5 ms·

This is borderline "no true scottsman". Lots of people live where they need to not where they want to. Just because a city holds more people at a lower price d

This is borderline "no true scottsman". Lots of people live where they need to not where they want to. Just because a city holds more people at a lower price doesn't make it intrinsically better planned.

parineum 5y ago
What better metric is there? If you ask people, they're bound to lie to you. What people do is much more indicative of their priorities than what they say.
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  Better is pretty subjective. But there are quite a few I'd say are also reasonable to consider. How healthy is the average person living there? How happy is the average person living there? Is the development sustainable or will it create problems in the future? Many gold rush boom towns pulled a lot of strings to get enough housing, tents, taverns or tenements to house their populations. Would we call most of those towns well planned? Even successful?
- alistairSH 5y ago
  It's probably a reasonable metric. But, it doesn't necessarily tell us why. Picking a place to live is a balancing act. Houston might have a strong enough job market to offset several other negatives (long commutes, lack of green space). Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Put another way, given the option between two suburban hell-scapes, people will pick the one that pays better. But, it's a still a suburban hell-scape. Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC).
  - parineum 5y ago
    > Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Having a job/money is big factor in quality of life and health. Having a job in Houston is a better than being homeless in a "nicer" city. I understand what you're trying to say but if you start drilling down I find the distinction you're making... I don't know how to say it exactly but I think you end up creating a place that doesn't exist when you make the comparisons. For example... > Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC). "Palatable place to live", even though it's subjective, is a perfectly good metric. However, you would rather live in DC. I know that, because you do. The way you might describe your decision is something like, "I'd move to Austin if _____." That blank can be anything, "your family lived there", "the schools were better for my kids", "my job would let me", etc. So, the solution to what would make you move to Austin was actually this hypothetical Austin with better schools. But that place isn't real, so you don't move there. Comparing all the places that are real, DC, Austin and Houston, you've chosen DC. And if the reason your in DC instead of Austin was in Houston, you may move to Houston despite your "preference" for Austin.
- nitwit005 5y ago
  People will happily move to heavily polluted cities to get a job. Should we infer they enjoy pollution? You're absolutely right that people won't always answer polls seriously or honestly, but it's fairly clear people will put up with awful situations if it will help their family out, so looking at their actions isn't a reliable indicator either.
  - parineum 5y ago
    No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. The metric is that they _do_ prefer that city to others. If you want to remove certain factors you can see what different populations do instead. For instance, if you want to remove economic factors, just look where the super rich retired people live.
    - DubiousPusher 5y ago
      > No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. You're joking right. Like you think people actually weigh this in their choice? If history has taught us anything it's that people will let themselves be poisoned to make a buck without much thought for the long term consequences. The costs of that poor choice are often externalized onto others. The whims of capitalism are one way to approach a housing crisis but I see no evidence to suggest they are the only or best way. And you'll have to forgive me if I appreciate that the people in my city government consider more factors than the immediate ability to cram more people in a the lowest possible cost when making planning decisions. Nimbyism is a scourge no doubt but our choice isn't only between nimbyism and capitalism run amok. I live in a town with identifiable neighborhoods and a community centered downtown. I moved here for those things. A little density certainly wouldn't hurt but there's no need to let my neighbor open a motel or a nightclub next door.
bpodgursky 5y ago
I don't really understand this. Houston didn't grow because of natural population growth (at least, mostly not). It grew because people wanted to move there, jobs were good, and housing was (relatively) cheap. It's what people wanted. How could you possibly indict this?
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  > wanted to move there Correction. It grew because lots of people did move there. People move despite their personal feelings all the time.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  I lived in SF for a couple years but I sure didn't want to live there. I went where the jobs were.
  - davidw 5y ago
    Well, you wanted to live where there were a lot of jobs. Not everyone made that choice. I've worked as a programmer in Italy, Austria and now Oregon. So maybe you didn't "want" to live there, but you chose to. Same with Houston, just that it's also accessible to people who aren't making tons of money as software engineers.
    - throwawayfrauds 5y ago
      Most people don’t have the options that programmers do when it comes to jobs and homes, especially people who live in Houston.
      - davidw 5y ago
        Right - the SF Bay Area has a housing policy that excludes people who don't have the means that programmers do. Houston does not.
- site-packages1 5y ago
freewilly1040 5y ago
It’s a useful metric in this age where failing to plan for growth is endemic in American cities. What’s an alternative? A city that is highly desirable but does not grow is a playground for the rich.
JamesBarney 5y ago
They live where they choose to live, and affordability is a one of the biggest factors in that decision. If you make $40,000 in a lot cities you need to live in someone else's closet. But in Houston you can buy a house, raise a family and even go out to some of the cities nicest bars and restaurants occasionally.

parineum 5y ago

What better metric is there? If you ask people, they're bound to lie to you. What people do is much more indicative of their priorities than what they say.

DubiousPusher 5y ago
Better is pretty subjective. But there are quite a few I'd say are also reasonable to consider. How healthy is the average person living there? How happy is the average person living there? Is the development sustainable or will it create problems in the future? Many gold rush boom towns pulled a lot of strings to get enough housing, tents, taverns or tenements to house their populations. Would we call most of those towns well planned? Even successful?
alistairSH 5y ago
It's probably a reasonable metric. But, it doesn't necessarily tell us why. Picking a place to live is a balancing act. Houston might have a strong enough job market to offset several other negatives (long commutes, lack of green space). Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Put another way, given the option between two suburban hell-scapes, people will pick the one that pays better. But, it's a still a suburban hell-scape. Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC).
- parineum 5y ago
  > Money is a strong motivator, but doesn't always make for a better QoL or healthier existence. Having a job/money is big factor in quality of life and health. Having a job in Houston is a better than being homeless in a "nicer" city. I understand what you're trying to say but if you start drilling down I find the distinction you're making... I don't know how to say it exactly but I think you end up creating a place that doesn't exist when you make the comparisons. For example... > Personally, I find Austin a much more palatable place to live than Houston (though I continue to remain in DC). "Palatable place to live", even though it's subjective, is a perfectly good metric. However, you would rather live in DC. I know that, because you do. The way you might describe your decision is something like, "I'd move to Austin if _____." That blank can be anything, "your family lived there", "the schools were better for my kids", "my job would let me", etc. So, the solution to what would make you move to Austin was actually this hypothetical Austin with better schools. But that place isn't real, so you don't move there. Comparing all the places that are real, DC, Austin and Houston, you've chosen DC. And if the reason your in DC instead of Austin was in Houston, you may move to Houston despite your "preference" for Austin.
nitwit005 5y ago
People will happily move to heavily polluted cities to get a job. Should we infer they enjoy pollution? You're absolutely right that people won't always answer polls seriously or honestly, but it's fairly clear people will put up with awful situations if it will help their family out, so looking at their actions isn't a reliable indicator either.
- parineum 5y ago
  No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. The metric is that they _do_ prefer that city to others. If you want to remove certain factors you can see what different populations do instead. For instance, if you want to remove economic factors, just look where the super rich retired people live.
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago
    > No but we can infer that the level of pollution is at an acceptable level for them to prefer that city. You're joking right. Like you think people actually weigh this in their choice? If history has taught us anything it's that people will let themselves be poisoned to make a buck without much thought for the long term consequences. The costs of that poor choice are often externalized onto others. The whims of capitalism are one way to approach a housing crisis but I see no evidence to suggest they are the only or best way. And you'll have to forgive me if I appreciate that the people in my city government consider more factors than the immediate ability to cram more people in a the lowest possible cost when making planning decisions. Nimbyism is a scourge no doubt but our choice isn't only between nimbyism and capitalism run amok. I live in a town with identifiable neighborhoods and a community centered downtown. I moved here for those things. A little density certainly wouldn't hurt but there's no need to let my neighbor open a motel or a nightclub next door.

bpodgursky 5y ago

I don't really understand this. Houston didn't grow because of natural population growth (at least, mostly not). It grew because people wanted to move there, jobs were good, and housing was (relatively) cheap. It's what people wanted. How could you possibly indict this?

DubiousPusher 5y ago
> wanted to move there Correction. It grew because lots of people did move there. People move despite their personal feelings all the time.
seattle_spring 5y ago
I lived in SF for a couple years but I sure didn't want to live there. I went where the jobs were.
- davidw 5y ago
  Well, you wanted to live where there were a lot of jobs. Not everyone made that choice. I've worked as a programmer in Italy, Austria and now Oregon. So maybe you didn't "want" to live there, but you chose to. Same with Houston, just that it's also accessible to people who aren't making tons of money as software engineers.
  - throwawayfrauds 5y ago
    Most people don’t have the options that programmers do when it comes to jobs and homes, especially people who live in Houston.
    - davidw 5y ago
      Right - the SF Bay Area has a housing policy that excludes people who don't have the means that programmers do. Houston does not.
site-packages1 5y ago

freewilly1040 5y ago

It’s a useful metric in this age where failing to plan for growth is endemic in American cities. What’s an alternative? A city that is highly desirable but does not grow is a playground for the rich.

JamesBarney 5y ago

They live where they choose to live, and affordability is a one of the biggest factors in that decision. If you make $40,000 in a lot cities you need to live in someone else's closet. But in Houston you can buy a house, raise a family and even go out to some of the cities nicest bars and restaurants occasionally.