3 ms·

>Like build some fucking apartment buildings and run some trains to places where the jobs and housing are. It’s not that fucking complicated. Are you addressin

by jasode 8y ago

>Like build some fucking apartment buildings and run some trains to places where the jobs and housing are. It’s not that fucking complicated. Are you addressing what the author wrote because it seems like Scott Alexander says it may be more complicated than you claim. He wrote: >suppose San Francisco dectupled its housing growth for decades, until it was packed border to border with skyscrapers, and was exactly as dense as Manhattan. In a simple supply-based model, the glut of supply should make rents crash to only a few hundred dollars a month or less. But in actual Manhattan, single-bedroom apartments cost $3800 a month – even more than in San Francisco! If your theory predicts that turning a city into Manhattan will make rents plummet, then consider that turning Manhattan into Manhattan made rents much worse, and so maybe your theory is wrong.

orblivion 8y ago
I didn't buy this argument in particular (though the article in general was compelling). Housing follows jobs. It's not as though there are hedge funds there because a bunch of people with finance degrees decided to move to Manhattan. And even if such a network effect kicks in, there's a limit to what that industry can sustain. Also how many of those high rises are residential?
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >even if At least read the article man. Besides it's perfectly possible that what you posit in Manhattan is true and saying that there's a limit says nothing about how close we are to it. If that limit is far off then agglomeration effects outweighing increasing supply is still a possibility far into the future. We're willing to accept that the demand curve for labor is upward sloping - that's our justification for immigration. So why is it so hard to accept even the possibility that in certain locations the demand curve for housing is also upward sloping?
humanrebar 8y ago
He ignores that Manhattan housing growth is also terrible. He also ignores that a lot of Manhattan workers live in other burroughs, cities, and even states.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  > He also ignores that a lot of Manhattan workers live in other burroughs, cities, and even states. And this phenomenon is unknown in other cities?
  - nerfhammer 8y ago
    Manhattan's population doubles every weekday morning. Most cities do not have either a 50% or > 1 million commuter population. Is there even any other city like that?
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Yes, there are other such cities. In fact, Redmond City has, percentage-wise, an even bigger fluctuation, according to this article: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/05/most-important-population-statistic-hardly-ever-gets-talked-about/5747/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/05/most-importan...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
josefresco 8y ago
Manhattan != NYC
- emodendroket 8y ago
  NYC is huge and incorporates boroughs which could just as easily be discrete municipalities (look at the Boston metro area: cities like Brookline or Cambridge serve as easy analogues to outer boroughs).
CPLX 8y ago
That argument is total nonsense. Manhattan isn’t a discrete urban unit with its own policies. It’s the central business district, it’s a neighborhood. New York City is vast, and the actual urban area of New York more vast still. Single bedroom apartments within a short, reasonably efficient, rapid transit commute of midtown can and do go for drastically less money. The world is literally full of cities that have sane housing and transit policy. If you don’t like New York, try Barcelona or Paris as examples. The Bay Area is just an abject failure at this, and it’s getting worse. My argument stands, commenting on this topic is like watching one of those “My 600lb Life” shows or something and screaming at the TV. Sure, I get that eventually there’s subtlety to this topic, but for now maybe stop eating 15,000 calories a day. Or, in this case, stop building massive centers of employment that are 3 stories tall and surrounded by parking lots and wondering why shit isn’t working.

by jasode 8y ago

orblivion 8y ago

I didn't buy this argument in particular (though the article in general was compelling). Housing follows jobs. It's not as though there are hedge funds there because a bunch of people with finance degrees decided to move to Manhattan. And even if such a network effect kicks in, there's a limit to what that industry can sustain. Also how many of those high rises are residential?

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>even if At least read the article man. Besides it's perfectly possible that what you posit in Manhattan is true and saying that there's a limit says nothing about how close we are to it. If that limit is far off then agglomeration effects outweighing increasing supply is still a possibility far into the future. We're willing to accept that the demand curve for labor is upward sloping - that's our justification for immigration. So why is it so hard to accept even the possibility that in certain locations the demand curve for housing is also upward sloping?

humanrebar 8y ago

He ignores that Manhattan housing growth is also terrible. He also ignores that a lot of Manhattan workers live in other burroughs, cities, and even states.

emodendroket 8y ago
> He also ignores that a lot of Manhattan workers live in other burroughs, cities, and even states. And this phenomenon is unknown in other cities?
- nerfhammer 8y ago
  Manhattan's population doubles every weekday morning. Most cities do not have either a 50% or > 1 million commuter population. Is there even any other city like that?
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Yes, there are other such cities. In fact, Redmond City has, percentage-wise, an even bigger fluctuation, according to this article: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/05/most-important-population-statistic-hardly-ever-gets-talked-about/5747/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/05/most-importan...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

josefresco 8y ago

Manhattan != NYC

emodendroket 8y ago
NYC is huge and incorporates boroughs which could just as easily be discrete municipalities (look at the Boston metro area: cities like Brookline or Cambridge serve as easy analogues to outer boroughs).

CPLX 8y ago

That argument is total nonsense. Manhattan isn’t a discrete urban unit with its own policies. It’s the central business district, it’s a neighborhood. New York City is vast, and the actual urban area of New York more vast still. Single bedroom apartments within a short, reasonably efficient, rapid transit commute of midtown can and do go for drastically less money. The world is literally full of cities that have sane housing and transit policy. If you don’t like New York, try Barcelona or Paris as examples. The Bay Area is just an abject failure at this, and it’s getting worse. My argument stands, commenting on this topic is like watching one of those “My 600lb Life” shows or something and screaming at the TV. Sure, I get that eventually there’s subtlety to this topic, but for now maybe stop eating 15,000 calories a day. Or, in this case, stop building massive centers of employment that are 3 stories tall and surrounded by parking lots and wondering why shit isn’t working.