control or millionaire taxes. But at some point you have to face facts and understand that, as long as the dynamics of the modern economy keeps favoring big cities, you can't stop gentrification without forbidding people from moving in. Actually I think taxing the corporations would be far more effective, but millionaires should be taxed too, especially the kind who keep non-primary residences in highrise buildings. The simple fact is that the wealthy people and the rich corporations just take up more space in a city, period. How many low-cost apartments could be built where the 1%'s high rise suites are now, that are only occupied 20 days out of the year? How many buildings have floors upon floors of empty space because a company doesn't need the room but doesn't want to give up their exclusive plot of land in an in-demand area? I'm not arguing for anything in particular, but the problem is all the current incentives are favoring developers to build expensive properties and living spaces in very in-demand areas, and it's causing a dearth of affordable housing that everyone claims to want but no one is ready to pay for or live near. You can't have it both ways; if you want the colorful and interesting aspects of a city, then yes, you must be ready to leave some of the money you could be making on the table and sell/rent to people who can't afford $2,500 per month in housing, or raise wages so you don't need a white collar job to afford them. Again, I don't care either way, it's not my problem to solve. I'm just stating fact. Edit: I guess the main thrust of what I'm saying is that cities know all of this, know both sides of the equation, but keep throwing up their hands at the plummeting levels of culture and "weird" that they all seem to want, whilist their lower-class residents are being evicted at insane rates to build more condos for tech workers like it's "just happening" and nobody knows why. They know exactly why, and if they really are against it, they should be pressuring their leadership to actually work on the problem instead of just blowing each other in the press for being so concerned about it while continuing to reap the rewards.