5 ms·

That's a very particular perspective and I don't think it tells us a useful truth. While big cities definitely have this game of musical chairs, they already ha

That's a very particular perspective and I don't think it tells us a useful truth. While big cities definitely have this game of musical chairs, they already have lots of housing per sqkm. Yet, they all seem to have a housing crisis. Also, housing has a lower price limit. Adding more housing is expensive. Building new housing will always be more expensive than, say, ten years ago. It will also be the more expensive the higher you build. This premium needs to be paid for by rent. Thus, new housing will never filter completely to the bottom, unless the owners go bankrupt. Cities attract ever more people and that's the core reason of the housing crisis. Ironically, housing, and generally the lack of space, is one of the few factors that actually repulse migration into a city. Ease it and migration will increase, worsening the space (and housing) problem again, probably to a new level. I would argue that it's pointless to try to "solve" that problem, as long as cities profit from ever more people living in them and people economically profit from moving into or close to cities. Any attempt to mitigate the problem will only lead to more migration into the cities, forming a vicious cycle. One "solution" would of course be to let housing become completely unaffordable (e.g., just stop increasing or even actively decrease housing). Areas then become uninhabited by normal people. For certain areas this seems to be largely accepted: I don't think anyone has complained lately about the housing crisis in London's financial district. Another option would be to make it completely unattractive to actually live in a city. One could, for instance, restrict all buildings to single-bedroom apartments by law, move schools to the outside if the city, etc. People might then spend the night there, but will hardly live there. The interesting question should be: Why do people pay as much as they do today to live inside a big city? What makes it so much more attractive than living 5km further outside with 5-10 times the space per person?

brianl047 4y ago
Cities provide concentration of services that people need. No city, no services. They also provide concentration of jobs, and concentration of people. For an extreme example you can't have the full set of services for 1 person in the middle of nowhere without an impossible cost. So it all depends how independent you are from everything and everyone. If you have complex medical needs or need to be around certain people also in the city, you might have to live in the city. Homeless and mentally ill get treated by programs and services that can be afforded by major cities (small towns apocryphally throw homeless on a bus to the big city to fix their homeless problems).
- malandrew 4y ago
  Major cities would better serve the homeless and mentally ill by spending those dollars outside the city in low cost of living places. First their dollars will go further and they’ll be able to either support more people or they can support the same number of people better. Second, you put the homeless and mentally ill in places that are less competitive where they have a greater chance of being able to get back on their own two feet and support themselves. Educated college graduates struggle to thrive in cities like SF and NYC. If those folks have a hard time, there’s no hope for the homeless and mentally ill, so you’re just keeping them in a place where they have no chance of achieving independence. It’s inhumane really.
yucky 4y ago
The part left unsaid here is that there is plenty of affordable housing even in most cities, people just don't want to live in "those neighborhoods" until they are properly gentrified, at which point the housing is too expensive again. And they definitely don't want to hear it when you show them tons of 1,000 sq ft starter homes in the $50k-$100k range because they can't walk to 3 microbreweries and an art gallery from there.

brianl047 4y ago

Cities provide concentration of services that people need. No city, no services. They also provide concentration of jobs, and concentration of people. For an extreme example you can't have the full set of services for 1 person in the middle of nowhere without an impossible cost. So it all depends how independent you are from everything and everyone. If you have complex medical needs or need to be around certain people also in the city, you might have to live in the city. Homeless and mentally ill get treated by programs and services that can be afforded by major cities (small towns apocryphally throw homeless on a bus to the big city to fix their homeless problems).

malandrew 4y ago
Major cities would better serve the homeless and mentally ill by spending those dollars outside the city in low cost of living places. First their dollars will go further and they’ll be able to either support more people or they can support the same number of people better. Second, you put the homeless and mentally ill in places that are less competitive where they have a greater chance of being able to get back on their own two feet and support themselves. Educated college graduates struggle to thrive in cities like SF and NYC. If those folks have a hard time, there’s no hope for the homeless and mentally ill, so you’re just keeping them in a place where they have no chance of achieving independence. It’s inhumane really.

yucky 4y ago

The part left unsaid here is that there is plenty of affordable housing even in most cities, people just don't want to live in "those neighborhoods" until they are properly gentrified, at which point the housing is too expensive again. And they definitely don't want to hear it when you show them tons of 1,000 sq ft starter homes in the $50k-$100k range because they can't walk to 3 microbreweries and an art gallery from there.