6 ms·

Good. You can't always fix housing demand with increase in supply. The streets and sidewalks and parking don't increase when the buildings get taller. After liv

Good. You can't always fix housing demand with increase in supply. The streets and sidewalks and parking don't increase when the buildings get taller. After living in NYC for 11 years, I can tell you that just adding housing makes the real city: which is everything at street level worse. I know that many people that want to increase housing in SF just want to commute to their tech jobs, but that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland: too many people in a single area can't form a cohesive community. The people who already live in SF understand this, I think. Edit: Some specifics: The things that fall apart when density is too high. Here's an article about how density is making the subway worse than ever: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/28/nyregion/subway-delays-overcrowding.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/28/nyregion/subw... Schools overcrowded: https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170921/riverdale/overcrowded-schools-nyc-class-size-matters/ https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170921/riverdale/overcrow... Traffic congestion: https://ny.curbed.com/2018/1/18/16903152/nyc-traffic-congestion-cost-analysis https://ny.curbed.com/2018/1/18/16903152/nyc-traffic-congest... Trash infrastructure overwhelmed: https://citylimits.org/2015/04/20/new-report-nyc-trash-is-worse-than-public-has-been-told/ https://citylimits.org/2015/04/20/new-report-nyc-trash-is-wo...

mikert5671 8y ago
I love NYC
matchbok 8y ago
There are two ways to fix a supply/demand curve. Increase supply or decrease demand. Obviously increasing density would require more transit options and infrastructure. Not parking. Last time I checked, NYC was still one of the most diverse and vibrant places in the world.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  We could also decrease demand.
bdhe 8y ago
You make a lot of strong assertions that don't seem obvious to me whatsoever. > but that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland: too many people in a single area can't form a cohesive community Can you elaborate what you mean by 'hellish wasteland'? What specific aspects of NYC (or even Manhattan) do you find to be a hellish wasteland? And how do you define 'too many people in a single area'?
untog 8y ago
> that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland As someone living in NYC: hahah, what?
- jtmcmc 8y ago
  NYC has been extremely dense before practically anyone on this forum was alive.
  - oftenwrong 8y ago
    Manhattan's density and population peaked around 1910. http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/uploads/content/Manhattan_Densities_High_Res,_1_January_2015.pdf http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/uploads/content/Manhattan_Den...
  - mavelikara 8y ago
    +1 Here is the actual data: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/historical-population.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/...
Eric_WVGG 8y ago
Why would you want streets and parking increased? Here's an idea: put the roads on diets, eliminate not-really-free (publicly subsidized) parking, and add density to the moon. That's what makes NYC an enthralling network of neighborhoods and communities.
- sgt 8y ago
  Someone who lived in NYC just said "that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland" Since you say it's an enthralling network of neighborhoods and communities, can I ask whether you actually live in NYC? I've been to big cities like NYC and others, and it definitely gets too crowded for me. There's clearly a desire on HN to densify, but why is that the case? Is the goal of humanity to increase demand in any particular city? Is the goal to put as many people into SF's existing area as possible?
  - Eric_WVGG 8y ago
    Yes. Seven years, it's the best place I've ever lived, completely ruined me for the rest of America. I only wish I could find a similar place with more tolerable winters.
  - Eric_WVGG 8y ago
    > There's clearly a desire on HN to densify, but why is that the case? Is the goal of humanity to increase demand in any particular city? Is the goal to put as many people into SF's existing area as possible? That’s a good question though. I don’t actually have any skin in the game regarding San Francisco, I didn’t like SF even before the social boom. But for those that do, I imagine it’s because: they don’t want their jobs to leave; they want to spend their internet riches on something other than rent; they want the other income tiers to have a decent quality of life; and they want to make San Francisco more livable. Neighborhoods and community, to me, means not being separated from people by water guzzling lawns, and not moving from place to place in hermetically sealed bubbles. Coincidentally, a feature was published today on my apartment building. There's roughly 100 units in it and I know nearly everybody. It's heaven and I wish there were more places where one could have an experience like this. https://www.freundevonfreunden.com/features/475-kent-brooklyn-new-york https://www.freundevonfreunden.com/features/475-kent-brookly...
ww520 8y ago
Hear hear. People want NYC style living should just move to NYC. SF character is what makes SF unique and people want to destroy that.
- jimbofisher1 8y ago
  Yeah I love the smell of shit in the morning and the used needles really add some spice.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Lol, NYC doesn't have enough housing either. Have you seen their rent prices? It would be wonderful if there was an actual city out there where everyone decided "hey, let's drive rent prices in the freaking ground by actually allowing high density building EVERYWHERE".
  - cameronlpmoore 8y ago
    No developers would be building if that were the case. Ever notice how every new apartment building is a "luxury" building? That's because construction costs are so high it only makes sense for developers to build if they can charge top dollar for rental prices. If the rental prices were low they wouldn't build.
    - saosebastiao 8y ago
      Construction costs aren't much higher than they have been historically. Slightly higher because of demand for things with inelastic supplies (like tower cranes), but we're talking average cost change by a few percent at most. And yes they would keep building. Land owners are the ones who gain/lose by fluctuations in demand, not developers. If demand drops and rental prices drop, land owners lower their prices that they sell to developers. This has been proven so substantially by Housing Economists that it's basically considered consensus by now. Spend some time with the Journal of Housing Economics if you would like to learn more. The real reason why developers only build luxury buildings is that they can't build enough to satisfy all demand, so the few buildings that they can build will obviously go to the types with the highest margins. If we allowed for more development, developers would still build luxury buildings as long as there was unsatiated demand for them, but they'd also build normal and affordable housing as well.
cm2187 8y ago
What some people call heaven (a nice small friendly residential neighborhood where everyone knows each others) others call hell (a small community where everyone watches each others, and that enforces a conformist lifestyle). Some people love the anonymity of NYC.
pascalxus 8y ago
people wouldn't need so much darn parking if they could live near work. This idea that people must buy housing 50 miles a way and commute over 3 hours a day must end: it's terrible for the environment and terrible for people's lives, not to mention very expensive. Sure, adding a little more supply only helps a little. But you gotta start somewhere. It's like trying to reverse CO2 polution, it takes time, but it's worth it and in the long term it is reversable. We need to keep adding more and more and more supply for the next 40 years until it gets back to a normal level. We owe this to future generations for screwing things up so terribly.

mikert5671 8y ago

I love NYC

matchbok 8y ago

There are two ways to fix a supply/demand curve. Increase supply or decrease demand. Obviously increasing density would require more transit options and infrastructure. Not parking. Last time I checked, NYC was still one of the most diverse and vibrant places in the world.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
We could also decrease demand.

bdhe 8y ago

You make a lot of strong assertions that don't seem obvious to me whatsoever. > but that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland: too many people in a single area can't form a cohesive community Can you elaborate what you mean by 'hellish wasteland'? What specific aspects of NYC (or even Manhattan) do you find to be a hellish wasteland? And how do you define 'too many people in a single area'?

untog 8y ago

> that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland As someone living in NYC: hahah, what?

jtmcmc 8y ago
NYC has been extremely dense before practically anyone on this forum was alive.
- oftenwrong 8y ago
  Manhattan's density and population peaked around 1910. http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/uploads/content/Manhattan_Densities_High_Res,_1_January_2015.pdf http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/uploads/content/Manhattan_Den...
- mavelikara 8y ago
  +1 Here is the actual data: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/historical-population.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/...

Eric_WVGG 8y ago

Why would you want streets and parking increased? Here's an idea: put the roads on diets, eliminate not-really-free (publicly subsidized) parking, and add density to the moon. That's what makes NYC an enthralling network of neighborhoods and communities.

sgt 8y ago
Someone who lived in NYC just said "that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland" Since you say it's an enthralling network of neighborhoods and communities, can I ask whether you actually live in NYC? I've been to big cities like NYC and others, and it definitely gets too crowded for me. There's clearly a desire on HN to densify, but why is that the case? Is the goal of humanity to increase demand in any particular city? Is the goal to put as many people into SF's existing area as possible?
- Eric_WVGG 8y ago
  Yes. Seven years, it's the best place I've ever lived, completely ruined me for the rest of America. I only wish I could find a similar place with more tolerable winters.
- Eric_WVGG 8y ago
  > There's clearly a desire on HN to densify, but why is that the case? Is the goal of humanity to increase demand in any particular city? Is the goal to put as many people into SF's existing area as possible? That’s a good question though. I don’t actually have any skin in the game regarding San Francisco, I didn’t like SF even before the social boom. But for those that do, I imagine it’s because: they don’t want their jobs to leave; they want to spend their internet riches on something other than rent; they want the other income tiers to have a decent quality of life; and they want to make San Francisco more livable. Neighborhoods and community, to me, means not being separated from people by water guzzling lawns, and not moving from place to place in hermetically sealed bubbles. Coincidentally, a feature was published today on my apartment building. There's roughly 100 units in it and I know nearly everybody. It's heaven and I wish there were more places where one could have an experience like this. https://www.freundevonfreunden.com/features/475-kent-brooklyn-new-york https://www.freundevonfreunden.com/features/475-kent-brookly...

ww520 8y ago

Hear hear. People want NYC style living should just move to NYC. SF character is what makes SF unique and people want to destroy that.

jimbofisher1 8y ago
Yeah I love the smell of shit in the morning and the used needles really add some spice.
stale2002 8y ago
Lol, NYC doesn't have enough housing either. Have you seen their rent prices? It would be wonderful if there was an actual city out there where everyone decided "hey, let's drive rent prices in the freaking ground by actually allowing high density building EVERYWHERE".
- cameronlpmoore 8y ago
  No developers would be building if that were the case. Ever notice how every new apartment building is a "luxury" building? That's because construction costs are so high it only makes sense for developers to build if they can charge top dollar for rental prices. If the rental prices were low they wouldn't build.
  - saosebastiao 8y ago
    Construction costs aren't much higher than they have been historically. Slightly higher because of demand for things with inelastic supplies (like tower cranes), but we're talking average cost change by a few percent at most. And yes they would keep building. Land owners are the ones who gain/lose by fluctuations in demand, not developers. If demand drops and rental prices drop, land owners lower their prices that they sell to developers. This has been proven so substantially by Housing Economists that it's basically considered consensus by now. Spend some time with the Journal of Housing Economics if you would like to learn more. The real reason why developers only build luxury buildings is that they can't build enough to satisfy all demand, so the few buildings that they can build will obviously go to the types with the highest margins. If we allowed for more development, developers would still build luxury buildings as long as there was unsatiated demand for them, but they'd also build normal and affordable housing as well.

cm2187 8y ago

What some people call heaven (a nice small friendly residential neighborhood where everyone knows each others) others call hell (a small community where everyone watches each others, and that enforces a conformist lifestyle). Some people love the anonymity of NYC.

pascalxus 8y ago

people wouldn't need so much darn parking if they could live near work. This idea that people must buy housing 50 miles a way and commute over 3 hours a day must end: it's terrible for the environment and terrible for people's lives, not to mention very expensive. Sure, adding a little more supply only helps a little. But you gotta start somewhere. It's like trying to reverse CO2 polution, it takes time, but it's worth it and in the long term it is reversable. We need to keep adding more and more and more supply for the next 40 years until it gets back to a normal level. We owe this to future generations for screwing things up so terribly.