5 ms·

How the ‘urban doom loop’ could pose the next economic threat

26 points by marban 3y ago

linusg789 3y ago
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/nMNjd https://ghostarchive.org/archive/nMNjd
shortrounddev2 3y ago
It seems like cities spent so much time building themselves up as places where you had to live and not where you want to live. The knock-on effects of people no longer working in downtowns (restaurants which served office workers, retail serving people who got a house/apartment near the office drying up) would not be as pronounced if downtowns were just naturally good places to live in, but they're not. The most common reasons I hear that people move out of the city once they go fully remote is: 1. Price. Cities have become way to expensive to live in, especially big ones like NYC and SF. 2. Crime. Crime has risen since 2020 and many feel their city officials are doing nothing about it (see the recall of Chesa Boudin in San Francisco). Those with families often flee to the suburbs 3. Homelessness. Some cities are plagued with homelessness, and some downtown areas have had their sidewalks turned into tent cities (this relates to issue #1 and #2). 4. Noise and environment. This is not universal, since many cities developed differently. But some cities focused all of their infrastructure on roads and car-centric development, which has led to loud neighborhoods with lots of traffic going through them. Loud engines and honking can make the city a very stressful place to live. Additionally, a lot of cities are really lacking in greenery. Where I lived in the suburbs was full of trees and grass and plants. Where I now live is like concrete hell. There are other, older parts of the city I live in which have a nice tree canopy over the sidewalks and streets that give the city its southern feel. Other cities relegate all nature to designated spots in public parks, where some people don't feel safe due to #2 and #3. I think if cities want their downtowns to thrive again, they need more of a selling point than "you work here, so you have to spend your money here". The 15-minute city movement, zoning and housing deregulation, and the push for more public transportation can turn mid-size American cities into the great places that they used to be, and people will choose to live there
- closeparen 3y ago
  High prices reflect demand greater than supply. As much as I can also find things to complain about in urban living, it does not suffer from a lack of desirability.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
  - shortrounddev2 3y ago
    Then we have nothing to fear about emptying out cities and shrinking tax bases going to the suburbs. People will continue to live in the cities they do because they're great places to live. Case closed!
    - closeparen 3y ago
      Cities also depend on tax revenue from commercial properties & businesses that primarily serve commuters. It's an issue, but distinct from where people choose to live.
      - shortrounddev2 3y ago
        It's not all about tax revenue, it's also about economic activity. If people who previously spent money in downtown areas on retail and food no longer have any reason to go to downtown areas, then jobs in those downtown areas will disappear. But if people continue to drive or commute out of their way or live in a more expensive city because they just really really like that city, then there will be no problem. My hypothesis is that most people do not want to live in these cities, for the reasons I mentioned above, and if we want to save the jobs that are now at risk because of these knock-on effects, then we need to make cities more livable for people and less drivable
        closeparen 3y ago
datadrivenangel 3y ago
Not my problem if working remotely from a better location causes an urban doom loop.
gumballindie 3y ago
The type of news about why remote work is harmful should make it clear to everyone just how corrupt the media is. Real estate bros losing money due to people working remotely have simply directed news outlets to criticise the practice. Just like that. Now imagine if such a trivial matter has been so easily manipulated how everything else in our lives is controled by media corruption and their benefactors, ranging from health, to politics, wars, pandemics, etc.
- westmeal 3y ago
  That's exactly right, and depending upon which outlet you choose there are different industry bros directing shit flinging at different boogeymen. It's tiresome.
- jdlshore 3y ago
  > Real estate bros… directed news outlets to criticise the practice. What evidence do you have for this? It sounds like conspiracy thinking to me.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html I've seen the term "submarine article" used to describe PR-encouraged articles. Practically, they're not "directing" news outlets but they are "informing" them in likely biased ways.
    - gumballindie 3y ago
      From the blog post: "Our startup spent its entire marketing budget on PR: at a time when we were assembling our own computers to save money, we were paying a PR firm $16,000 a month." Wondering how much real estate bros are paying to promote the archaic, regressive, idea of working on site.
    - jdlshore 3y ago
      That is not evidence for this particular claim.
__loam 3y ago
It's pretty interesting that a lot of the people claiming there's an urban doom loop in places like SF, David Sacks for example, are also owners of commercial real estate in those same cities.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  or more bluntly, the loose-lipped, female blonde middle-aged Bay Area suburban City Council member making national headlines with anti-housing law statements. It is just as simple as "speaking out on topics that effect an entire population" in naked self-interest. The USA has bred a population of not "Me-First", but now "Me-Only" and money is the stage to stand on.. To be more serious, actual analysis is done by civil-society minded people often at University, by serious real estate professionals and urban planners such as the UCLA Ziman Real Estate Center, and by analysts at major investment firms. But those people are not getting to the modern "front page" The current local news cycle is toxic -- surprise
- arp242 3y ago
  David Sacks is not mentioned in the article at all.
  - __loam 3y ago
    I'm aware.
migf 3y ago
Does this mean we're gonna get more weirdo art / music spaces? Cool
Ancalagon 3y ago
Oh no, won’t anyone think of the tax revenue (obviously never going to where it was intended). Anyways…
renewiltord 3y ago
Loopnet has very few properties under a million. I think SF can take some commercial RE valuation hit.
robbywashere_ 3y ago
Well hmm yeah I don’t know maybe if you designed cities for habitation FIRST and not just parking and driving the utility would protect it from this sort of fragility
- notjustanymike 3y ago
  I tend to agree with this line of thinking, but it's a difficult problem to fix retroactively.

26 points by marban 3y ago

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/nMNjd https://ghostarchive.org/archive/nMNjd

It seems like cities spent so much time building themselves up as places where you had to live and not where you want to live. The knock-on effects of people no longer working in downtowns (restaurants which served office workers, retail serving people who got a house/apartment near the office drying up) would not be as pronounced if downtowns were just naturally good places to live in, but they're not. The most common reasons I hear that people move out of the city once they go fully remote is: 1. Price. Cities have become way to expensive to live in, especially big ones like NYC and SF. 2. Crime. Crime has risen since 2020 and many feel their city officials are doing nothing about it (see the recall of Chesa Boudin in San Francisco). Those with families often flee to the suburbs 3. Homelessness. Some cities are plagued with homelessness, and some downtown areas have had their sidewalks turned into tent cities (this relates to issue #1 and #2). 4. Noise and environment. This is not universal, since many cities developed differently. But some cities focused all of their infrastructure on roads and car-centric development, which has led to loud neighborhoods with lots of traffic going through them. Loud engines and honking can make the city a very stressful place to live. Additionally, a lot of cities are really lacking in greenery. Where I lived in the suburbs was full of trees and grass and plants. Where I now live is like concrete hell. There are other, older parts of the city I live in which have a nice tree canopy over the sidewalks and streets that give the city its southern feel. Other cities relegate all nature to designated spots in public parks, where some people don't feel safe due to #2 and #3. I think if cities want their downtowns to thrive again, they need more of a selling point than "you work here, so you have to spend your money here". The 15-minute city movement, zoning and housing deregulation, and the push for more public transportation can turn mid-size American cities into the great places that they used to be, and people will choose to live there

closeparen 3y ago
High prices reflect demand greater than supply. As much as I can also find things to complain about in urban living, it does not suffer from a lack of desirability.
- kibwen 3y ago
  "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
- shortrounddev2 3y ago
  Then we have nothing to fear about emptying out cities and shrinking tax bases going to the suburbs. People will continue to live in the cities they do because they're great places to live. Case closed!
  - closeparen 3y ago
    Cities also depend on tax revenue from commercial properties & businesses that primarily serve commuters. It's an issue, but distinct from where people choose to live.
    - shortrounddev2 3y ago
      It's not all about tax revenue, it's also about economic activity. If people who previously spent money in downtown areas on retail and food no longer have any reason to go to downtown areas, then jobs in those downtown areas will disappear. But if people continue to drive or commute out of their way or live in a more expensive city because they just really really like that city, then there will be no problem. My hypothesis is that most people do not want to live in these cities, for the reasons I mentioned above, and if we want to save the jobs that are now at risk because of these knock-on effects, then we need to make cities more livable for people and less drivable
      - closeparen 3y ago

datadrivenangel 3y ago

Not my problem if working remotely from a better location causes an urban doom loop.

gumballindie 3y ago

The type of news about why remote work is harmful should make it clear to everyone just how corrupt the media is. Real estate bros losing money due to people working remotely have simply directed news outlets to criticise the practice. Just like that. Now imagine if such a trivial matter has been so easily manipulated how everything else in our lives is controled by media corruption and their benefactors, ranging from health, to politics, wars, pandemics, etc.

westmeal 3y ago
That's exactly right, and depending upon which outlet you choose there are different industry bros directing shit flinging at different boogeymen. It's tiresome.
jdlshore 3y ago
> Real estate bros… directed news outlets to criticise the practice. What evidence do you have for this? It sounds like conspiracy thinking to me.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html I've seen the term "submarine article" used to describe PR-encouraged articles. Practically, they're not "directing" news outlets but they are "informing" them in likely biased ways.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    From the blog post: "Our startup spent its entire marketing budget on PR: at a time when we were assembling our own computers to save money, we were paying a PR firm $16,000 a month." Wondering how much real estate bros are paying to promote the archaic, regressive, idea of working on site.
  - jdlshore 3y ago
    That is not evidence for this particular claim.

__loam 3y ago

It's pretty interesting that a lot of the people claiming there's an urban doom loop in places like SF, David Sacks for example, are also owners of commercial real estate in those same cities.

mistrial9 3y ago
or more bluntly, the loose-lipped, female blonde middle-aged Bay Area suburban City Council member making national headlines with anti-housing law statements. It is just as simple as "speaking out on topics that effect an entire population" in naked self-interest. The USA has bred a population of not "Me-First", but now "Me-Only" and money is the stage to stand on.. To be more serious, actual analysis is done by civil-society minded people often at University, by serious real estate professionals and urban planners such as the UCLA Ziman Real Estate Center, and by analysts at major investment firms. But those people are not getting to the modern "front page" The current local news cycle is toxic -- surprise
arp242 3y ago
David Sacks is not mentioned in the article at all.
- __loam 3y ago
  I'm aware.

migf 3y ago

Does this mean we're gonna get more weirdo art / music spaces? Cool

Ancalagon 3y ago

Oh no, won’t anyone think of the tax revenue (obviously never going to where it was intended). Anyways…

renewiltord 3y ago

Loopnet has very few properties under a million. I think SF can take some commercial RE valuation hit.

robbywashere_ 3y ago

Well hmm yeah I don’t know maybe if you designed cities for habitation FIRST and not just parking and driving the utility would protect it from this sort of fragility

notjustanymike 3y ago
I tend to agree with this line of thinking, but it's a difficult problem to fix retroactively.