4 ms·

If you want rural, then don’t move to a metro area with millions of people.

by brokencode 1y ago

cyberax 1y ago
Ah. But that is the trick! You have to move into dense helks, because it is the only place with decent jobs.
- brokencode 1y ago
  So basically you want to reap all the benefits from living in a big city without any of the downsides. California has been trying this for decades and it really isn’t working out, except maybe for people with very high salaries. Increasing density is the only realistic way to address housing affordability.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    > So basically you want to reap all the benefits from living in a big city without any of the downsides. Yes? Why is that bad? And I want everyone to be able to do the same, and not get crammed into microapartments. > Increasing density is the only realistic way to address housing affordability. No single large Western European or American city lowered housing costs by increasing density within the last 30 years. Your _only_ option to reduce housing costs is to reduce the population. It's as simple as that.
    - brokencode 1y ago
      Can you list some examples where a city has tried this and it failed? The only example I can think of is Minneapolis, and they have seen lower rent increases than similar cities, so it seems successful. But outside of that, I just don’t think it’s been tried enough to really make any conclusions right now.
      - cyberax 1y ago
        > Can you list some examples where a city has tried this and it failed? Moscow, Tokyo, Minneapolis, Seattle. Moscow is the one most familiar to me personally. They went full-in on density, demolishing 5-story buildings and putting in 20-story towers instead with the speed only possible in a corruption-filled society. You can guess what happened with housing costs. > The only example I can think of is Minneapolis, and they have seen lower rent increases than similar cities, so it seems successful. If I remove the labels from these graphs, would you be able to tell which one of them is MN and which one is WI: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1N1sc https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1N1sc ? Rents are not a useful indicator short-term, they can be strongly affected by various transitionary events and the rent datasets are notoriously unreliable. But even then, the rent in MN is not affected that much: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1N1sB&height=490 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1N1sB&heig... > But outside of that, I just don’t think it’s been tried enough to really make any conclusions right now. It's been tried. With the expected results: more misery and higher housing costs. There are all these hilarious articles as a result: https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-m... Or Tokyo, it always cracks me up. 2016 - "Tokyo may have found the solution to soaring housing costs": https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1N1sB&height=490 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1N1sB&heig... 2024 - "Whoops, nope. It's in an even worse bubble": https://www.ft.com/content/40ce3cdc-5bc3-486f-b9e9-700af1087a65 https://www.ft.com/content/40ce3cdc-5bc3-486f-b9e9-700af1087...
        brokencode 1y ago
        You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc. Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here. It could also be that too few cities have increased housing supply, so the local effect is totally overwhelmed by a national or global effect. Either way, the bill is going forward, so we will be able to see the effects and reevaluate its effectiveness. I don’t think the idea of “just let the population go down” is a reasonable approach. Especially since it will be poorer people pushed out, even lifelong residents who are displaced by highly paid newcomers. It’s better to try something new and find out you were wrong than to never even try to solve the problem.
- ambicapter 1y ago
  So move to your magical suburb or rural area with decent jobs.
- yongjik 1y ago
  You are not entitled to have a town with no bus service within a humanly drivable distance from you decent job, to which you aren't entitled either. Those who blame others of collectivism have the weirdest sense of entitlements...
  - cyberax 1y ago
    The thing is, you are also not entitled to "affordble housing". Or to any housing, for that matter. You can keep trying to make everyone's life worse by making dense city living inevitable, but it will just make _everyone's_ life worse (very much including yours). Or you can try to advocate for ways to _improve_ the life of everyone.
    - HDThoreaun 1y ago
      I am entitled to build housing on land I own. You are not entitled to say I cant.
      - cyberax 1y ago
        Sure. As long as you teleport from your house and not abuse the roads that I'm paying for. And also teleport the sewage and water, btw.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
SilverElfin 1y ago
Those aren’t the only choices. It’s okay to have urban areas that are low density but not quite as low as rural. This prop overrides that choice.
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  No its doesnt. If you want a suburban sfh lifestyle you just need to buy in an area more than half a mile from public transit.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    You can have both SFH and public transit. Again, you’re reducing choice on the quality of life people want locally.
    - HDThoreaun 1y ago
      You can also buy a sfh near public transit. You are the one who wants top reduce choices, no one is trying to take away the option to live in a sfh, you are trying to take away the option to live in multi family homes.
      - cyberax 1y ago
        It's you who's trying to force everyone to conform to the sick urbanist vision of people living in microapartments. SFH can not work with regular transit. It's impossible. Fortunately, self-driving cars will finally put the transit out of misery within this decade.
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      The problem is that public transport will be poorly utilized and will cost way too much. Look at this from an economic perspective. And, public transit is already public decision making. This is just more public decision making, which, IMO, makes it fair game.

If you want rural, then don’t move to a metro area with millions of people.

cyberax 1y ago

Ah. But that is the trick! You have to move into dense helks, because it is the only place with decent jobs.

brokencode 1y ago
So basically you want to reap all the benefits from living in a big city without any of the downsides. California has been trying this for decades and it really isn’t working out, except maybe for people with very high salaries. Increasing density is the only realistic way to address housing affordability.
- cyberax 1y ago
  > So basically you want to reap all the benefits from living in a big city without any of the downsides. Yes? Why is that bad? And I want everyone to be able to do the same, and not get crammed into microapartments. > Increasing density is the only realistic way to address housing affordability. No single large Western European or American city lowered housing costs by increasing density within the last 30 years. Your _only_ option to reduce housing costs is to reduce the population. It's as simple as that.
  - brokencode 1y ago
    Can you list some examples where a city has tried this and it failed? The only example I can think of is Minneapolis, and they have seen lower rent increases than similar cities, so it seems successful. But outside of that, I just don’t think it’s been tried enough to really make any conclusions right now.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      > Can you list some examples where a city has tried this and it failed? Moscow, Tokyo, Minneapolis, Seattle. Moscow is the one most familiar to me personally. They went full-in on density, demolishing 5-story buildings and putting in 20-story towers instead with the speed only possible in a corruption-filled society. You can guess what happened with housing costs. > The only example I can think of is Minneapolis, and they have seen lower rent increases than similar cities, so it seems successful. If I remove the labels from these graphs, would you be able to tell which one of them is MN and which one is WI: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1N1sc https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1N1sc ? Rents are not a useful indicator short-term, they can be strongly affected by various transitionary events and the rent datasets are notoriously unreliable. But even then, the rent in MN is not affected that much: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1N1sB&height=490 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1N1sB&heig... > But outside of that, I just don’t think it’s been tried enough to really make any conclusions right now. It's been tried. With the expected results: more misery and higher housing costs. There are all these hilarious articles as a result: https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-m... Or Tokyo, it always cracks me up. 2016 - "Tokyo may have found the solution to soaring housing costs": https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1N1sB&height=490 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1N1sB&heig... 2024 - "Whoops, nope. It's in an even worse bubble": https://www.ft.com/content/40ce3cdc-5bc3-486f-b9e9-700af1087a65 https://www.ft.com/content/40ce3cdc-5bc3-486f-b9e9-700af1087...
      - brokencode 1y ago
        You raise reasonable points. It seems like a common trend is that housing prices go up anyway due to outside investors buying up property, high income workers moving in and wanting luxury apartments, etc. Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here. It could also be that too few cities have increased housing supply, so the local effect is totally overwhelmed by a national or global effect. Either way, the bill is going forward, so we will be able to see the effects and reevaluate its effectiveness. I don’t think the idea of “just let the population go down” is a reasonable approach. Especially since it will be poorer people pushed out, even lifelong residents who are displaced by highly paid newcomers. It’s better to try something new and find out you were wrong than to never even try to solve the problem.
ambicapter 1y ago
So move to your magical suburb or rural area with decent jobs.
yongjik 1y ago
You are not entitled to have a town with no bus service within a humanly drivable distance from you decent job, to which you aren't entitled either. Those who blame others of collectivism have the weirdest sense of entitlements...
- cyberax 1y ago
  The thing is, you are also not entitled to "affordble housing". Or to any housing, for that matter. You can keep trying to make everyone's life worse by making dense city living inevitable, but it will just make _everyone's_ life worse (very much including yours). Or you can try to advocate for ways to _improve_ the life of everyone.
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    I am entitled to build housing on land I own. You are not entitled to say I cant.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      Sure. As long as you teleport from your house and not abuse the roads that I'm paying for. And also teleport the sewage and water, btw.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]

SilverElfin 1y ago

Those aren’t the only choices. It’s okay to have urban areas that are low density but not quite as low as rural. This prop overrides that choice.

HDThoreaun 1y ago
No its doesnt. If you want a suburban sfh lifestyle you just need to buy in an area more than half a mile from public transit.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  You can have both SFH and public transit. Again, you’re reducing choice on the quality of life people want locally.
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    You can also buy a sfh near public transit. You are the one who wants top reduce choices, no one is trying to take away the option to live in a sfh, you are trying to take away the option to live in multi family homes.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      It's you who's trying to force everyone to conform to the sick urbanist vision of people living in microapartments. SFH can not work with regular transit. It's impossible. Fortunately, self-driving cars will finally put the transit out of misery within this decade.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    The problem is that public transport will be poorly utilized and will cost way too much. Look at this from an economic perspective. And, public transit is already public decision making. This is just more public decision making, which, IMO, makes it fair game.