6 ms·

It's wild that we used to do radical changes to cities like this and now changing zoning or making cities walkable are frequently seen as unfathomable.

kurthr 3y ago
Really? It seems like once a group of people have lived somewhere for a generation or two and have a $Trillion invested in a place they probably are going to make it hard for new comers to make radical changes. Kinda like a giant codebase that's been maintained for 50 years and has a million regular users is going to make updates difficult. Find a place people don't already want to live and make that better with great new housing designs? Why do does someone deserve to move somewhere new and live there cheaper than the people who already live there? Now, that said there are huge distortions to the market driven by taxes and leverage. Many expensive places have 10% unoccupied housing. Think about how much that is. Imagine the time, cost, and disruption to build even 10,000 units of housing, when there are 40-50k units unoccupied.
- bluGill 3y ago
  People want to live near evisting jobs so your someplace new will be a suburb and generally has constraints because of that. You have to get people into the city for example which forces car dependance for example.
  - lotsoweiners 3y ago
    Sure but if your preferred design is as great and appealing as you say then after a few generations, your new city might be getting the jobs.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      We can look at mining towns to see projected growth. Mining towns have to start where the ore is, and they generally can pay a lot more than average to attract people. However such towns tend to die when the mine closes unless there is some other reason for the town to exist. That other reason is not how nice the town is, but geography. Note that I said town above not city. Cities exist for geographical reasons, if you don't have the great port (either ocean or river) to attract people 300 years ago to settle there you won't get people today.
    - BenFranklin100 3y ago
      Would you like to be the first and start a new city? Would you move to the middle of, say, South Dakota and start New New York City? If it’s as simple as you say, in a few generations your new city, lotsoweiners, will be getting the jobs.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    In his example you also need to attract employers, other people. Being first advantages.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      But you won't as employeers go where the employees are.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Keep in mind that ten percent figure is not ten percent totally unoccupied for the entire year. The process of leasing is not immediate. In a similar way to how 0% unemployment is not actually desirable or remotely achievable, you want some slack in housing markets so that people actually have price competition and choice.
- BenFranklin100 3y ago
  Because existing cities are where the jobs are located. That’s why people move there: to have a job and a shot at a better life. Some of us feel strongly that ‘current’ residents should not have the right to effectively exclude others from the pursuit of happiness and opportunity. Current zoning is especially odious in who it affects. The people it excludes from high opportunity areas are the poor and disadvantaged. Supply restrictions in the face of high demand lead to high home prices, effectively shutting out the poor and young from a better life for themselves.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    > Because existing cities are where the jobs are located. That’s why people move there: to have a job and a shot at a better life. I don't know, I live in a big city but I mostly work from home despite the office being 20 minutes away by metro. Because today's hotdesk flexi hipster office is a nightmare for actually doing work. I moved here because I love living in a big city. Always having stuff to do. All the things to discover. Amazing public transport so I don't need a car (I absolutely hate driving). 20 bucks for a monthly pass and my shoes cover my entire travel needs for a month. Literally all the shops I need right around the corner. I can roll out of the disco at 6am and into my bed. It's amazing. I love being in the middle of life. A lot of my friends love having a huge house in a quiet village but I don't understand that at all. I come from a quiet suburb but I've always hated that kind of environment. Even though I was happy there when I grew up. Also I have pretty niche interests. It's just really hard finding a makerspace or a BDSM club in a small town. Here I have many to choose from in both categories :) Also, small towns tend to be very big on the 'family values' mindset which isn't something I fit into, if that wasn't already clear from the above. In a city people know where to keep their opinions on how other people live their lives. In small towns they'll constantly gossip behind your back. I've lived in one for 10 years and hated that. Anyway my point is, there's many reasons people want to live in cities that have nothing to do with their personal chance at jobs or money. It's really a very different type of society and environment that's really desirable for some people despite the crazy house prices.
  - p1esk 3y ago
    Allow remote work for everyone who does not need to be physically present onsite to do their job.
- lmm 3y ago
  > It seems like once a group of people have lived somewhere for a generation or two and have a $Trillion invested in a place they probably are going to make it hard for new comers to make radical changes. Few if any of them actually invested that money. Rather they bought when it was cheap and then sat on it (either individually or as a family passing it down through inheritance) as the price went up - worse still they vote to grandfather in cheap property tax rates for people who bought early, so they're not even paying their fair share at the most basic/direct level. > Find a place people don't already want to live and make that better with great new housing designs? In today's vetocracy that's pretty much impossible - you'd have to find somewhere where not a single person already lived. Even then, as soon as you started doing it someone would move in and then block you. (Set a rule that requires development to continue? There's already a statewide rule that cities just flaunt) > Why do does someone deserve to move somewhere new and live there cheaper than the people who already live there? Being able to move in at the same price would be plenty. Up until the '50s people moved where they liked and build what they liked where they liked, without any permitting or anything. Now it's illegal to build practically anything - the vast majority of housing stock is only legal because it's grandfathered in, and would be illegal to build anew. > Now, that said there are huge distortions to the market driven by taxes and leverage. Many expensive places have 10% unoccupied housing. Think about how much that is. Imagine the time, cost, and disruption to build even 10,000 units of housing, when there are 40-50k units unoccupied. Unoccupied housing is a scapegoat. A healthy market needs some liquidity. If you legalise building new houses then unoccupied houses cease to be a problem.
- fma 3y ago
  > It seems like once a group of people have lived somewhere for a generation or two and have a $Trillion invested in a place they probably are going to make it hard for new comers to make radical changes You should look at before and after pictures of cities in China over the last 30 years. Those cities have been around much longer than Seattle.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Median homeownership rate in the US is 13 years. In many big cities there are more renters than homeowners. Owning for a generation or two is the exception, not the norm.
- jdross 3y ago
  Percent unoccupied is a bit misleading because it’s point in time. If the average tenant stays for 2 years and it takes 2 months on average to replace the tenant (given repairs, maintenance and marketing) that’s 8.3% unoccupied at any given time (2/24)
- yellow_postit 3y ago
  As a counterpoint — Paris’s bike infrastructure changes. Despite all the talk of less regulation in the US it seems our cities and suburbs are much more protected and lethargic to change many European counterparts
- graeme 3y ago
  But the restrictions are on this very same group. They can’t sell or develop their property as they choose. In practice it is governance by those with the most time on their hands. Why does this small group get to restrict property rights for the rest of the group?

kurthr 3y ago

Really? It seems like once a group of people have lived somewhere for a generation or two and have a $Trillion invested in a place they probably are going to make it hard for new comers to make radical changes. Kinda like a giant codebase that's been maintained for 50 years and has a million regular users is going to make updates difficult. Find a place people don't already want to live and make that better with great new housing designs? Why do does someone deserve to move somewhere new and live there cheaper than the people who already live there? Now, that said there are huge distortions to the market driven by taxes and leverage. Many expensive places have 10% unoccupied housing. Think about how much that is. Imagine the time, cost, and disruption to build even 10,000 units of housing, when there are 40-50k units unoccupied.

bluGill 3y ago
People want to live near evisting jobs so your someplace new will be a suburb and generally has constraints because of that. You have to get people into the city for example which forces car dependance for example.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  Sure but if your preferred design is as great and appealing as you say then after a few generations, your new city might be getting the jobs.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    We can look at mining towns to see projected growth. Mining towns have to start where the ore is, and they generally can pay a lot more than average to attract people. However such towns tend to die when the mine closes unless there is some other reason for the town to exist. That other reason is not how nice the town is, but geography. Note that I said town above not city. Cities exist for geographical reasons, if you don't have the great port (either ocean or river) to attract people 300 years ago to settle there you won't get people today.
  - BenFranklin100 3y ago
    Would you like to be the first and start a new city? Would you move to the middle of, say, South Dakota and start New New York City? If it’s as simple as you say, in a few generations your new city, lotsoweiners, will be getting the jobs.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  In his example you also need to attract employers, other people. Being first advantages.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    But you won't as employeers go where the employees are.
bobthepanda 3y ago
Keep in mind that ten percent figure is not ten percent totally unoccupied for the entire year. The process of leasing is not immediate. In a similar way to how 0% unemployment is not actually desirable or remotely achievable, you want some slack in housing markets so that people actually have price competition and choice.
BenFranklin100 3y ago
Because existing cities are where the jobs are located. That’s why people move there: to have a job and a shot at a better life. Some of us feel strongly that ‘current’ residents should not have the right to effectively exclude others from the pursuit of happiness and opportunity. Current zoning is especially odious in who it affects. The people it excludes from high opportunity areas are the poor and disadvantaged. Supply restrictions in the face of high demand lead to high home prices, effectively shutting out the poor and young from a better life for themselves.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > Because existing cities are where the jobs are located. That’s why people move there: to have a job and a shot at a better life. I don't know, I live in a big city but I mostly work from home despite the office being 20 minutes away by metro. Because today's hotdesk flexi hipster office is a nightmare for actually doing work. I moved here because I love living in a big city. Always having stuff to do. All the things to discover. Amazing public transport so I don't need a car (I absolutely hate driving). 20 bucks for a monthly pass and my shoes cover my entire travel needs for a month. Literally all the shops I need right around the corner. I can roll out of the disco at 6am and into my bed. It's amazing. I love being in the middle of life. A lot of my friends love having a huge house in a quiet village but I don't understand that at all. I come from a quiet suburb but I've always hated that kind of environment. Even though I was happy there when I grew up. Also I have pretty niche interests. It's just really hard finding a makerspace or a BDSM club in a small town. Here I have many to choose from in both categories :) Also, small towns tend to be very big on the 'family values' mindset which isn't something I fit into, if that wasn't already clear from the above. In a city people know where to keep their opinions on how other people live their lives. In small towns they'll constantly gossip behind your back. I've lived in one for 10 years and hated that. Anyway my point is, there's many reasons people want to live in cities that have nothing to do with their personal chance at jobs or money. It's really a very different type of society and environment that's really desirable for some people despite the crazy house prices.
- p1esk 3y ago
  Allow remote work for everyone who does not need to be physically present onsite to do their job.
lmm 3y ago
> It seems like once a group of people have lived somewhere for a generation or two and have a $Trillion invested in a place they probably are going to make it hard for new comers to make radical changes. Few if any of them actually invested that money. Rather they bought when it was cheap and then sat on it (either individually or as a family passing it down through inheritance) as the price went up - worse still they vote to grandfather in cheap property tax rates for people who bought early, so they're not even paying their fair share at the most basic/direct level. > Find a place people don't already want to live and make that better with great new housing designs? In today's vetocracy that's pretty much impossible - you'd have to find somewhere where not a single person already lived. Even then, as soon as you started doing it someone would move in and then block you. (Set a rule that requires development to continue? There's already a statewide rule that cities just flaunt) > Why do does someone deserve to move somewhere new and live there cheaper than the people who already live there? Being able to move in at the same price would be plenty. Up until the '50s people moved where they liked and build what they liked where they liked, without any permitting or anything. Now it's illegal to build practically anything - the vast majority of housing stock is only legal because it's grandfathered in, and would be illegal to build anew. > Now, that said there are huge distortions to the market driven by taxes and leverage. Many expensive places have 10% unoccupied housing. Think about how much that is. Imagine the time, cost, and disruption to build even 10,000 units of housing, when there are 40-50k units unoccupied. Unoccupied housing is a scapegoat. A healthy market needs some liquidity. If you legalise building new houses then unoccupied houses cease to be a problem.
fma 3y ago
> It seems like once a group of people have lived somewhere for a generation or two and have a $Trillion invested in a place they probably are going to make it hard for new comers to make radical changes You should look at before and after pictures of cities in China over the last 30 years. Those cities have been around much longer than Seattle.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Median homeownership rate in the US is 13 years. In many big cities there are more renters than homeowners. Owning for a generation or two is the exception, not the norm.
jdross 3y ago
Percent unoccupied is a bit misleading because it’s point in time. If the average tenant stays for 2 years and it takes 2 months on average to replace the tenant (given repairs, maintenance and marketing) that’s 8.3% unoccupied at any given time (2/24)
yellow_postit 3y ago
As a counterpoint — Paris’s bike infrastructure changes. Despite all the talk of less regulation in the US it seems our cities and suburbs are much more protected and lethargic to change many European counterparts
graeme 3y ago
But the restrictions are on this very same group. They can’t sell or develop their property as they choose. In practice it is governance by those with the most time on their hands. Why does this small group get to restrict property rights for the rest of the group?