5 ms·

In a well-functioning city, a head chef should be able to comfortably afford to rent a 2-3 bedroom apartment within walking distance of their restaurant. They s

• ericmay 4y ago
  You can, just move out of Capitol Hill in Seattle which is one of the most desirable areas in one of the most desirable cities located in one of the most desirable geographies in the wealthiest country on earth. This place looks nice! https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2742-Lincoln-St-NE-Minneapolis-MN-55418/1803735_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2742-Lincoln-St-NE-Minnea...
  • amyamyamy2 4y ago
    Most people are not willing to move away from all of their family, friends, and career. Software engineers are uniquely privileged in that we can work remotely, many, many other careers cannot do that
    • ericmay 4y ago
      Remote isn't available for all tech employees (software or otherwise) and historically we have advocated that people move to places like the Bay Area to obtain corresponding higher wages (I have to move to California and uproot all of my friends, family, and career ??). YCombinator itself famously required(s) entrepreneurs to uproot their friends, family, and career to move to the Bay Area. At the end of the day people can make the right mix of economic and sociological choices that they want. But what's not going to happen is everyone in Seattle gets a 2-3 bedroom house and you can make peace with that fact of life or continue to be frustrated.
  • sbarre 4y ago
    And where would that chef work then? Should they simply give up on their own ambitions and career goals?
    • ericmay 4y ago
      I've only ever been to the airport, but I imagine there are great restaurants and innovative career-oriented chefs in Minneapolis too.
      • OnlineGladiator 4y ago
        You're essentially saying Seattle is too expensive for chefs to live in, which means it's too expensive for nice restaurants, which means it's too expensive to function. Now extend your own logic to teachers, service workers, etc.
        • kevviiinn 4y ago
          The Free Market(tm) has decided we don't need teachers, obviously
          • hd95489 4y ago
            At some point it would if no teachers would work in Seattle
            • AstralStorm 4y ago
              Market will move instead to where it is reasonably cheap and labor is available, leaving a ghost town behind. Ultimately this results in high concentration. There's literally no force compelling it to invest in a failing area, or one perceived to be failing.
          • Izikiel43 4y ago
            > The Free Market(tm) If it was a true free market, housing wouldn't be an issue because developers wouldn't be forbidden from building density. Capitol hill is a disaster for city living as most of it are single family homes, whereas they should be 5 story condo buildings.
            • 4y ago
  • Forgeties79 4y ago
    The people who build, own, and operate the very luxury services (such as culinary destinations) that contribute to an area's reputation as "one of the most desirable areas in one of the most desirable cities located in one of the most desirable geographies in the wealthiest country on earth" should be able to afford living there.
    • thepasswordis 4y ago
      >should Why?
      • mrWiz 4y ago
        >Why? Because if they leave then they will no longer contribute to the area's desirable reputation.
        • pb7 4y ago
          But they can commute in like many people do, right?
          • mrWiz 4y ago
            Yes, to an extent. Commuting adds friction to working there, and if it becomes too much of a burden then people are likely to relocate. And in this specific case (head chef at a popular bar) living in the neighborhood allows him to keep abreast of other bars, local trends, etc which benefits his work.
        • hd95489 4y ago
          In the free market they will leave and get replaced. Or enough will leave and wages will go up
      • Forgeties79 4y ago
        My comment contains the "why" already.
    • deleted 4y ago
  • mzmzmzm 4y ago
    The studio is worth it if you're walking to your restaurant 6 or 7 days a week and checking out other neighborhood hot spots. If you're commuting to an office tower a few days and on Zoom or hiking the rest, it's not. And of course if you make it easier or harder to drive to the office (and consequently worse or better to get around on foot) the prices would shift to reflect that, a good example of how the crisis Andre Cooper is writing about hamstrings unrelated things like transportation policy.
  • whymauri 4y ago
    There are many cities in the world where a head chef can live in the desirable neighborhood within a desirable city while working at their desirable restaurant. For example, the owners of a local wine bar where I live in Bogota are able to operate a wine bar below their apartment with relaxed zoning laws. Just not possible in the U.S. Not just high-end restaurant jobs. The local owner of the ferreteria (home repair goods) lives above his store as does a window/glass store owner. And this is in a relatively pricey, high end neighborhood. In other neighborhoods is even more common. My family recently sold a restaurant in Bogota and the new owners are converting the top floor into a home for themselves.
  • djmips 4y ago
    But then you'd have to live in Minneapolis?
    • jimbokun 4y ago
      Which is maybe why rent in Seattle is so relatively expensive?
    • recursive 4y ago
      Instead of Seattle? What's the catch?
    • bluGill 4y ago
      I grew up there. It is a good place to live: education is valued, lots of nice people, many good jobs. The weather isn't the best in winter, but if you know how to put on a coat it isn't that bad.
      • djmips 4y ago
        Why don't you still live there?
        • bluGill 4y ago
          Got a job elsewhere a couple downturns back.
  • swatcoder 4y ago
    I'm not sure if you meant to, since you seemed to be talking framing it around individual choice, but you've just made the case that something is fundamentally damning the economy in cities like Seattle. That's exactly why issues like housing affordability need to be identified and treated at the systemic level. If people can't satisfyingly live near their work, then they can't work there, and then the work can't be done. If workers has to move to another state to practice their craft, a city needs to proactively recognize and address the problem if they want to avoid a coming blight.
    • ericmay 4y ago
      Well because individual choice and governance choices both exist simultaneously and dynamically. In this particular case, though, I think the thing that is daming Seattle (and similar locations: Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Denver, Aspen, anywhere remotely desirable) is geography and climate and there isn't much you can do to fix that because you can't create new geography out of thin air. "Ohio is so boring", "I need to be near mountains and fresh air", "I like to surf", "I love to hike" are all things that can't be effectively replicated and so wherever those things exist prices will skyrocket relative to other locations. Can Seattle literally build more? Yes. Will that solve Seattle's housing affordability problems? No it won't. In the short term interest rates and cost to build mean that most units will be higher end. Certainly won't mean a 2-3br house anyway. In the long-term unless something drastically changes Seattle is just desirable and there will be many more people who want to live there than there will be homes unless we could just snap our fingers and create new housing, nevermind governance issues, it just isn't happening folks. I do empathize though. Please don't mistake my comments for callousness. But sometimes the truth (as I see it) just needs to be state. If you want to work as a chef and afford a 2br house it just is not happening in Seattle and you should make peace with that.
  • lukeschlather 4y ago
    I can afford to live in Seattle because I make more than a head chef. I would like my city to be affordable to head chefs, since I have friends who are. Seattle is a very nice place and I would like it to be easier for my friends to live here and not be forced to move away, since it makes the city worse and I'd rather the city become an even more desirable place in years to come.
    • ericmay 4y ago
      > I'd rather the city become an even more desirable place in years to come. This is the problem and partially (mostly maybe) why Seattle and other “cool” cities are in the position they are in now. If Seattle was undesirable like, idk, Gary, Indiana then you’d be able to get your friends there and a head chef can buy a house and such. But then it’s Gary. That’s the dichotomy that Seattle and other cities face. Can’t escape it. What you are asking for and wanting just isn’t realistic. Imagine if I came up to you tomorrow and said I’d like to live with an ocean view in Santa Barbara in a walkable neighborhood with street cars and all my friends and family could afford to live there with a 3br house and the chef makes a lot of money and has this killer restaurant… you know that’s not going to happen. Seattle isn’t any different.
      • lukeschlather 4y ago
        I don't agree. We basically ban people from living in the city with zoning, and even to the extent that the problem isn't zoning we could treat housing more like we treat other public services (electricity) and just make sure that it's available. There's no natural law that things have to be this way, it's a choice that we make and I think it is reasonable to ask it to change. Nobody bats an eye when we build substations to support the lights in the restaurant, but building homes for the workers is "not realistic."
        • ericmay 4y ago
          I know you don’t agree, but the results speak for themselves. I do agree that things don’t “have to be this way” but where I’d differ is that to solve the problem the vast majority of Americans or Seattle residents would disagree with how to solve that problem. You’d have to do something like tax people at 50-60% or their income to pay for the new housing and it just won’t work. Zoning slows down development sure but so do environmental review processes and such. Also even if new development was instantly approved it takes time to build and developers have to spend so much money on the land that they just build very expensive apartments or condos. But this doesn’t alleviate price pressure because the demand to live in Seattle is too high. The evidence is that like in the OP a chef at a top restaurant is living miserably in a 400sqft apartment just to be in Seattle instead of leaving to alleviate their own dissatisfaction. I’d also personally avoid framing things as such “build homes for the workers” because it implies a very top-down industrial capitalist or communist viewpoint that I think many are resistant to. Like water flows through the path of least resistance the easy solution here is people are just going to put up with it or move. If it’s a burden I recommend moving. If you think there is hope with price pressure relief you only have to look to Manhattan, because that’s the future you are facing in my opinion. -edit- For the example I can’t think of any tier-1 city that has gotten less expensive over time (please do not cite Tokyo or Japan) except maybe Chicago and even then I doubt that it has really gotten cheaper versus just not as expensive as fast as peer cities.
• hahla 4y ago
  I just pulled up plenty of 2bd rentals on zillow for under $2,500 with a short commute. Am I missing something here? Or does being a head chef mean you should be able to afford rent on top of the restaurant you serve?
• jimbokun 4y ago
  When, and in what city, has that ever been the case? I haven't been to Seattle, but in major cities space is at a major premium and many dwellings are tiny. This is offset by the amenities living in a prominent city have to offer.
  • Forgeties79 4y ago
    Why does it matter if it’s ever been the case? Is that adequate justification why things shouldn’t be some way? You're basically saying "it's fine because that's the way it has always been," which I don't think I need to explain is not a particularly compelling argument.
• turtlebits 4y ago
  That sounds more of a problem of low wages than housing affordability. Also, in these times of title inflation, "head chef" could apply to many positions depending on the size of the restaurant.