The suffering of the six-figure income earners, aka even the wealthy say that livin in San Francisco sucks

[K1052]

As per wiki NYC would be the 5th densest city in Europe if it were there and I bet a lot of the difference there is that NYC's borders include a lot of outlying areas (I'm looking at you, North Bronx and Staten Island) that would be excluded from European cities like Paris, whose city limits appear to be highly constrained.

If Manhattan were its own city for example it would be almost 50% more dense than the densest European city.

Even then just Staten Island's population density is greater than...Prague lol. The arguments that we don't have any comparably dense places to Europe and Americans won't put up with density aren't rooted in reality.

 

[glenn1]

The suburbs most certainly face supply constraints, after all in most suburban places zoning is restricting to single family houses. This is California's problem: it's not that density is restricted in downtown LA, it's that it's restricted in suburban communities as well. While there's no way to know exactly where on the axis things would fall we do know two things for sure - that supply in cities is extremely high per square mile (density) and despite all that density demand is through the roof (accelerating home prices).

Downtown Brooklyn is a good example of this. In recent years there has been an enormous boom of residential construction there with thousands of new apartments built. The glut of new apartments HAS caused rents to decrease in the neighborhood (much to the chagrin of developers) but they still remain very high by NYC standards, indicating the area could absorb a lot more new construction.

Since it's impossible to remove the real-life constraints of supply, price, availability, etc. I think the more realistic thing to do is simply ask about preferences and see where people actually live instead of just looking at prices. And that tells you that very few actually want to live in a big city urban core and show clear preferences for suburbs. Which is mirrored in actual populations in most MSA where the actual city holds a small fraction of the metro population (about 10% in the case of DC metro area) and the surrounding suburban counties about 2-3 times the population of the city proper.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...res-not-much-appeal-big-city-living-why-do-so

 

[fskimospy]

Since it's impossible to remove the real-life constraints of supply, price, availability, etc. I think the more realistic thing to do is simply ask about preferences and see where people actually live instead of just looking at prices. And that tells you that very few actually want to live in a big city urban core and show clear preferences for suburbs. Which is mirrored in actual populations in most MSA where the actual city holds a small fraction of the metro population (about 10% in the case of DC metro area) and the surrounding suburban counties about 2-3 times the population of the city proper.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...res-not-much-appeal-big-city-living-why-do-so

But taking price out of the equation defeats the whole purpose. If you asked me where I want to live vs. where I would want to live if price were not a factor you would get two hugely different results. For example if you asked me if I wanted to live in Manhattan I would say no. If you asked me if I wanted to live in Manhattan if price was no consideration I would say HELL YEAH. Related to that I imagine plenty of people love the idea of living off in the countryside with nobody else around until they realize they have no way to make a living there.

Prices are good for this sort of thing because they are actual revealed preferences as opposed to abstract concepts and they are examples of people doing exactly what you want - weighing price, location, amenities, density, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

Even then just Staten Island's population density is greater than...Prague lol. The arguments that we don't have any comparably dense places to Europe and Americans won't put up with density aren't rooted in reality.

Agree. America as a WHOLE is a very not-dense place because huge swaths of it are effectively empty. Individual American cities are quite dense by western standards.

 

[glenn1]

But taking price out of the equation defeats the whole purpose. If you asked me where I want to live vs. where I would want to live if price were not a factor you would get two hugely different results. For example if you asked me if I wanted to live in Manhattan I would say no. If you asked me if I wanted to live in Manhattan if price was no consideration I would say HELL YEAH. Related to that I imagine plenty of people love the idea of living off in the countryside with nobody else around until they realize they have no way to make a living there.

Prices are good for this sort of thing because they are actual revealed preferences as opposed to abstract concepts and they are examples of people doing exactly what you want - weighing price, location, amenities, density, etc.

Your preferences are contrary to those of the larger sample of people polled who felt the exact opposite, they'd prefer to NOT live somewhere like Manhattan (or similar 'big city') but felt they wouldn't be able to find jobs there. The supply (or lack thereof) of jobs is the key constraint driving housing prices, not some innate desire to live in Manhattan level density. Basically they live in cities (and housing prices reflect that) because that's where they feel they need to be since employers have decided to centralize jobs, not because they want to live there. If the preferences of workers were allowed to take precedence over those of employers then you'd be part of the 12% of so who preferred Manhattan and lived there and the majority would live in smaller cities like Richmond, VA or Lancaster, PA or the NYC suburbs.

If we conducted a thought experiment where federal law mandated telework wherever feasible, then you'd see a very prompt and abrupt emptying out of the NYC/DC/SF cities in favor of less dense places.

 

[fskimospy]

Your preferences are contrary to those of the larger sample of people polled who felt the exact opposite, they'd prefer to NOT live somewhere like Manhattan (or similar 'big city') but felt they wouldn't be able to find jobs there. The supply (or lack thereof) of jobs is the key constraint driving housing prices, not some innate desire to live in Manhattan level density. Basically they live in cities (and housing prices reflect that) because that's where they feel they need to be since employers have decided to centralize jobs, not because they want to live there. If the preferences of workers were allowed to take precedence over those of employers then you'd be part of the 12% of so who preferred Manhattan and lived there and the majority would live in smaller cities like Richmond, VA or Lancaster, PA or the NYC suburbs.

If we conducted a thought experiment where federal law mandated telework wherever feasible, then you'd see a very prompt and abrupt emptying out of the NYC/DC/SF cities in favor of less dense places.

And I'm saying that I suspect people's stated preferences are often very different than their actual, demonstrated preferences. (this shows up in surveys of every type) I strongly suspect those people when thinking of living in Manhattan aren't thinking of the sorts of places they could live in Manhattan if money were no object. I wonder how many of those people who prefer living in rural areas would change their mind to Manhattan if they were living in a giant penthouse suite overlooking central park from their infinity pool.

EDIT: Regardless, the point here is what people would want in the world as it is, balancing all of those factors together. The current situation shows a very, very strong preference for urban areas as reflected by the fact that people are willing to pay huge amounts to live there.

 

[ewdotson]

Here's a link to the Gallup article the WaPo one references, by the way. It's got interesting stuff in it, including demographic breakdowns. (The trends for which work pretty much exactly the way one would expect.) fskimospy's point about the value of surveys versus demonstrated preferences is well taken, but details are always interesting. At least, to me.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245249/americans-big-idea-living-country.aspx

 

[JSt0rm]

glenn why dont you fo to stormfront so you can spew your dumb ideas without anyone calling you on it.

 

[glenn1]

And I'm saying that I suspect people's stated preferences are often very different than their actual, demonstrated preferences. (this shows up in surveys of every type) I strongly suspect those people when thinking of living in Manhattan aren't thinking of the sorts of places they could live in Manhattan if money were no object.

So despite surveys showing the clear preference of Americans to not live in big cities, and a thread which is expressly about how people living in big cities like SF are talking about how much it sucks, your position is that people are just lying or don't know what they want? I think it's much more likely that people actually do know what they want and the polls reflect that. Sure, some 12% of Americans would love living in Manhattan and if price was no object they'd be even happier. Some fraction of those saying "I'd rather live in the suburbs" would move to Manhattan if price was no object, and some Manhattanites would move to a small city or rural area if likewise money wasn't a concern. I'd imagine the flows in/out of Manhattan if prices were a non-factor would be relatively equal. I know it's hard for you to understand this, but you truly are the outlier among Americans as the guy who actually wants to live in Manhattan (or somewhere similar) for the intrinsic qualities of Manhattan. Most would refuse to move there at any realistic price point because they strongly dislike urban life and density akin to Manhattan's in particular.

 

[JSt0rm]

Here's a link to the Gallup article the WaPo one references, by the way. It's got interesting stuff in it, including demographic breakdowns. (The trends for which work pretty much exactly the way one would expect.) fskimospy's point about the value of surveys versus demonstrated preferences is well taken, but details are always interesting. At least, to me.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245249/americans-big-idea-living-country.aspx

im planning on buying a place in the mojave. Do I want to be there year round? hell no. But escaping to there for a weekend or something would be sweet.

 

[Jhhnn]

f we conducted a thought experiment where federal law mandated telework wherever feasible, then you'd see a very prompt and abrupt emptying out of the NYC/DC/SF cities in favor of less dense places.

If only free market capitalism didn't rule, huh?

 

[fskimospy]

So despite surveys showing the clear preference of Americans to not live in big cities, and a thread which is expressly about how people living in big cities like SF are talking about how much it sucks, your position is that people are just lying or don't know what they want? I think it's much more likely that people actually do know what they want and the polls reflect that. Sure, some 12% of Americans would love living in Manhattan and if price was no object they'd be even happier. Some fraction of those saying "I'd rather live in the suburbs" would move to Manhattan if price was no object, and some Manhattanites would move to a small city or rural area if likewise money wasn't a concern. I'd imagine the flows in/out of Manhattan if prices were a non-factor would be relatively equal. I know it's hard for you to understand this, but you truly are the outlier among Americans as the guy who actually wants to live in Manhattan (or somewhere similar) for the intrinsic qualities of Manhattan. Most would refuse to move there at any realistic price point because they strongly dislike urban life and density akin to Manhattan's in particular.

I think people's actual demonstrated preferences are the best indicator of where they would like to live as opposed to where they say they want to live. As with everything in life actions speak louder than words because it requires people to ACTUALLY weigh the relevant factors and make a choice. When they do that they reveal an extremely strong preference for urban living. Your basic premise is 'if you didn't count all the positives of city living but kept all the negatives people wouldn't want to live there'. This is not a persuasive argument.

I honestly don't know why you care anyway other than some sort of personal need to have your choice of lifestyle validated. The entirety of this thread is about how so many people are clamoring to live in cities that prices have gotten entirely out of control because they won't build enough housing to accommodate the overwhelming demand. If you want to view that as some sort of indication that this enormous influx of people is somehow evidence that nobody wants to live there... uhmm... okay.

 

[JSt0rm]

If we conducted a thought experiment where federal law mandated telework wherever feasible, then you'd see a very prompt and abrupt emptying out of the NYC/DC/SF cities in favor of less dense places.

no you wouldnt. People need to maintain their networks.

 

[fskimospy]

no you wouldnt. People need to maintain their networks.

I mean his whole argument is 'people desire to live in cities because of economic opportunities so if you magically made it so they didn't have those economic opportunities then people wouldn't want to live there'.

By that logic why couldn't you just magically make the bad things about cities disappear too? He keeps complaining about 'shit in the streets' and the homeless so let's just magically poof those out of existence.

 

[glenn1]

If only free market capitalism didn't rule, huh?

The kind you hate and creates the billionaires you want to tax at 70% or more?

 

[fskimospy]

im planning on buying a place in the mojave. Do I want to be there year round? hell no. But escaping to there for a weekend or something would be sweet.

I wonder how many people who claimed they wanted to live in a rural area thought anything more about it than the fact that there would be fewer people around, such as proximity to health care, amenities, culture, decent food, etc. I strongly suspect the answer to that is that they considered none of it because they probably were asked and answered the question in less than 10 seconds.

 

[JSt0rm]

I wonder how many people who claimed they wanted to live in a rural area thought anything more about it than the fact that there would be fewer people around, such as proximity to health care, amenities, culture, decent food, etc. I strongly suspect the answer to that is that they considered none of it because they probably were asked and answered the question in less than 10 seconds.

its true but I would expect people making less then say 40k in los angeles to be really struggling and not able to enjoy those things. But most of them are focused on getting good. There are poor people in cities though and we do need to make sure they have reasonable housing. How we get that done I have no idea. I could see all of those people wanting to leave as they will never do anything but be a maid. The funny thing is that maid job only exists in those numbers in big cities. So they are kinda fucked.

So glenn and his low iq would be fucked in a city. He should stay in his suburbs eating tgif and being afraid when he sees a black person.

 

[fskimospy]

its true but I would expect people making less then say 40k in los angeles to be really struggling and not able to enjoy those things. But most of them are focused on getting good. There are poor people in cities though and we do need to make sure they have reasonable housing. How we get that done I have no idea. I could see all of those people wanting to leave as they will never do anything but be a maid. The funny thing is that maid job only exists in those numbers in big cities. So they are kinda fucked.

So glenn and his low iq would be fucked in a city. He should stay in his suburbs eating tgif and being afraid when he sees a black person.

One good way to get lower income people in cities housing would be to build more housing.

 

[JSt0rm]

but poor people being fucked is basically history.txt Glenn and his white flight is all about not seeing it. Glenn doesnt actually care about poor people.

 

[JSt0rm]

One good way to get lower income people in cities housing would be to build more housing.

it seems easy but there is no room and traffic is a big issue. There is a building near the sunset bronson lot that was shut down AFTER being built because they didnt do traffic analysis and get that study into the city. This is more of an LA problem then nyc. nyc has created a millionaire utopia of Manhattan.

 

[ImpulsE69]

So dishonest. Homeless people come from everywhere in this country, not just the urban core. They gravitate to the cities because that's where they can obtain at least some services. It's rural & suburban America pushing the damaged people & the down & out off onto the cities.

And I'm saying that I suspect people's stated preferences are often very different than their actual, demonstrated preferences. (this shows up in surveys of every type) I strongly suspect those people when thinking of living in Manhattan aren't thinking of the sorts of places they could live in Manhattan if money were no object. I wonder how many of those people who prefer living in rural areas would change their mind to Manhattan if they were living in a giant penthouse suite overlooking central park from their infinity pool.

EDIT: Regardless, the point here is what people would want in the world as it is, balancing all of those factors together. The current situation shows a very, very strong preference for urban areas as reflected by the fact that people are willing to pay huge amounts to live there.

I realize the sample is just you and I, but I can tell you I am the exact opposite. I wouldn't WANT to live in a big city regardless of price. Most people flock to big cities for only a few reasons. If people could have a decent wage working from anywhere they wanted I think you'd find most people would not put up with anything in NY or CA and the negatives related to population in those areas would slowly begin to fade because of it.

 

[Brainonska511]

it seems easy but there is no room and traffic is a big issue. There is a building near the sunset bronson lot that was shut down AFTER being built because they didnt do traffic analysis and get that study into the city. This is more of an LA problem then nyc. nyc has created a millionaire utopia of Manhattan.

There is plenty of room in cities to build more housing. I've seen more than enough surface-only parking in Manhattan, plus you can upzone neighborhoods to allow greater density.

As for traffic, that's an easily solvable problem that foreign cities have already figured out: ban cars or charge a ton to enter the city centers during peak times. And cut out the parking minimums in zoning laws that contribute to auto ownership and traffic in cities.

 

[Jhhnn]

The kind you hate and creates the billionaires you want to tax at 70% or more?

You're the one moaning about what that does to the housing market & proposing govt intervention in the way they organize labor. Have you abandoned the sacred principles of trickle down economics & FYGM?

 

[JSt0rm]

There is plenty of room in cities to build more housing. I've seen more than enough surface-only parking in Manhattan, plus you can upzone neighborhoods to allow greater density.

As for traffic, that's an easily solvable problem that foreign cities have already figured out: ban cars or charge a ton to enter the city centers during peak times. And cut out the parking minimums in zoning laws that contribute to auto ownership and traffic in cities.

easy huh? You should reach out to the city of los angeles and let them know you figured it out.

 

[fskimospy]

I realize the sample is just you and I, but I can tell you I am the exact opposite. I wouldn't WANT to live in a big city regardless of price. Most people flock to big cities for only a few reasons. If people could have a decent wage working from anywhere they wanted I think you'd find most people would not put up with anything in NY or CA and the negatives related to population in those areas would slowly begin to fade because of it.

I agree that there are plenty of people who don't want to live in big cities!

The thing is what you're doing here is saying 'if we get rid of the good things about cities and only keep the bad things then people wouldn't want to live there'. I agree! I just don't think that's a particularly useful thought exercise.