3 ms·

If more housing was the answer then NYC would not have a housing problem. The answer is not more housing.

weeksie 7y ago
This is entirely wrong. We don't build nearly enough housing in NYC and that's why our rents are so high.
Bombthecat 7y ago
Absolutely agree! In my opinion the only way is to make smaller cities attractive! No matter how high or wide you build. People want to move to cities. Except they see a chance in smaller viliages. So we need more / attractive jobs in villages and better infrastructure. Including theaters, cinemas, shops, kindergartens etc etc.
- kitsunesoba 7y ago
  Much easier said than done. For this to happen you’d have to convince multiple companies, hopefully across several industries, to risk opening offices and shops in such towns on nothing but faith that they’ll fill up in a somewhat timely manner, and then you have to convince a bunch of folks to move to these towns. Neither is particularly simple or straightforward. And of course, there also a large portion of people who have no desire to live in towns or suburbs, and these plans wouldn’t appeal to them at all. I’m personally in this camp — I’ve had enough small town for a lifetime already.
  - Bombthecat 7y ago
    I don't think it about people. In my old town a bunch of offices closed and moved to big city. They didn't hire new people. (probably also a way to get rid of old people which didn't want to commute 1 hour to the city) Also : why must it be 4 million city? Shouldn't it a 500k also enough? But right now, even those cities bled people. Moving to big cities.
    - kitsunesoba 7y ago
      For my situation at least (and likely for many who move to large cities), more people means more freedom in several ways. Better choice of jobs, often the ability to walk straight out of one job into another, more variety in social circles, more things to do, bigger dating pool, and improved likelihood that people have better things to concern themselves with than each other’s personal lives. It doesn’t come without downsides, but the negatives are comparatively trivial for many.
ajross 7y ago
Then what is the answer? People want to live in NYC, LA and the Bay Area. They need homes in the places they want to live, and if they don't get them they won't stay put: they'll move to sprawl in New Jersey, Orange County and Livermore. And those places will suck, and we'll all pay the costs in infrastructure stress. Build housing where the jobs are. That absolutely is the answer. Any other solution is isomorphic to "put the desirable jobs somewhere else", a puzzle the whole world[1] is trying to solve, and failing. Housing is something we know how to do. [1] Except for the handful of desirable cities.
conanbatt 7y ago
Lots more people happily choose to live in NYC than in SF. Clearly NYC housing structure services 10x what SF does.
TuringNYC 7y ago
NYC offers a great deal -- it squeezes 5x the Bay Area housing stock into a tiny land area by building upwards. If anything, NYC doesnt do enough. Parts where the zoning allows 12stories (e.g., Brooklyn 4th Ave) should ideally be 24 stories or more. It is a heck of a lot more efficient to stack upwards rather than stack outwards. For those who want more space, you can go outwards, but for those who value shorter commutes, you can achieve that.
summerlight 7y ago
NYC is the largest metro ever, its size is not even comparable to bay area and still keeping its rent generally lower than bay area, even living in Manhattan is cheaper than south bay. I don't see how this can be a counterexample?

This is entirely wrong. We don't build nearly enough housing in NYC and that's why our rents are so high.

Absolutely agree! In my opinion the only way is to make smaller cities attractive! No matter how high or wide you build. People want to move to cities. Except they see a chance in smaller viliages. So we need more / attractive jobs in villages and better infrastructure. Including theaters, cinemas, shops, kindergartens etc etc.

kitsunesoba 7y ago
Much easier said than done. For this to happen you’d have to convince multiple companies, hopefully across several industries, to risk opening offices and shops in such towns on nothing but faith that they’ll fill up in a somewhat timely manner, and then you have to convince a bunch of folks to move to these towns. Neither is particularly simple or straightforward. And of course, there also a large portion of people who have no desire to live in towns or suburbs, and these plans wouldn’t appeal to them at all. I’m personally in this camp — I’ve had enough small town for a lifetime already.
- Bombthecat 7y ago
  I don't think it about people. In my old town a bunch of offices closed and moved to big city. They didn't hire new people. (probably also a way to get rid of old people which didn't want to commute 1 hour to the city) Also : why must it be 4 million city? Shouldn't it a 500k also enough? But right now, even those cities bled people. Moving to big cities.
  - kitsunesoba 7y ago
    For my situation at least (and likely for many who move to large cities), more people means more freedom in several ways. Better choice of jobs, often the ability to walk straight out of one job into another, more variety in social circles, more things to do, bigger dating pool, and improved likelihood that people have better things to concern themselves with than each other’s personal lives. It doesn’t come without downsides, but the negatives are comparatively trivial for many.

ajross 7y ago

Then what is the answer? People want to live in NYC, LA and the Bay Area. They need homes in the places they want to live, and if they don't get them they won't stay put: they'll move to sprawl in New Jersey, Orange County and Livermore. And those places will suck, and we'll all pay the costs in infrastructure stress. Build housing where the jobs are. That absolutely is the answer. Any other solution is isomorphic to "put the desirable jobs somewhere else", a puzzle the whole world[1] is trying to solve, and failing. Housing is something we know how to do. [1] Except for the handful of desirable cities.

conanbatt 7y ago

Lots more people happily choose to live in NYC than in SF. Clearly NYC housing structure services 10x what SF does.

TuringNYC 7y ago

NYC offers a great deal -- it squeezes 5x the Bay Area housing stock into a tiny land area by building upwards. If anything, NYC doesnt do enough. Parts where the zoning allows 12stories (e.g., Brooklyn 4th Ave) should ideally be 24 stories or more. It is a heck of a lot more efficient to stack upwards rather than stack outwards. For those who want more space, you can go outwards, but for those who value shorter commutes, you can achieve that.

summerlight 7y ago

NYC is the largest metro ever, its size is not even comparable to bay area and still keeping its rent generally lower than bay area, even living in Manhattan is cheaper than south bay. I don't see how this can be a counterexample?