4 ms·

Dense cities being expensive is relatively recent in the United States. It follows decades of restrictive zoning and changes at the federal level to make housin

Dense cities being expensive is relatively recent in the United States. It follows decades of restrictive zoning and changes at the federal level to make housing more of an investment. Also, don’t forget that for most of history, you could only travel on foot, by horse (or similar), or by boat. “Walkability” is a retronym; for the longest time it was the only way most people got around. Edit: Downvotes? Stay classy, HN.

ghaff 7y ago
Dense cities being expensive is also mostly a relatively recent phenomenon in the US because until about 20 years ago there was a next outflow of population in most cities. Supply is certainly part of the problem for expensive housing in some cities. But it's also driven by a significant increase in demand over a fairly short period. (And IMO it remains to be seen whether trends like remote work, autonomous vehicles, etc. end up reversing the inflow into "elite" cities.)
- iguy 7y ago
  Right, but doesn't this explain what they see just fine? The walkable parts of cities are the gentrifying cores, which are now expensive, but 30 years ago were in deep decline. Were poor, now rich, call that upward mobility to sell the paper?
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Other than that they're largely different groups of people. It's mostly young professionals displacing blue collar workers and racial minorities. With some exceptions like Manhattan, graduates of 20 to 30 years ago didn't live in city cores or often even commute to them. In my grad school class--the New Yorkers aside--almost no one I knew moved into a city. They were all out in the suburbs, which is where most of the companies they worked for were located as well.
    - iguy 7y ago
      Yea, I know. And since they track people by tax returns it can't literally be the rich newcomers who are the today datapoint. But I'm still pretty dubious about the causality they claim.
adrianmonk 7y ago
I agree some of the reasons for density are artificial. Not all of them, because the more desirable an area is, the more infill makes sense. (You see vacant lots in rundown areas, not thriving ones.) But yes, that's a real issue, and it's a disastrously bad policy if you care about the environment (because density reduces transportation energy use). However, I think the artificial restriction only magnifies the effect here. Lots of people would like to live in a dense, walkable area. If those policies weren't in effect, most people who wanted to could. But since they are, density is for those who can afford it.
kick 7y ago
News Guidelines: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ghaff 7y ago

Dense cities being expensive is also mostly a relatively recent phenomenon in the US because until about 20 years ago there was a next outflow of population in most cities. Supply is certainly part of the problem for expensive housing in some cities. But it's also driven by a significant increase in demand over a fairly short period. (And IMO it remains to be seen whether trends like remote work, autonomous vehicles, etc. end up reversing the inflow into "elite" cities.)

iguy 7y ago
Right, but doesn't this explain what they see just fine? The walkable parts of cities are the gentrifying cores, which are now expensive, but 30 years ago were in deep decline. Were poor, now rich, call that upward mobility to sell the paper?
- ghaff 7y ago
  Other than that they're largely different groups of people. It's mostly young professionals displacing blue collar workers and racial minorities. With some exceptions like Manhattan, graduates of 20 to 30 years ago didn't live in city cores or often even commute to them. In my grad school class--the New Yorkers aside--almost no one I knew moved into a city. They were all out in the suburbs, which is where most of the companies they worked for were located as well.
  - iguy 7y ago
    Yea, I know. And since they track people by tax returns it can't literally be the rich newcomers who are the today datapoint. But I'm still pretty dubious about the causality they claim.

adrianmonk 7y ago

I agree some of the reasons for density are artificial. Not all of them, because the more desirable an area is, the more infill makes sense. (You see vacant lots in rundown areas, not thriving ones.) But yes, that's a real issue, and it's a disastrously bad policy if you care about the environment (because density reduces transportation energy use). However, I think the artificial restriction only magnifies the effect here. Lots of people would like to live in a dense, walkable area. If those policies weren't in effect, most people who wanted to could. But since they are, density is for those who can afford it.

kick 7y ago

News Guidelines: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html