5 ms·

There's a reason why low cost of living areas are low cost of living, and it's not because they're self-sustaining futuristic arcologies. It's because people wh

There's a reason why low cost of living areas are low cost of living, and it's not because they're self-sustaining futuristic arcologies. It's because people who can afford otherwise generally don't want to live there. I want to walk, not drive, out my front door, and be within 15 minutes, on foot, from entertainment and dining and friends and shopping and groceries and pharmacies and salons and cafes. And I want those things because I have social/communal living desires, not antisocial/isolated ones, and because I've lived in many different kinds of environments and seen just how much nicer it is to live in a walking city. The problem is that many walkable cities continue to refuse to build upwards. NYC, Philadelphia, Boston...they're all vastly 2-4 story construction from 100 years ago. Paris generally goes up to 7 or 8, but has restrictions preventing much more. So they get more and more expensive. But they only get more and more expensive because they continue to be more desirable places to live despite the expense.

ltbarcly3 3y ago
And presumably you can afford to out bid all the other people who want what you want. Its great that you are wealthy and/or able and willing to spend a very high fraction of your income on non essentials like walking to nice restaurants and being near cool people you want to be near. The problem is that people who can't afford that think it is a hate crime if they can't afford to live in Brooklyn with the rest of the hipsters.
- kredd 3y ago
  Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. Everyone has different needs and wants, and it’s just a useless flamewar. It’s the same as the discussion of whether the cities should stop subsidizing suburbs and other areas. Absolutely useless as everyone have their preferences and we have to find some sort of compromise.
  - ltbarcly3 3y ago
    > Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. I don't think this word means what you think it means.
    - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
      What things are essential? A tent, water fountain, and scavenged scraps will keep someone alive. Is a toilet essential, or could you just use the street like the birds and squirrels do without complaint? Is a bidet essential, or could you scrape your anus with paper until you see spots of blood like many americans do? Is internet access essential or could you just go to the library which is free and open to all? I think there are not any objective definitions of what makes a housing situation essential. So in that light, I think if we're going to consider physical needs, we should probably also consider emotional wellbeing.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        well, as someone who grew up extremely poor (to the point of living in a tent on the side of the river in HS) I'm here to tell you nothing you mentioned is essential. I looked up the average salary in NYC out of curiosity and I make well above the average there. but I live extremely cheaply and part of that is the lessons I learned as a child. I could afford a much bigger house, much nicer cars, more toys. I choose not to. I know people who will finish paying off a vehicle and turn it in for another one. Not essential. Just because someone _feels_ as though something is important doesn't mean that it is. The difference between middle class and poor is that poor has to deal with reality, middle class gets to keep the delusion that things like nice cars are essential. These people are choosing not to move. It's great that they can afford it but maybe they should stop complaining vociferously about how victimized they are for choosing to live in that area.
        BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
        > I'm here to tell you nothing you mentioned is essential. Good, then nothing is essential and we can stop worrying about whether something is essential or not and go back to talking about desirable.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
  > The problem is that people who can't afford that think it is a hate crime if they can't afford to live in Brooklyn with the rest of the hipsters. City planning is hard, but it's absolutely the case that cities just do it very stupidly and poorly and myopically and to preserve the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the everyone else. There are not any good reasons for Cambridge, MA to have a 35 foot maximum height limit, only shitty ones. It's not a hate crime, but it is both hateful and a crime against society.
  - ltbarcly3 3y ago
    It's literally not a crime, and it's not even an action motivated out of hate. I think it would do you good to work out the difference between things that make you angry and things that are unjust. I agree with you, transportation and planning is intentionally manipulated by wealthy landlords to maintain their high rents. Absolutely. So don't live there? Don't base your self worth on how impressive the resume's of your neighbors are? Find other neighborhoods that aren't based on inherited multi-generational snobbery and artificially restricting access to education to elite morons?
    - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
      > It's literally not a crime You're using a specific definition of "crime" that is different than the one the people you're arguing against are using, and that makes the argument not apt. Being shameful for causing harm is also what calling something a crime can mean. See: https://ibb.co/xS3wnhg https://ibb.co/xS3wnhg
      - ltbarcly3 3y ago
        Right, you are using a second or forth definition of crime, changing to that despite the original context of the first definition. I'm the one who originally said it's not a hate crime, as much as people act like it is. That you would then accuse me of trying to play games with definitions is really quite remarkable. But lets go along with your desire to get away with using your definition instead of the original way the word was used in this context. Is it really a 'grave offense against morality' for a city to democratically decide to not allow skyscrapers? What would be the consequence of not allowing skyscrapers, is it that people like BugsJustFindMe starve to death? nope. That you will be deprived of basic human needs like shelter or the right to self determination? nope. The 'grave moral harm' done to you is that you can't afford to live within walking distance to that cool bar you like to go to. How ridiculous are you going to be?
chrisandchris 3y ago
> There's a reason why low cost of living areas are low cost of living, and it's not because they're self-sustaining futuristic arcologies. It's because people who can afford otherwise generally don't want to live there. [...] That's a very bold statement and a total oversimplification. Like the rest of your comment too IMHO. Do you think people in the countriside don't have "social loving desires"? I know lot of people living on the countryside and friendship is much more better than in an anonymous city (IMHO).
wolverine876 3y ago
People with different preferences than you are "antisocial"? (Isn't that a bit ironic?) The GP has a different point of view; there's nothing special about yours or about NYC that makes yours better. The two of you deserve each other.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > there's nothing special about yours or about NYC that makes yours better Well there is something special about the higher cost places. That thing special, is that they are more desirable by a much larger amount of people. Otherwise prices wouldn't be so high. So yes, the more in demand places are better to a much larger amount of people.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Taylor Swift is preferred by a much larger number of people than Thelonius Monk is; does that make Swift 'better' than Monk? The quality of something and validity of people's preferences doesn't depend on popularity.
    - Bajeezus 3y ago
      You're comparing a living superstar to someone who has been dead for over 40 years.
    - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
      > Taylor Swift is preferred by a much larger number of people than Thelonius Monk is; does that make Swift 'better' than Monk? For the average human music listener, yes that is what that means. Should we dive into the relationship between "preferred" and "better"? The preference is not individually objective, but objectively the people have spoken.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > Should we dive into the relationship between "preferred" and "better"? Yes, that's what I'm talking about. They are not the same things; there is nothing magical about subjective preference that makes something 'better', no matter how many people share it. If they like burritos and I like ramen, does that make burritos 'better'? In fact, people can prefer things that are clearly 'worse', for many purposes, such as beer over hydration fluid. People can prefer things that are clearly wrong, such as disinformation.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> I want to walk, not drive, out my front door, and be within 15 minutes, on foot, from entertainment and dining and friends and shopping and groceries and pharmacies and salons and cafes. I live in a city, you can have all of those things here. In fact, we have an entire stretch down the side of a river that has restaurants and other things down the side of it. The housing in that area is some of the most expensive but still doesn't touch NYC.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
  > I live in a city, you can have all of those things here. ... but still doesn't touch NYC One way of thinking about this is that everyone in NYC is wrong. Another way of thinking about this is that NYC might have more of those things and then some. Does your city have a dozen museums, dozens of museums, or hundreds of museums? Does your city have a 24/365 public transit system? Bodega cats? Offices of all of the top companies worldwide? Something equivalent to the high line? Broadway? If not, why not? Some places have some of these things. How many places have all of them?
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    I make more than the average NYC person and pay far far less than them to live. apply whatever the hell you want to rationalize that existence, I don't personally care. When you're done screaming about how terrible it is that you'll never own a home, come join sanity. or don't. I don't give a shit about your rationalization.

ltbarcly3 3y ago

And presumably you can afford to out bid all the other people who want what you want. Its great that you are wealthy and/or able and willing to spend a very high fraction of your income on non essentials like walking to nice restaurants and being near cool people you want to be near. The problem is that people who can't afford that think it is a hate crime if they can't afford to live in Brooklyn with the rest of the hipsters.

kredd 3y ago
Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. Everyone has different needs and wants, and it’s just a useless flamewar. It’s the same as the discussion of whether the cities should stop subsidizing suburbs and other areas. Absolutely useless as everyone have their preferences and we have to find some sort of compromise.
- ltbarcly3 3y ago
  > Your “non-essential” is someone else’s “essential”. I don't think this word means what you think it means.
  - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
    What things are essential? A tent, water fountain, and scavenged scraps will keep someone alive. Is a toilet essential, or could you just use the street like the birds and squirrels do without complaint? Is a bidet essential, or could you scrape your anus with paper until you see spots of blood like many americans do? Is internet access essential or could you just go to the library which is free and open to all? I think there are not any objective definitions of what makes a housing situation essential. So in that light, I think if we're going to consider physical needs, we should probably also consider emotional wellbeing.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      well, as someone who grew up extremely poor (to the point of living in a tent on the side of the river in HS) I'm here to tell you nothing you mentioned is essential. I looked up the average salary in NYC out of curiosity and I make well above the average there. but I live extremely cheaply and part of that is the lessons I learned as a child. I could afford a much bigger house, much nicer cars, more toys. I choose not to. I know people who will finish paying off a vehicle and turn it in for another one. Not essential. Just because someone _feels_ as though something is important doesn't mean that it is. The difference between middle class and poor is that poor has to deal with reality, middle class gets to keep the delusion that things like nice cars are essential. These people are choosing not to move. It's great that they can afford it but maybe they should stop complaining vociferously about how victimized they are for choosing to live in that area.
      - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
        > I'm here to tell you nothing you mentioned is essential. Good, then nothing is essential and we can stop worrying about whether something is essential or not and go back to talking about desirable.
BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
> The problem is that people who can't afford that think it is a hate crime if they can't afford to live in Brooklyn with the rest of the hipsters. City planning is hard, but it's absolutely the case that cities just do it very stupidly and poorly and myopically and to preserve the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the everyone else. There are not any good reasons for Cambridge, MA to have a 35 foot maximum height limit, only shitty ones. It's not a hate crime, but it is both hateful and a crime against society.
- ltbarcly3 3y ago
  It's literally not a crime, and it's not even an action motivated out of hate. I think it would do you good to work out the difference between things that make you angry and things that are unjust. I agree with you, transportation and planning is intentionally manipulated by wealthy landlords to maintain their high rents. Absolutely. So don't live there? Don't base your self worth on how impressive the resume's of your neighbors are? Find other neighborhoods that aren't based on inherited multi-generational snobbery and artificially restricting access to education to elite morons?
  - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
    > It's literally not a crime You're using a specific definition of "crime" that is different than the one the people you're arguing against are using, and that makes the argument not apt. Being shameful for causing harm is also what calling something a crime can mean. See: https://ibb.co/xS3wnhg https://ibb.co/xS3wnhg
    - ltbarcly3 3y ago
      Right, you are using a second or forth definition of crime, changing to that despite the original context of the first definition. I'm the one who originally said it's not a hate crime, as much as people act like it is. That you would then accuse me of trying to play games with definitions is really quite remarkable. But lets go along with your desire to get away with using your definition instead of the original way the word was used in this context. Is it really a 'grave offense against morality' for a city to democratically decide to not allow skyscrapers? What would be the consequence of not allowing skyscrapers, is it that people like BugsJustFindMe starve to death? nope. That you will be deprived of basic human needs like shelter or the right to self determination? nope. The 'grave moral harm' done to you is that you can't afford to live within walking distance to that cool bar you like to go to. How ridiculous are you going to be?

chrisandchris 3y ago

> There's a reason why low cost of living areas are low cost of living, and it's not because they're self-sustaining futuristic arcologies. It's because people who can afford otherwise generally don't want to live there. [...] That's a very bold statement and a total oversimplification. Like the rest of your comment too IMHO. Do you think people in the countriside don't have "social loving desires"? I know lot of people living on the countryside and friendship is much more better than in an anonymous city (IMHO).

wolverine876 3y ago

People with different preferences than you are "antisocial"? (Isn't that a bit ironic?) The GP has a different point of view; there's nothing special about yours or about NYC that makes yours better. The two of you deserve each other.

stale2002 3y ago
> there's nothing special about yours or about NYC that makes yours better Well there is something special about the higher cost places. That thing special, is that they are more desirable by a much larger amount of people. Otherwise prices wouldn't be so high. So yes, the more in demand places are better to a much larger amount of people.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Taylor Swift is preferred by a much larger number of people than Thelonius Monk is; does that make Swift 'better' than Monk? The quality of something and validity of people's preferences doesn't depend on popularity.
  - Bajeezus 3y ago
    You're comparing a living superstar to someone who has been dead for over 40 years.
  - BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
    > Taylor Swift is preferred by a much larger number of people than Thelonius Monk is; does that make Swift 'better' than Monk? For the average human music listener, yes that is what that means. Should we dive into the relationship between "preferred" and "better"? The preference is not individually objective, but objectively the people have spoken.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Should we dive into the relationship between "preferred" and "better"? Yes, that's what I'm talking about. They are not the same things; there is nothing magical about subjective preference that makes something 'better', no matter how many people share it. If they like burritos and I like ramen, does that make burritos 'better'? In fact, people can prefer things that are clearly 'worse', for many purposes, such as beer over hydration fluid. People can prefer things that are clearly wrong, such as disinformation.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

> I want to walk, not drive, out my front door, and be within 15 minutes, on foot, from entertainment and dining and friends and shopping and groceries and pharmacies and salons and cafes. I live in a city, you can have all of those things here. In fact, we have an entire stretch down the side of a river that has restaurants and other things down the side of it. The housing in that area is some of the most expensive but still doesn't touch NYC.

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
> I live in a city, you can have all of those things here. ... but still doesn't touch NYC One way of thinking about this is that everyone in NYC is wrong. Another way of thinking about this is that NYC might have more of those things and then some. Does your city have a dozen museums, dozens of museums, or hundreds of museums? Does your city have a 24/365 public transit system? Bodega cats? Offices of all of the top companies worldwide? Something equivalent to the high line? Broadway? If not, why not? Some places have some of these things. How many places have all of them?
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  I make more than the average NYC person and pay far far less than them to live. apply whatever the hell you want to rationalize that existence, I don't personally care. When you're done screaming about how terrible it is that you'll never own a home, come join sanity. or don't. I don't give a shit about your rationalization.