3 ms·

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.
        cyberax 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. Yes. And there will always be something else explaining the rising costs. You ban foreign investors (see: Vancouver)? You get local investment companies buying the properties instead. You start doing rent control? You get tons of dilapidated housing with generational poverty, among other skyrocketing market-based housing. > Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here. There actually is. Stop trying to make density happen. Instead, promote suburbs and smaller cities. It's as simple as that. > I don’t think the idea of “just let the population go down” is a reasonable approach. You don't get other options. > Especially since it will be poorer people pushed out, even lifelong residents who are displaced by highly paid newcomers. "Poor people" are the ones suffering from urbanization the most.
        brokencode 1y ago
        Nah, I’m not convinced. All I’m convinced of is that you don’t like density, not that it isn’t part of the solution. You don’t get to tell everybody else what the options are.
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]

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.
      - cyberax 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. Yes. And there will always be something else explaining the rising costs. You ban foreign investors (see: Vancouver)? You get local investment companies buying the properties instead. You start doing rent control? You get tons of dilapidated housing with generational poverty, among other skyrocketing market-based housing. > Seems like we need to solve the demand part of the puzzle as well. There’s definitely no single easy solution here. There actually is. Stop trying to make density happen. Instead, promote suburbs and smaller cities. It's as simple as that. > I don’t think the idea of “just let the population go down” is a reasonable approach. You don't get other options. > Especially since it will be poorer people pushed out, even lifelong residents who are displaced by highly paid newcomers. "Poor people" are the ones suffering from urbanization the most.
        brokencode 1y ago
        Nah, I’m not convinced. All I’m convinced of is that you don’t like density, not that it isn’t part of the solution. You don’t get to tell everybody else what the options are.

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]