5 ms·

> I held out a small hope that covid and the remote-work wave would stem things a little bit, but it's hard to say whether that's happened. If anything, the inf

> I held out a small hope that covid and the remote-work wave would stem things a little bit, but it's hard to say whether that's happened. If anything, the influx could have increased due to the exodus from SF. This is exactly what we're seeing in the Seattle area. A lot of people in the various circles I'm in thought, as we entered the early stages of this pandemic really settling in for the long-haul, "well, phew, at least it'll put a breather on housing costs." Nope. Because of the "work wherever you want" and Seattle and Puget Sound still being a wonderfully attractive place to live, the pace has accelerated. Housing prices here have shot up by double-digit numbers, even inside the city limits from which people are supposedly "fleeing." Both the north and south ends of Seattle, even West Seattle where the main road link has been severed for a year (as of today), have seen massive upticks. The Department of Licensing has released statistics that show that the number of California driving licenses and vehicle titles exchanged for Washington ones is the second-highest it's been in ten years, with only 2018 being higher, and that's with most DOL offices being closed or heavily restricted due to in-person limits from the virus. (The influx of cars isn't going to do our "pristine environment" any favors, either, and I look forward to the even-louder rants about how terrible traffic is driving by oneself from Marysville to Queen Anne for a hockey game). Meanwhile, people around here continue to insist that building is bad and, I shit you not, that if we simply don't build then the people will stop coming. I don't know why anyone still thinks this; it hasn't been true for twenty years, why should now be any different? And the new arrivals aren't keen on building more or making sure newer arrivals have space because, well, they moved here, to this spot because they liked it that way and, gosh-darn-it, this space is going to stay like this forever. It's getting quite frustrating. After many, many years of waiting and hoping and moving around, I finally live near where a light rail station will be opening in the coming year-ish and I fear, even on my moderately good tech salary, I'm not going to be able to afford to live here before the train arrives, or shortly thereafter.

brundolf 6y ago
Similar feelings here. I simply don't know where else to go; it seems like every nice-to-live-in medium-sized city that isn't SF is going through this same song and dance. Money comes in like a flock of locusts, consumes the city, and SF is one of the first examples we're seeing of the husk that gets left behind. Then they move on to the next one. Where's a person supposed to lay down roots, without retreating deep into a suburb? I don't need or want a job at FAANG or the next "unicorn"; I'm happy with my normal tech job/income and the life it affords. Why couldn't those things stay confined somewhere else and leave the rest of us in peace?
- adjkant 6y ago
  Odd answer, but go to the megacities that show resilience and are building housing. In the US, so far that may only be NYC. I know that's not amazing to hear if you have other reservations about NYC, but I think it's the reality until mid-sized cities catch on and get their shit together. The other answer IMO is to pick a city no one in tech is even thinking about, and the growth rate is expected to be slow. Not to jynx them but places like Cleveland, Richmond VA, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Detroit, Columbus, San Antonio, Milwaulkee, etc. Personally, I far prefer the megacity, but that second list is a potential option. From an urban development perspective, to me it seems that the best course of action would be a massive federal investment in existing mid-sized cities. Build large public transit networks in some of these becoming desirable cities and distribute the strain tech is putting on our urban centers. Massively increase housing density, but with this foresight, avoid doing the short term luxury development that won't hold up longterm and build some old fashioned 3-5 story brownstones. The risk is that the people never come, but the alternative is the consistent hollowing out of all major US cities. Something has to give.
  - peytn 6y ago
    DFW is another such megacity. The construction happening there reminds me of parts of China.
    - techsupporter 6y ago
      The problem is, from my perspective (and having lived there), the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex is neither resilient nor a megacity. Outside of the 635 and 820 loops, it is just suburban sprawl that gets scorching hot in the summer and everyone who lives there has to be reliant on a car. DFW is going to be in a world of hurt when the water runs out and that day is coming somewhat soon. There are already places in central Texas where the aquifers are dry and the lakes don't refill during the formerly-rainy season. North Texas is reliant on a set of manmade lakes that are already slower and slower to refill, with more and more taps being added every year.
    - brundolf 6y ago

brundolf 6y ago

Similar feelings here. I simply don't know where else to go; it seems like every nice-to-live-in medium-sized city that isn't SF is going through this same song and dance. Money comes in like a flock of locusts, consumes the city, and SF is one of the first examples we're seeing of the husk that gets left behind. Then they move on to the next one. Where's a person supposed to lay down roots, without retreating deep into a suburb? I don't need or want a job at FAANG or the next "unicorn"; I'm happy with my normal tech job/income and the life it affords. Why couldn't those things stay confined somewhere else and leave the rest of us in peace?

adjkant 6y ago
Odd answer, but go to the megacities that show resilience and are building housing. In the US, so far that may only be NYC. I know that's not amazing to hear if you have other reservations about NYC, but I think it's the reality until mid-sized cities catch on and get their shit together. The other answer IMO is to pick a city no one in tech is even thinking about, and the growth rate is expected to be slow. Not to jynx them but places like Cleveland, Richmond VA, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Detroit, Columbus, San Antonio, Milwaulkee, etc. Personally, I far prefer the megacity, but that second list is a potential option. From an urban development perspective, to me it seems that the best course of action would be a massive federal investment in existing mid-sized cities. Build large public transit networks in some of these becoming desirable cities and distribute the strain tech is putting on our urban centers. Massively increase housing density, but with this foresight, avoid doing the short term luxury development that won't hold up longterm and build some old fashioned 3-5 story brownstones. The risk is that the people never come, but the alternative is the consistent hollowing out of all major US cities. Something has to give.
- peytn 6y ago
  DFW is another such megacity. The construction happening there reminds me of parts of China.
  - techsupporter 6y ago
    The problem is, from my perspective (and having lived there), the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex is neither resilient nor a megacity. Outside of the 635 and 820 loops, it is just suburban sprawl that gets scorching hot in the summer and everyone who lives there has to be reliant on a car. DFW is going to be in a world of hurt when the water runs out and that day is coming somewhat soon. There are already places in central Texas where the aquifers are dry and the lakes don't refill during the formerly-rainy season. North Texas is reliant on a set of manmade lakes that are already slower and slower to refill, with more and more taps being added every year.
  - brundolf 6y ago