5 ms·

The problem isn’t housing and zoning. The problem is people absolutely refuse to go live in places where housing is cheap because they’d rather live in the popu

by xwdv 3y ago

The problem isn’t housing and zoning. The problem is people absolutely refuse to go live in places where housing is cheap because they’d rather live in the popular hotspots. You want a cheap house? Sub 300k? Come to the Midwest, you’ll get one easy. Oh what’s that? You’d rather live right in downtown San Francisco or Manhattan? Well… Sometimes I think about just selling my expensive city apartment and moving out to a small rural mountain town and finding a wife there.

jeffbee 3y ago
Surprisingly, people don't think that living under a racist theocracy in Tulsa is a substitute good for living in a liberal democracy.
- solarhoma 3y ago
  Wow, spoken like a truly superior progressive where the only morally good place to live in the world is SF. And, apparently every other city will get you killed due to racism. Please consider never leaving your ‘liberal democracy’ because folks like you destroy cities.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  Really? Painting all of the Midwest as a "racist theocracy?" Those $300k homes are also Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, even blue states like Minnesota, Illinois, and Michigan.
- poulsbohemian 3y ago
  You aren’t wrong, but I also want to throw out a challenge to anyone with similar thinking: help us. You might be surprised by the number of people living in deep red areas who crave political change. We can’t do it without political and financial support from the more liberal parts of each state / the country. There’s even the option of moving here and being part of boots-on-the-ground change. Some of these communities can and will change in my lifetime, even if it is a slow process. And the housing is cheaper too.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    I am not going to sacrifice my children's happiness so that I can move back to Oklahoma and somehow stick my finger in the dike against theocracy. It's all well and good to propose that an influx of reasonable people would help reform a state's politics, but when it comes down to your own family you are talking about specific people, not averages.
    - xwdv 3y ago
      Your children don’t give a damn. They’re children. They will live wherever you live and be completely oblivious to whatever adults argue about on forums and the news. Don’t prop your children up as an excuse.
      - jeffbee 3y ago
        You live a life of sheltered ignorance if you aren't aware of what young people go through in such places when they are of minority races, minority religions, not heterosexual, or not conforming to gender binaries.
rootusrootus 3y ago
This is pretty much it, at least in the US. Lots of places in the Midwest where the median house is less than 2.5x the median income. But if you want to live in San Jose, that ratio is 10x. Even in Portland it's over 5x. A remote tech worker can buy quite a lot of house in the midwest if they keep all or most of the salary they were getting while living in a coastal city.
jedberg 3y ago
But then you'd have to live in the midwest. There's a reason the costal cities are popular -- culture, weather, people with similar political views, exposure to other races and cultures. Especially if you didn't grow up there, the weather is killer. And there is still plenty of space in the popular places, if people were allowed to build there. But the people who are already there do everything in their power to prevent it.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  For many people living in coastal cities, moving to the areas of the midwest where housing is affordable will definitely involve exposure to other cultures. There is also an abundant supply of weather.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    > There is also an abundant supply of weather. That's the problem though. Unless you grew up with it, most people do not like the extreme weather in the midwest. Both too hot and too cold.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      In the case of California climate specifically though, you have to ask yourself how much you're willing and able to pay to live in the only Mediterranean climate in the US versus e.g. somewhere that gets snow in the winter. (Lots of California can get pretty hot too.)
- kuchenbecker 3y ago
  People value things differently, including the things you mentioned, and cost is a large driver of that. The only thing cities dislike more than an increasing population is a decreasing one. Given homeostasis is essentially traffic, suburban sprawl, etc we should let areas organically grow and shrink as people make choices. And areas that are appealing now will become unappealing either by cost or changing economies.
verteu 3y ago
Perhaps remote work will reduce this disparity. I'd expect it to happen in "waves" as high-paid remote workers move from cities with "tier N" CoL+culture to "tier N+1." There's already been a significant migration from NY+CA to FL+TX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
- ghaff 3y ago
  I'd just add that, while it's hard to drive out of expensive real estate in the Bay Area, that's actually not true of a lot of major cities. While there are expensive towns, there are also some pretty reasonable towns within 60-90 minutes of Boston for example. Not living downtown can buy you a lot of weekends on the town in a hotel.
stouset 3y ago
Cheap houses in cheap areas are cheap precisely because the areas themselves are low value with a low expected-value of living there. Put another way, those houses are cheap because employment opportunities are limited.
- xwdv 3y ago
  What a disgustingly materialistic and capitalist way to write off entire communities of people as worthless simply because you can’t find a six figure job there. No wonder the coastal elites get hated so much.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - danbolt 3y ago
    I think it can be more simply explained with supply and demand when it comes to labour. Or, if you’re a cook, for example, you’re going to find a more robust market for your skills in Vancouver rather than Castlegar. Because of that, cities can often be more attractive for the working class. I do have a lot of respect for the people who are able to make a sustainable living in a less dense area, but it’s not a reliable path for everybody.
  - stouset 3y ago
    I think you may be interpreting my comment the way you did because you viewed it through a lens of already-existing hatred of coastal elites. Certainly nothing in the comment itself even hints at me considering entire communities of people as worthless.
    - verteu 3y ago
      Keep in mind the word "value" has several definitions [1]. Describing low-cost areas as "low-value" could be seen as insulting via definitions 1-3. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/value#Noun https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/value#Noun
  - 3y ago
angmarsbane 3y ago
Or perhaps they merely want to live near their jobs and their spouse’s jobs?

by xwdv 3y ago

jeffbee 3y ago

Surprisingly, people don't think that living under a racist theocracy in Tulsa is a substitute good for living in a liberal democracy.

solarhoma 3y ago
Wow, spoken like a truly superior progressive where the only morally good place to live in the world is SF. And, apparently every other city will get you killed due to racism. Please consider never leaving your ‘liberal democracy’ because folks like you destroy cities.
reducesuffering 3y ago
Really? Painting all of the Midwest as a "racist theocracy?" Those $300k homes are also Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, even blue states like Minnesota, Illinois, and Michigan.
poulsbohemian 3y ago
You aren’t wrong, but I also want to throw out a challenge to anyone with similar thinking: help us. You might be surprised by the number of people living in deep red areas who crave political change. We can’t do it without political and financial support from the more liberal parts of each state / the country. There’s even the option of moving here and being part of boots-on-the-ground change. Some of these communities can and will change in my lifetime, even if it is a slow process. And the housing is cheaper too.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  I am not going to sacrifice my children's happiness so that I can move back to Oklahoma and somehow stick my finger in the dike against theocracy. It's all well and good to propose that an influx of reasonable people would help reform a state's politics, but when it comes down to your own family you are talking about specific people, not averages.
  - xwdv 3y ago
    Your children don’t give a damn. They’re children. They will live wherever you live and be completely oblivious to whatever adults argue about on forums and the news. Don’t prop your children up as an excuse.
    - jeffbee 3y ago
      You live a life of sheltered ignorance if you aren't aware of what young people go through in such places when they are of minority races, minority religions, not heterosexual, or not conforming to gender binaries.

rootusrootus 3y ago

This is pretty much it, at least in the US. Lots of places in the Midwest where the median house is less than 2.5x the median income. But if you want to live in San Jose, that ratio is 10x. Even in Portland it's over 5x. A remote tech worker can buy quite a lot of house in the midwest if they keep all or most of the salary they were getting while living in a coastal city.

jedberg 3y ago

But then you'd have to live in the midwest. There's a reason the costal cities are popular -- culture, weather, people with similar political views, exposure to other races and cultures. Especially if you didn't grow up there, the weather is killer. And there is still plenty of space in the popular places, if people were allowed to build there. But the people who are already there do everything in their power to prevent it.

rufus_foreman 3y ago
For many people living in coastal cities, moving to the areas of the midwest where housing is affordable will definitely involve exposure to other cultures. There is also an abundant supply of weather.
- jedberg 3y ago
  > There is also an abundant supply of weather. That's the problem though. Unless you grew up with it, most people do not like the extreme weather in the midwest. Both too hot and too cold.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    In the case of California climate specifically though, you have to ask yourself how much you're willing and able to pay to live in the only Mediterranean climate in the US versus e.g. somewhere that gets snow in the winter. (Lots of California can get pretty hot too.)
kuchenbecker 3y ago
People value things differently, including the things you mentioned, and cost is a large driver of that. The only thing cities dislike more than an increasing population is a decreasing one. Given homeostasis is essentially traffic, suburban sprawl, etc we should let areas organically grow and shrink as people make choices. And areas that are appealing now will become unappealing either by cost or changing economies.

verteu 3y ago

Perhaps remote work will reduce this disparity. I'd expect it to happen in "waves" as high-paid remote workers move from cities with "tier N" CoL+culture to "tier N+1." There's already been a significant migration from NY+CA to FL+TX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

ghaff 3y ago
I'd just add that, while it's hard to drive out of expensive real estate in the Bay Area, that's actually not true of a lot of major cities. While there are expensive towns, there are also some pretty reasonable towns within 60-90 minutes of Boston for example. Not living downtown can buy you a lot of weekends on the town in a hotel.

stouset 3y ago

Cheap houses in cheap areas are cheap precisely because the areas themselves are low value with a low expected-value of living there. Put another way, those houses are cheap because employment opportunities are limited.

xwdv 3y ago
What a disgustingly materialistic and capitalist way to write off entire communities of people as worthless simply because you can’t find a six figure job there. No wonder the coastal elites get hated so much.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- danbolt 3y ago
  I think it can be more simply explained with supply and demand when it comes to labour. Or, if you’re a cook, for example, you’re going to find a more robust market for your skills in Vancouver rather than Castlegar. Because of that, cities can often be more attractive for the working class. I do have a lot of respect for the people who are able to make a sustainable living in a less dense area, but it’s not a reliable path for everybody.
- stouset 3y ago
  I think you may be interpreting my comment the way you did because you viewed it through a lens of already-existing hatred of coastal elites. Certainly nothing in the comment itself even hints at me considering entire communities of people as worthless.
  - verteu 3y ago
    Keep in mind the word "value" has several definitions [1]. Describing low-cost areas as "low-value" could be seen as insulting via definitions 1-3. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/value#Noun https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/value#Noun
- 3y ago

angmarsbane 3y ago

Or perhaps they merely want to live near their jobs and their spouse’s jobs?