Hacker News Reader

Comment by tehjoker | Hacker News Reader

> I cannot wait until this whole place is gentrified and cleaned up.

This is a colonial mindset and regards the eviction, impoverishment, and exile of other human beings as nothing compared to one's own desires. Yes they'll be replaced. That's what colonization is.

View on HN

This is also the mindset that no one is owed a neighborhood - if you want to live in it, buy. If you are renting, too bad. You cannot both have the short term flexibility of rent and the desired staying power of buying.

Could you develop your train of thought to illustrate how this comment is coherent with another you've made elsewhere:

> Affordability has nothing to do with gentrification.

Yes. I appreciate you asking.

Today's gentrification is caused by wealthier people moving into neighborhoods, and making them less affordable. BUT this affordability reduction is relative to the price we were at before.

The price we were at before is already extremely unaffordable due to insane building restrictions and a NIMBY attitude baked into regulation.

If the city allowed the building of high-rises everywhere, would gentrification stop? No. Certain neighborhoods would get gentrified, and become relatively higher priced. Overall, however, city affordability would skyrocket.

I believe I understand your opinion. In my very personal opinion you're ignoring a couple of variables:

It's probably not even possible to expand housing capacity to a significant degree in most locations it'd matters,

Even if it were, I contend the overall cost of living would go up dramatically (even in the hypothetical new high rises) due to transportation saturation and supply chain drama,

Also unless you literally double capacity everywhere what incentive do landlords (even new ones) have to moderate aggregate and individual rent growth? Since the state of the area is f'd today and demand is high, if there are any improvements demand can only go (dramatically) up.

Incentives can be changed. The economy is all just conventions and pretty arbitrary rules.

I disagree, insofar as the term "economy" interfaces with human nature and imperatives, such as the means to secure shelter and nurishment.

Like it does currently?

> It's probably not even possible to expand housing capacity to a significant degree in most locations it'd matters,

This sounds like an excuse. The city of Tokyo alone builds more housing every year than the entire state of California: https://www.thenational.ae/business/property/want-affordable...

Tokyo is an in-demand city in an earthquake prone area, and they've managed to create enough housing to stay ahead of demand.

This is only tangentially relevant. Japan has a culture where it's accepted that residential property is relatively medium term, and should be upgraded or rebuilt semi-regularily. Contrast that to real estate as an investment/heritance vehicule in the west.

Also, personnaly I wouldn't be ready to live in a Tokyo flat and I suspect most of the target population isn't either. That we may not have a choice down the line is likely, but another issue.

I think I'd live in a Tokyo flat if it cost $1200/month for a one-bedroom spot in the centre! [0] (with outstanding public transit, too)

For that price, you can get a bunk-bed in San Francisco [1]

[0] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Tokyo

[1] https://sf.curbed.com/2019/7/18/20699340/podshare-san-franci...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com