Hacker News Reader

Why would you want streets and parking increased? Here's an idea: put the roads on diets, eliminate not-really-free (publicly subsidized) parking, and add density to the moon.

That's what makes NYC an enthralling network of neighborhoods and communities.

Someone who lived in NYC just said "that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland"

Since you say it's an enthralling network of neighborhoods and communities, can I ask whether you actually live in NYC?

I've been to big cities like NYC and others, and it definitely gets too crowded for me. There's clearly a desire on HN to densify, but why is that the case? Is the goal of humanity to increase demand in any particular city? Is the goal to put as many people into SF's existing area as possible?

> There's clearly a desire on HN to densify, but why is that the case? Is the goal of humanity to increase demand in any particular city? Is the goal to put as many people into SF's existing area as possible?

That’s a good question though. I don’t actually have any skin in the game regarding San Francisco, I didn’t like SF even before the social boom.

But for those that do, I imagine it’s because: they don’t want their jobs to leave; they want to spend their internet riches on something other than rent; they want the other income tiers to have a decent quality of life; and they want to make San Francisco more livable.

Neighborhoods and community, to me, means not being separated from people by water guzzling lawns, and not moving from place to place in hermetically sealed bubbles.

Coincidentally, a feature was published today on my apartment building. There's roughly 100 units in it and I know nearly everybody. It's heaven and I wish there were more places where one could have an experience like this. https://www.freundevonfreunden.com/features/475-kent-brookly...

Yes. Seven years, it's the best place I've ever lived, completely ruined me for the rest of America. I only wish I could find a similar place with more tolerable winters.

> that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland

As someone living in NYC: hahah, what?

NYC has been extremely dense before practically anyone on this forum was alive.

Manhattan's density and population peaked around 1910.

http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/uploads/content/Manhattan_Den...

+1

Here is the actual data: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/...

There are two ways to fix a supply/demand curve. Increase supply or decrease demand.

Obviously increasing density would require more transit options and infrastructure. Not parking.

Last time I checked, NYC was still one of the most diverse and vibrant places in the world.

We could also decrease demand.

people wouldn't need so much darn parking if they could live near work. This idea that people must buy housing 50 miles a way and commute over 3 hours a day must end: it's terrible for the environment and terrible for people's lives, not to mention very expensive.

Sure, adding a little more supply only helps a little. But you gotta start somewhere. It's like trying to reverse CO2 polution, it takes time, but it's worth it and in the long term it is reversable. We need to keep adding more and more and more supply for the next 40 years until it gets back to a normal level. We owe this to future generations for screwing things up so terribly.

You make a lot of strong assertions that don't seem obvious to me whatsoever.

> but that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland: too many people in a single area can't form a cohesive community

Can you elaborate what you mean by 'hellish wasteland'? What specific aspects of NYC (or even Manhattan) do you find to be a hellish wasteland?

And how do you define 'too many people in a single area'?

What some people call heaven (a nice small friendly residential neighborhood where everyone knows each others) others call hell (a small community where everyone watches each others, and that enforces a conformist lifestyle). Some people love the anonymity of NYC.

I love NYC

Hear hear. People want NYC style living should just move to NYC. SF character is what makes SF unique and people want to destroy that.

Lol, NYC doesn't have enough housing either. Have you seen their rent prices?

It would be wonderful if there was an actual city out there where everyone decided "hey, let's drive rent prices in the freaking ground by actually allowing high density building EVERYWHERE".

No developers would be building if that were the case. Ever notice how every new apartment building is a "luxury" building? That's because construction costs are so high it only makes sense for developers to build if they can charge top dollar for rental prices. If the rental prices were low they wouldn't build.

Construction costs aren't much higher than they have been historically. Slightly higher because of demand for things with inelastic supplies (like tower cranes), but we're talking average cost change by a few percent at most.

And yes they would keep building. Land owners are the ones who gain/lose by fluctuations in demand, not developers. If demand drops and rental prices drop, land owners lower their prices that they sell to developers. This has been proven so substantially by Housing Economists that it's basically considered consensus by now. Spend some time with the Journal of Housing Economics if you would like to learn more.

The real reason why developers only build luxury buildings is that they can't build enough to satisfy all demand, so the few buildings that they can build will obviously go to the types with the highest margins. If we allowed for more development, developers would still build luxury buildings as long as there was unsatiated demand for them, but they'd also build normal and affordable housing as well.

But developers ARENT allowed to build. That's the problem.

Yes, let's get rid of all these building height limits so that builders can actually build. That would be wonderful.

Exactly. Then building more does not solve the housing issue. More people will just cram into the newly built spaces. Housing is still expensive. Witness NYC.

NYC really is the perfect comparable to see the potential future of SF. NYC has a housing glut, but a it's all luxury housing. No developer will ever build new "affordable housing" because the economics don't make sense. Increasing the housing supply should decrease prices in theory, but in reality more people will just show up and pay the current asking price (or more). Price per sqft in NYC is pushing 2-3k+ while SF is typically around 1200 per sqft in the nicer neighborhoods like Noe. Pacific Heights is still the priciest at around 1500-1600 per sqft, but still nothing compared to a lot of NYC. This is my clearly my own opinion and it likely won't be popular, but I'm a little surprised that SF is still as "affordable" as it currently is, and it's my view that it will never again be priced any lower (except for short term trends such as recessions).

But... Why are those people moving in? Is it perhaps possibly because these people LIKE to live in high density spaces?

If people keep moving in that means that high density is by definition desirable. We as a society should be building the stuff that people want, and your argument proves that what people want is high density living.

The fact that high density living attracts new buyers is even MORE reason to make more of the type of living that people love.