6 ms·

Personally, I blame cities for refusing to build to accommodate the working population and for refusing to build out safe, inexpensive and comprehensive transit

Personally, I blame cities for refusing to build to accommodate the working population and for refusing to build out safe, inexpensive and comprehensive transit between homes, schools, and workplaces. It is absurd the number of one story retails blocks near major offices on LA’s Westside. Put 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom apartments and condos on top.

ttymck 3y ago
Who are "cities"? It's the people who live there and vote for the city government. We did this.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  One aspect is that often people who work there and would want to also live there don't get to vote for the city government which (through its decisions) prevents them from moving in the area where they work.
- slabity 3y ago
  That's a vacuous argument. By that logic, you can easily dismiss all problems in a democratic society since the source of the problem is "the people". In reality, there were huge misinformation and lobbyist campaigns waged by automobile manufacturers and energy companies to stop any decent public transportation projects. Even our laws on jaywalking were originally manufactured as an effort to demonize pedestrian traffic.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    i dont know about the automobile lobby but public transit projects have suffered from corruption mismanagement and awful planning as well.
  - ttymck 3y ago
    You're absolutely right. But I would argue "cities" is no less vacuous than my wording.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    No, it's not vacuous at all. "The people (who have an interest in the matter)" and "the people who live there and vote for city government" are not the same "people." That's a large part of the problem.
- acdha 3y ago
  Kind of. Power is quite disproportionate and in many areas that means that the city leadership are hearing at lot from established affluent people who see their homes as significant assets and don’t want competition. For years that combined with low voter participation made it easy to block progress because anyone affluent has a financial incentive to say they’re not a NIMBY due to race or class bias, it’s just that this one development (like every other one) is poorly designed, too big, etc. and it’s just pure coincidence that this position juices their retirement plans. What changed is that millennials and gen Z were screwed so hard that even their more affluent members are often willing to vote for people who say reform is necessary (climate change factors into this a lot, too, since even if cars were affordable and traffic wasn’t a problem we’d still have to change something).
  - ttymck 3y ago
    I couldn't agree more. I think it's disingenuous to pretend that the hacker news demographic isn't historically aligned with the NIMBY class, as you put: "affluent". Its easier to say "cities" did this than admit there's real work to be done (as you also described).
ghaff 3y ago
Plenty of people don't want to live in those cities even if they have reasonable housing options.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  That's fine? Imagine how much nicer their commutes will be when all those urbanites aren't sharing the roads at rush hour and building suburban sprawl on every hill within 50 miles. Win-win for everybody.
ekianjo 3y ago
regulation and nimbys
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Come on now. If you want to complain about it, complain about it -- give reasons and actual evidence. You don't just get to say "regulation and nimbys" and not get the down arrow.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    Evidence of what ? That Nimby and building regulations exist ? You want a proof that soap cleans stains as well ?
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      Evidence that they contribute to the problem we're discussing here. You do understand context, don't you?
janosdebugs 3y ago
I live in a European city with excellent public transport and lots of inner-city housing. The metro goes every 2-3 minutes in rush hour, but you still feel like packed sardines at 8-9 AM. Then there's the issue of noise. I used to work in a very nice office, rooms of 10-15 people. However, before 10 AM you have the cleaners going through, at 11 the overly loud chatter starts about what we are going to eat for lunch that day, which doesn't subside until 2-3 PM, etc. I have never worked in an office one could focus in. I'm very happy to have worked from home for the last 3 years in the outskirts "in the green". I'm much more productive, can make my own food in my own kitchen, and have less stress and more free time. I can go pick up the kid if I so chose when school is out and do the homework with them, working late that day. If I can help it, I will never go back to an office and it's not due to the lack of transport or living opportunities.

ttymck 3y ago

Who are "cities"? It's the people who live there and vote for the city government. We did this.

PeterisP 3y ago
One aspect is that often people who work there and would want to also live there don't get to vote for the city government which (through its decisions) prevents them from moving in the area where they work.
slabity 3y ago
That's a vacuous argument. By that logic, you can easily dismiss all problems in a democratic society since the source of the problem is "the people". In reality, there were huge misinformation and lobbyist campaigns waged by automobile manufacturers and energy companies to stop any decent public transportation projects. Even our laws on jaywalking were originally manufactured as an effort to demonize pedestrian traffic.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  i dont know about the automobile lobby but public transit projects have suffered from corruption mismanagement and awful planning as well.
- ttymck 3y ago
  You're absolutely right. But I would argue "cities" is no less vacuous than my wording.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  No, it's not vacuous at all. "The people (who have an interest in the matter)" and "the people who live there and vote for city government" are not the same "people." That's a large part of the problem.
acdha 3y ago
Kind of. Power is quite disproportionate and in many areas that means that the city leadership are hearing at lot from established affluent people who see their homes as significant assets and don’t want competition. For years that combined with low voter participation made it easy to block progress because anyone affluent has a financial incentive to say they’re not a NIMBY due to race or class bias, it’s just that this one development (like every other one) is poorly designed, too big, etc. and it’s just pure coincidence that this position juices their retirement plans. What changed is that millennials and gen Z were screwed so hard that even their more affluent members are often willing to vote for people who say reform is necessary (climate change factors into this a lot, too, since even if cars were affordable and traffic wasn’t a problem we’d still have to change something).
- ttymck 3y ago
  I couldn't agree more. I think it's disingenuous to pretend that the hacker news demographic isn't historically aligned with the NIMBY class, as you put: "affluent". Its easier to say "cities" did this than admit there's real work to be done (as you also described).

ghaff 3y ago

Plenty of people don't want to live in those cities even if they have reasonable housing options.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
That's fine? Imagine how much nicer their commutes will be when all those urbanites aren't sharing the roads at rush hour and building suburban sprawl on every hill within 50 miles. Win-win for everybody.

ekianjo 3y ago

regulation and nimbys

Paul-Craft 3y ago
Come on now. If you want to complain about it, complain about it -- give reasons and actual evidence. You don't just get to say "regulation and nimbys" and not get the down arrow.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Evidence of what ? That Nimby and building regulations exist ? You want a proof that soap cleans stains as well ?
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    Evidence that they contribute to the problem we're discussing here. You do understand context, don't you?

janosdebugs 3y ago

I live in a European city with excellent public transport and lots of inner-city housing. The metro goes every 2-3 minutes in rush hour, but you still feel like packed sardines at 8-9 AM. Then there's the issue of noise. I used to work in a very nice office, rooms of 10-15 people. However, before 10 AM you have the cleaners going through, at 11 the overly loud chatter starts about what we are going to eat for lunch that day, which doesn't subside until 2-3 PM, etc. I have never worked in an office one could focus in. I'm very happy to have worked from home for the last 3 years in the outskirts "in the green". I'm much more productive, can make my own food in my own kitchen, and have less stress and more free time. I can go pick up the kid if I so chose when school is out and do the homework with them, working late that day. If I can help it, I will never go back to an office and it's not due to the lack of transport or living opportunities.