3 ms·

At a philosophical level, I am opposed to the idea of funds being able to hold onto property like a pure monetary asset. Past the primary residence, individual

by screye 5y ago

At a philosophical level, I am opposed to the idea of funds being able to hold onto property like a pure monetary asset. Past the primary residence, individual landlords have some plausible deniability for having a 2nd/3rd home. Maybe they want to return to the house one day. Maybe it is a vacation home. A lot of folks on HN are libertarian and believe in the power of the free market. When supply can be kept artificially scarce, the market stops being free. The Bay Area is a master class in this. Among developed countries, the US is uniquely incompetent at urban development. They've created unsustainable suburbs and made every attempt possible to destroy cities. What's worse, is that generations of this pattern have led to rosy eyed images of suburbs among the younger generation and a skewed perspective of what cities look like. I live in an international group home, and Americans are unique in their desire to stay in suburbs. The Europeans, South Asians and East Asians would all much prefer to stay near the 'happening parts', and even their choices of suburbs are far denser than 99% of US cities. Lastly, allowing foreign investors to snatch an essential and scarce resource from the hands of your own citizens is incompetence bordering on malice worth the dismissal of everyone involved. Trump did a lot of things wrong, but the US could learn some protectionism. (I am not even American) ________________________________ I am usually more reserved in my opinion when engaging with people whose intellect I respect. But, this is an exception. [rant] I truly believe that the NIMBY & fans of American urban planning are as objectively in the wrong as one can be on a topic with as much emotional subjectivity as housing. It is a strong accusation, but people who still vehemently oppose densification of America are brainwashed , blinded by greed or both. [\rant]

nathanaldensr 5y ago
I am neither brainwashed, nor blinded by greed, nor am I "objectively wrong." The vast array of opinions in this comment thread alone prove this topic is anything but objective. If I may borrow and turn another popular thought-terminating phrase: No, the science is not settled on this topic. I built a house a couple of years ago for two times annual income. I was responsible. I work in tech, yes, but I didn't buy my house to flip it. I bought it because I have a wife and two kids and I want my kids to live in a nice neighborhood and, overall, have a good growing-up experience. I found that here. I'm not a NIMBY; I haven't attended a single city council or planning board meeting since moving here. I take good care of my property, working the soil with my own two hands, even. I love where I live and my neighbors do, too. We get along (imagine that). Many years ago I lived in New York City, young and single, in a tiny apartment in a crappy, dirty apartment building. I wouldn't trade what I have now for that life no matter how good you say it will be. I've lived both sides--growing up in a small dairy town, moving to Manhattan, then moving on and seeking a better life in small town America. There is no need to be so hateful and bitter. There are many, many people who are not in it for greed. You just don't hear them getting loud on Hacker News because they are too busy raising families and working jobs like most of us. Try and have some empathy.
- screye 5y ago
  > hateful and bitter Agreed. I am deliberate about what things I choose to be riled up by. American planning happens to make that small list. My comment was a pure rant in a way that was unproductive. I also agree that there is nothing objective here, which is why I tried to phrase it in the 'as objective as something subjective can be' form. But I guess it was a bit convoluted. _____ Let me be specific: Post WW2 car-mandating endless suburbia built without any regard for financial or environmental sustainability is something I actively dislike. > single, in a tiny apartment in a crappy, dirty apartment building This gets to the core of the brainwashing I speak of. American cities were left to the dogs during white flight, and they haven't recovered since. There can only be one NYC in the nation. There a dozens of other ways to build sustainable & beautiful cities. NYC's subway system is pretty shabby for a city its size and the city feels haphazardly built. A lot of European capitals in comparison have wonderful examples of apartments that don't suck and subway systems that are a joy to use. I am not anti-village or even anti-suburb. There is such as thing as well built suburbs. Plus,villages are bound to be low density by their very nature. But villages also tend to be quite sustainable. Strongtowns.org have written a ton of articles on this, and notjustbikes [1] does a great job of elaborating on this. Urbanist communities have spent agonizingly long talking about the 'missing middle' [2] in housing. The options aren't NYC like shoulder to shoulder density or single family zoning. There are a plethora of options that lie in the middle. > car-mandating The car-mandating part is important too. It is one thing to want a huge house with a huge garden. It is another to protest building of non-single family homes in plots near you. Especially when asset prices continue to appreciate as wages stay flat. That's Nimbyism. It forces a village level of density on any area that's a few miles outside the downtown mandating cars as the only possible form of transport. > I love where I live and my neighbors do, too. We get along Exactly, then why not let everyone have that choice?: The choice of living in an arrangement they desire in a manner that is reasonably priced. Imagine if it was illegal for you to build a house on your own land in a manner that you desired, even when it was safe and affected no one else. That's exactly what's happened to middle housing in the US. > without any regard for financial or environmental sustainability This is my last point. After all that, the cost of maintaining low density essential public infrastructure (electricity, water, roads, etc) is much much higher than that in denser neighborhoods. This video by not-just-bikes go into detail on this point. [3] > brainwashed brainwashing is rarely implied in the literal sense. In most cases, it implies a situation where a person refuses to acknowledge negatives of a system even when it's staring them in the face. America has doomed its cities and implemented laws that strongly favor suburbs. If I grew up here, I would also think that cities were terrible too. Here, people live in cities transiently and usually in rentals. They never develop a relationship with neighbors or drop roots, because they move out the second they have their first child. > I want my kids to live in a nice neighborhood and, overall, have a good growing-up experience. The negatives of cities are very much the negatives of American cities. The many positives of American suburbs would look less great if they had to pay the real cost of maintaining their infrastructure. NotJustBikes has an entire video [4] on how sustainable cities provide a significantly better growing-up experience for children than American suburbs. I highly recommend it. People spend thousands on visiting Europeans cities for the summer. People fantasize about how dreamy such a place would be and retiring there. By all definitions, these ARE their cities. That's what cities in developed countries could've been like. Alas, the New World seems to lack the creativity to imagine such a place back home. [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A [2] https://missingmiddlehousing.com/ https://missingmiddlehousing.com/ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98&t=1s

by screye 5y ago

nathanaldensr 5y ago

I am neither brainwashed, nor blinded by greed, nor am I "objectively wrong." The vast array of opinions in this comment thread alone prove this topic is anything but objective. If I may borrow and turn another popular thought-terminating phrase: No, the science is not settled on this topic. I built a house a couple of years ago for two times annual income. I was responsible. I work in tech, yes, but I didn't buy my house to flip it. I bought it because I have a wife and two kids and I want my kids to live in a nice neighborhood and, overall, have a good growing-up experience. I found that here. I'm not a NIMBY; I haven't attended a single city council or planning board meeting since moving here. I take good care of my property, working the soil with my own two hands, even. I love where I live and my neighbors do, too. We get along (imagine that). Many years ago I lived in New York City, young and single, in a tiny apartment in a crappy, dirty apartment building. I wouldn't trade what I have now for that life no matter how good you say it will be. I've lived both sides--growing up in a small dairy town, moving to Manhattan, then moving on and seeking a better life in small town America. There is no need to be so hateful and bitter. There are many, many people who are not in it for greed. You just don't hear them getting loud on Hacker News because they are too busy raising families and working jobs like most of us. Try and have some empathy.

screye 5y ago
> hateful and bitter Agreed. I am deliberate about what things I choose to be riled up by. American planning happens to make that small list. My comment was a pure rant in a way that was unproductive. I also agree that there is nothing objective here, which is why I tried to phrase it in the 'as objective as something subjective can be' form. But I guess it was a bit convoluted. _____ Let me be specific: Post WW2 car-mandating endless suburbia built without any regard for financial or environmental sustainability is something I actively dislike. > single, in a tiny apartment in a crappy, dirty apartment building This gets to the core of the brainwashing I speak of. American cities were left to the dogs during white flight, and they haven't recovered since. There can only be one NYC in the nation. There a dozens of other ways to build sustainable & beautiful cities. NYC's subway system is pretty shabby for a city its size and the city feels haphazardly built. A lot of European capitals in comparison have wonderful examples of apartments that don't suck and subway systems that are a joy to use. I am not anti-village or even anti-suburb. There is such as thing as well built suburbs. Plus,villages are bound to be low density by their very nature. But villages also tend to be quite sustainable. Strongtowns.org have written a ton of articles on this, and notjustbikes [1] does a great job of elaborating on this. Urbanist communities have spent agonizingly long talking about the 'missing middle' [2] in housing. The options aren't NYC like shoulder to shoulder density or single family zoning. There are a plethora of options that lie in the middle. > car-mandating The car-mandating part is important too. It is one thing to want a huge house with a huge garden. It is another to protest building of non-single family homes in plots near you. Especially when asset prices continue to appreciate as wages stay flat. That's Nimbyism. It forces a village level of density on any area that's a few miles outside the downtown mandating cars as the only possible form of transport. > I love where I live and my neighbors do, too. We get along Exactly, then why not let everyone have that choice?: The choice of living in an arrangement they desire in a manner that is reasonably priced. Imagine if it was illegal for you to build a house on your own land in a manner that you desired, even when it was safe and affected no one else. That's exactly what's happened to middle housing in the US. > without any regard for financial or environmental sustainability This is my last point. After all that, the cost of maintaining low density essential public infrastructure (electricity, water, roads, etc) is much much higher than that in denser neighborhoods. This video by not-just-bikes go into detail on this point. [3] > brainwashed brainwashing is rarely implied in the literal sense. In most cases, it implies a situation where a person refuses to acknowledge negatives of a system even when it's staring them in the face. America has doomed its cities and implemented laws that strongly favor suburbs. If I grew up here, I would also think that cities were terrible too. Here, people live in cities transiently and usually in rentals. They never develop a relationship with neighbors or drop roots, because they move out the second they have their first child. > I want my kids to live in a nice neighborhood and, overall, have a good growing-up experience. The negatives of cities are very much the negatives of American cities. The many positives of American suburbs would look less great if they had to pay the real cost of maintaining their infrastructure. NotJustBikes has an entire video [4] on how sustainable cities provide a significantly better growing-up experience for children than American suburbs. I highly recommend it. People spend thousands on visiting Europeans cities for the summer. People fantasize about how dreamy such a place would be and retiring there. By all definitions, these ARE their cities. That's what cities in developed countries could've been like. Alas, the New World seems to lack the creativity to imagine such a place back home. [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A [2] https://missingmiddlehousing.com/ https://missingmiddlehousing.com/ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98&t=1s