Hacker News Reader

Comment by adjkant | Hacker News Reader

These HN comments don't seem to grasp that there are two distinct groups of people here, and these trends can/will counteract eachother: the ones that are in the city for work, and the ones that are in the city because they love cities. COVID creates an exodus of one, but people in the latter category are also moving into cities as well as prices drop and they are no longer priced out.

HN folks love to complain about the lack of value of cities (SF in particular), but as someone in NYC, the pandemic has only affirmed that I want to be here and see value in it. Even in the limited state, so many things I have access to simply wouldn't be in other areas, and I know many people who moved away temporarily for economic reasons who are very much not doing as well mentally and are looking forward to being back in the city.

I don't see why we have to polarize or categorize this trend as it seems like a win/win if this continues: people who don't like cities move out, that lowers prices, and suddenly more people who do enjoy city living can afford them. This has the potential to solve diversity issues in cities, both in class/culture (potentially slowing or even reversing gentrification) and industry (less tech people in SF). This sounds like it could be a second wave of white flight, sans racism, and I'm here for it.

If you don't like cities, I am truly happy for you to move out, both for your own mental state and happiness and for freeing up space in the city for people who will be happier. How long this trend lasts as remote work lessens along with the eventual (macro) end of the pandemic, we will have to wait and see.

View on HN

> as someone in NYC

NYC is a legit megacity - New York has been described as the cultural, financial, and media capital of the world.

SF is small by comparison. Only a small portion of SF is walkable and even then the blocks are long. Transit is sparse and dirty and most people end up owning cars. Despite this housing is more expensive than NYC.

Unless you think it's reasonable to pay $4k a month for a one bedroom in Indianapolis it doesn't make sense to stay in SF.

Except San Francisco has nature (and even more nature close by) which makes all the difference to me. The few times I’ve been in NYC, I found the sheer amount of gray concrete and steel to be unnerving and dystopian; I’m legitimately amazed that humans can live in such an environment for so long without becoming depressed. That’s not to disparage the city or people who like it; there’s just many of us who need at least some amount of natural beauty (and I don’t mean Central Park).

Yes. It's really the combination of climate (usually) and relatively easy access to water, mountains, etc. that set San Francisco apart. IMO, anyone who lives in SF and basically never leaves the city except maybe to work is passing up the main compensation for its high housing prices and many problems. Take away its setting and it's pretty unremarkable.

[ADDED: OK. Not really fair but what make SF unique is very tied into its geography.]

I was there a few years ago, and saw several homes built in the same era as mine, 1908.

I live in a rural city and paid less than $150k, I saw the equivalent home in SF for $9mil.

Location matters for sure.

You're not paying rent to the forest or the scenery but it's not like those are so unique to SF to justify the prices.

Browse https://www.reddit.com/r/CityPorn a bit and you'll see plenty of beautifully located cities with comparable size to SF.

In NYC, you're a short train or ferry ride away from an abundance of nature.

SF doesn't have the size of NYC, you're very right there, but it is still quite large and has a good deal to offer. City sizing is not all or nothing, and Indianapolis is nothing like SF in terms of offerings. SF transit is less than ideal, but we can't entirely discount it. I'd of course love to see more, as would many, but SF has plenty of other problems to solve of course.

> "Only a small portion of SF is walkable"

This depends on the person :) I've found that on the peninsula, anything from the inner sunset to the water, bounded by the bottom of the mission, can be walked if someone wants and takes their time. Of course that's going to be mainly young able bodied people given the hills, but it does work for a subset of people. Let's also not discount downtown Oakland and the 45 minute walk zone around that either.

yup, san francisco, the city proper, is very walkable, although some neighborhoods have fewer businesses and services that cater to locals than others. between when i lived there and my return visits, i've probably walked or biked nearly the whole city by now.

there's no need to qualify its walkability either. for most destinations, you can avoid steep hills and don't particularly need to be either young nor fit.

Bro have you ever visited indianapolis? Yes the two cities are about the same size population but that’s about the only similarity. SF has a different climate, geography, cities, people, food, politics, etc.

I don't buy it that SF climate/nature is so amazing that everyone is moving for it. It's a good place for windsurfing/surfing but other nature activities require a 45min drive which honestly isn't that unique.

Food? Meh. Another thing that NYC and LA trounce SF on.

People, politics? SF is ground zero for nativism and wealth inequality. There's abject poverty around every corner and the long time residents have no trouble pushing policies to exacerbate it.

Yeah that's a pretty hilarious comparison. It just so happens I grew up in Indy and now live in SF. Been here for 15 years and would not move back. Not at all the same.

Zillow link for Indianapolis, it is not exactly a rich city. https://www.zillow.com/indianapolis-in/?searchQueryState=%7B... You can get a fine house for $100k but it is not the life coastal city folks are accustomed to.

>there are two distinct groups of people here, and these trends can/will counteract eachother: the ones that are in the city for work, and the ones that are in the city because they love cities. COVID creates an exodus of one, but people in the latter category are also moving into cities as well as prices drop and they are no longer priced out.

I don't think it's as simple as one group replacing another so it's a wash. I don't know if the WSJ article dives into it but cities seem to care what type of workers they attract because higher-salaried employees (e.g. tech workers) provide a higher tax base. This was demonstrated by various cities falling over themselves trying to attract Amazon's HQ2 with the promise of high tech jobs. Cities aren't on a public campaign to attract more bohemian artists. It's the high tech workers that are currently more desirable.

If tech workers exodus of San Francisco is a real sustained phenomenon, are the replacement workers' taxable income higher/lower/same? Since you envisioned lower prices for housing, doesn't that mean it would be caused by lower income workers?

I don't think it's going to be a wash, or prices wouldn't fall. You're right that this will decrease tax bases, so I guess the real question is "by how much?". Only time will tell what that looks like, but I think that will lead more to rebudgeting/allocating than just objective negative losses.

Your specific examples are interesting though, as NYC's population explicitly rejected Amazon's HQ2 with public backlash. NYC has always been defined by being a city of many industries, both white collar and creative. The day that's not true is the day NYC is no longer NYC. I think SF is a great example of what that looks like if you even compare SF of 2000 to 2020. I was between the two cities when I graduated college, and the diversity of industries is one of the main reasons I chose NYC. I don't want to be socially surrounded by my day job.

NYC has gotten along just fine without having a large tech worker population (in terms of percentages), and there are also plenty of tech workers like me that are staying. While some of my coworkers have moved since pandemic, most have not and are still contributing to NYC taxes you're concerned with.

These are all open questions that we need to answer, but the reason I look at this as a good thing still is that as a lover of cities, I'd much rather have these new issues. The mass influx of tech and wealth that cities have struggled with in the past 5+ years were/are eroding many of the things that define the actual cores of said cities, and when that's complete, you end up with more unhappy people on all sides. SF is certainly the closest to that point, and this exodus, if real, just might give it a chance to be saved.

It’s also worth noting that this has happened before in SF multiple times, to varying degrees, and the result has generally been an invigoration of culture in one way or another.

Can you elaborate on that? I can't say I'm an SF history expert, but I've never heard of those shifts so I'm truly curious what you're referring to.

See the other answer - captures what I was referring to.

I was in the Bay Area for the 2001 and 2008 tech crashes. Cheap space made all kinds of things possible: performances, art projects, experimental living arrangements, bootstrapped startups, maker spaces, high-concept restaurants, ...

When people can start things without institutional funding, they can build interesting, speculative things. Some of those speculative things end up making lots of money, while most go bust, but either way it's an interesting environment to be part of.

NYC's population did not reject HQ2— a very small, vocal group killed it, angering quite a few of the rest of us. Even then, the controversy was over 1) tax breaks to Amazon being an unnecessary handout (turns out they weren't), and 2) which neighborhood to be in.

I've yet to encounter someone in my NYC circle who isn't glad HQ2 was killed. Activists may be a small portion, but that doesn't represent the entirety of local support. None of the people I know were directly involved in said activism.

By this poll [1], 36% opposed it. While it may not be a majority, over a third of people is notable. I'm not looking to rehash this in gruesome detail, but I think your qualm is with much more nuance than "a very small, vocal group killed it".

[1] https://files.constantcontact.com/9c83fb30501/c25e9a3a-d06b-...

Why would the city care about income taxes? Those go to the state, not the city (with the exception of NYC).

SF has a gross receipts payroll tax, and an additional payroll tax on workers earning $320k+. Additionally higher earners spend more money on everything else that is taxed.

The bigger issue is that the media overestimates how much money SF gets from "tech". SF has a very diverse economy.

To add to your point: my friends in the suburbs aren’t weathering the pandemic any better than my city dwelling friends. Even my more rural friends are complaining because their communities are now overrun with people heading up to their cabin, with hunting/fishing/outdoor/firearms stuff all being hard to find and expensive due to increased demand. And they probably have reason to be scared because high quality medical care is scarcer and further away so their healthcare networks are at greater risk of being overrun

I love NYC and although work and life took me elsewhere I have lots of family and friends who live there and spend a fair amount of time there.

The city will survive, but the coming years will be tough. It’s not as diversified economy as it once was, and the financial underpinnings of NY state and city are very much tied to a pretty shockingly small number of people.

You might say “government? Whatevs”, but remember that things like Medicaid keep the wheels on the NYC bus so to speak, and the city and state fund half of that.

Be careful what you wish for. If the gentrified tech and finance bros pull out, the city is going to be well fucked.

Do you mind giving examples of what you have access to in NYC when so many things are shuttered right now?

As for "white flight" it's more of a "white collar flight" where people with money and resources and higher income remote jobs will leave as long as living conditions suck.

> Do you mind giving examples of what you have access to in NYC when so many things are shuttered right now?

Right now, I've basically reallocated my budget of city activities towards local restaurants, and I've been eating a ton of great delivery. As the cases have slowed, I'm cautiously considering outdoor dining. Either way, I'm eating great food right now.

I live in Brooklyn, so Prospect Park (central park of the borough) is always nice for walks or distanced picnics with friends. My local neighborhood is also just generally pleasant for walks. Many outdoor farmers markets are still in full swing.

There's an outdoor climbing gym in Dumbo that I can walk to from my apartment, and I go there now as well even. Full contact tracing, check-in/out, reservation system, the whole nine yards. Not many places have a large outdoor climbing gym.

All of this is also powered by people actually following mask laws and it being summer. I'm fully aware winter is going to be less fun, but I'm ready to weather that and order lots of good delivery.

> As for "white flight" it's more of a "white collar flight" where people with money and resources and higher income remote jobs will leave as long as living conditions suck.

Well put, and I think that will be a big positive for cities if it continues.

With the exception of a specialized gym for climbing, none of what you've listed is anything unique to an urban environment. I've lived in various suburbs my whole life and have everything else you've listed. For much of that time, I also had a private backyard, which is something you generally don't get in urbia.

You can't beat the efficiency of an urban environment though.

I think you underestimate the density of restaurants and cuisines available. No suburb I have encountered gets close to matching this situation. Suburbs also typically require cars, something I don't own and never want to own. I don't want a backyard either as that just means another thing to maintain against entropy!

All of this to say, it depends on what you value :)

Yeah I’m not sure why people don’t get that walking past the climbing gym, a hundred varied restaurants, and a wide assortment of local shops on the way home is different than driving 20 minutes to go eat or go to the gym.

My complaint about all these articles is prices have barely changed in NY and SF but they all like to proclaim some huge shift. Every time I check to see if there really are major discounts and I’m disappointed.

I think people get it, but they also get that in lockdown these benefits disappear.

There was an interesting article in the guardian newspaper early in the UK lockdown that looked at the implicit social contract in city life - I may live in a small apartment, perhaps even sharing it with several others, but that is less important when the city is outside my door, it's just somewhere to sleep. If the city effectively ceases to be outside your door for weeks or months, you may decide that having a bigger place of your own with your own outdoor space is actually a pretty good prospect. And that thought may not go away even when things open up again.

> If the city effectively ceases to be outside your door for weeks or months

I think the key here is that even in the pandemic, while things have adapted and taken a different form, this isn't true. We lost some things, but solutions have popped up. Due to outdoor dining, in many ways the streets in my area have become more pedestrian friendly. Many blocks are actually now shut down to cars and are designated explicitly for pedestrians.

Early in the lockdown here in the UK, it certainly was the case - there was no dining anywhere for several weeks.

It's back, and pretty vibrant, in the small city I live in now. But that social contract in a small city is different anyway - even pretty near the centre I have a good sized house and some outdoor space of my own.

> My complaint about all these articles is prices have barely changed in NY and SF but they all like to proclaim some huge shift. Every time I check to see if there really are major discounts and I’m disappointed.

From my searching in NYC prices, it seems like this is happening not in average prices but in the bottom of the market, and within specific neighborhoods. West Village prices aren't going to drop, but some places like say Astoria, Gowanus, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and the like are going to have more decent places hit some record lows. I recently found a place 5 blocks from me that was 1.2K cheaper a month. Yes, it lacked some amenities and the location is worse, but that type of gap would have never existed pre-pandemic.

I know someone who explicitly moved into my neighborhood off of one of these deals, and without it they would have been in a much cheaper neighborhood. I suspect that type of movement is going to have ripple effects into outer borough pricing which could then make cheaper space.

I think we also are still not done seeing the shoe fall. These moves take time, even if already planned. The sublet market is going to shit in most cities on the seller side, which won't be reflected until those leases end. West Village prices might not fall in 2020, but they may in 2021. As time goes on with this pandemic, we also have to factor in that stagnation can also effectively be a drop.

Good points. And interesting you see it on the lower end, since I think the conventional wisdom is the high end might crash first.

I personally do think because of the eviction moratorium that we will see bigger decreases to come, but I also think it will rebound hard in main areas as you say because everyone always wants to be in the Village

An $1,000 drop from $4,000/mo to $3,000/mo is a big change. The unfortunate reality, however, is $3,000 is just as unaffordable as $4,000 for many. It's still got a very long way to fall before we see $300/mo bedrooms.

My gym is 2 blocks away. Within 2 blocks I have about 10 restaurants. I also don't have to walk over syringes or navigate homeless camps. I think you're stereotyping non-urban environments.

> I also don't have to walk over syringes or navigate homeless camps.

That stereotyping goes both ways, as this is nothing like my walk to my gym.

> My gym is 2 blocks away. Within 2 blocks I have about 10 restaurants.

Does that density hold for the 30 minute walk radius from your dwelling in all directions? There's a big difference between living in the "main street" area of a suburban area and that type of environment.

Yes because I live in the suburbs, not the country. I'm talking about urbia vs non-urbia, not civilization vs the countryside.

Most suburbs don't have what you describe at all, I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive. I grew up in the suburbs myself, one with 250K people (arguably a small city), and it had nothing close to that density outside of the main street and waterfront area that accounted for maybe 10 blocks. Your claims just don't track.

I used to! The dry-cleaner shut down as did 8/10 restaurants (This is in Northern Austin). All the chains stayed open, so I guess that is something?

Take your fake wall. I have the sierras at my back door.

I love the Sierras and have spent a lot of nights in the backcountry, but good luck getting any permits now. Pre-pandemic it was already extremely difficult. Now you need to get up at 7am and grab a day use ticket to even enter Yosemite (or even drive through!).

Sure, I agree, certainly permits are required in some locations yes. But you can usually find something available. Even locations off the beaten path. There are a lot more options to climb along the hundreds of miles of mountain range when compared to a city.

Most of the Sierras don’t require any type of permit or ticket to access. I’ve noticed among techie friends with a new desire to go outdoors a belief that they need to make an appointment to enjoy nature, and since all the appointments are taken online, there is no nature to enjoy. Or to google for “best hike San Francisco”, go there, and find that the parking is full.

In fact the nature is much larger than the city, and it’s most entirely empty if you aren’t intentionally visiting the most popular spots.

I’m sure most of the Sierras don’t require day use reservations, but I’m pretty sure nearly all of it requires permits for car camping or backcountry camping, and those permits are difficult to get (apart from taking the risk of showing up for a walk-in permit).

And I understand the stereotype of the techie who thinks Yosemite Valley reservations is the only way to enjoy nature, but I don’t think that’s me. I’ve been on dozens of trips to the Sierras and I’m fairly experienced with the various permit systems. That said, I’m sure there are still less-travelled gems that I haven’t discovered. :)

As far as I know, the national forests (excluding the designated wilderness ares) don’t require permits for dispersed camping, which includes car camping.

We got permits for desolation wilderness fairly easily in June.

And I'm happy for you! I'm not saying everyone values the same things, I'm just sharing my perspective and noting that it's not an uncommon one within the context of what this means at an economic and cultural level. For someone who strongly values being directly in nature, I'd certainly point them in your direction before mine!

So uncharitable, and false. Unless you were already remote in Gold Country or Markleeville, your “back door” was a 3-5 hour drive each way, depending on traffic. Kinda kills your efficient carbon footprint for living in a city. Been there, done that, moved away from the Bay Area to avoid exactly that. And I would climb at Mission Cliffs after work to be ready for that weekend in the Sierra—-and wasn’t alone in doing so.

I don't live in NYC, but I can advocate for the weird idea that the city actually has much more enjoyable COVID-friendly people-friendly spaces than the suburbs.

The retail businesses in the city are open, with precautions, just like in the suburbs. That isn't really a difference. The difference is that shops and restaurants in the city were more plentiful and better to begin with.

Now, try getting food (restaurant or grocery) delivery for a reasonable price in your typical suburb. Suburban folks didn't get stuff delivered before COVID, they hopped in their car. Many suburbs and exurbs don't really do delivery outside of your typical pizza places, and if they do they cost a lot for each delivery. I know a more rural friend who constantly has delivery apps cancel due to a lack of available drivers.

The city already had the delivery advantage in the first place, which is in turn a COVID advantage. I know people who get delivery for 100% of their goods and don't own a car at all, and these deliveries were far cheaper than the suburbs due to the density.

Not only that, when the only safe thing to do is go outside, I think the city wins, at least for me. City dwellers already walk and go outside more than people in the suburbs. In contrast, my relatives in the suburbs and exurbs can't really go on walks outside of their sub-development because the sidewalks disappear and it turns into a 55-mph zone.

This is a really great point. People are now more able to exercise location preferences separately from work preferences. This will allow people to leave who didn’t have that choice before and to enter the city (or re-enter) who did not have that choice before.

What’s interesting to me is who must remain in the city. Obviously you have hands-on essential workers who tend to be poorly paid. But I think long term you will also have some of the best paid people in the city required to remain - managers and executives and anyone else for whom communication is a voluminous and essential part of their job. There really is no substitute for face to face when it comes to quality and once the pandemic is history these people will be back at the office.

Paul Krugman had an interesting video he made shortly after the pandemic pointing out that companies had already begun moving certain workers out of the expensive cities long before this. They figured out they could move, say, the HR department from Manhattan to New Jersey. IT services going to suburbs or even offshore (except for some people on site to be hands on). With tech companies you tended to see this with functions that for better or worse they valued less (for example content moderators). This will continue.

Now we see mainline engineers (who are definitely valued) allowed to leave, because communication is less important for their job than for a manager (even one at same salary level like a PM). But a lot of people will remain or come to cities. And I think it’s worth noting that those folks are probably less likely to make any moves right now than the people moving out. Moving out reduces economic risk in the short term. Moving somewhere more expensive is something people will put off until there is more certainty. But rents will spike up at some point as people who like or need cities make their move (I am not saying they will return to prior levels though).

> and I know many people who moved away temporarily for economic reasons who are very much not doing as well mentally and are looking forward to being back in the city.

The same has happened in SF.

I've gotten many women to come back to the city because they were going crazy in whatever part of the frontier they ventured out into, or even worse: being an adult at their parent's house in Bumbawhat, USA.

Many people find the value systems and insensitivities in the rest of the country to be completely foreign and shocking. So they are looking for any excuse to be back here, even if just to visit someone.

> COVID creates an exodus of one, but people in the latter category are also moving into cities as well as prices drop and they are no longer priced out.

That doesn't offset housing/rental price drop. Not that you claimed it did, just pointing that out.

> “ Even in the limited state, so many things I have access to simply wouldn't be in other areas“

Such as? I genuinely don’t see any appeal in living in a city during a global pandemic when there are massive restrictions on what you can do. Yes pre-covid the appeal of a City was great. But post covid? I think you get a lot more bang for your buck outside of the city (I.e. living in Tahoe or even smaller cities like San Diego)

SF is also incredibly dysfunctional as a city. Walking down market street can be traumatic and disheartening. It truly boggles the mind that the local government does nothing to help the situation and often puts policies in place that exacerbate the situation.

See this thread + some other replies, but it seems I'm far from alone on this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180321

So delivery food and an outdoor rock climbing gym. None of these are exclusive to living in NYC/SF.

You can learn to cook (or hell even hire your own private chef with the money you save) while living near an actual mountain with much better rock climbing capabilities and ample access to rock climbing coaches.

I've said this there, but your solutions are highlighting that its a question of values. None of your suggestions actually sate what I value in those things. I'm not looking for a personal chef or climbing coach, I'm looking for the culture that surrounds both of these things. I want to work through climbing problems with other people. I want the people that created the food to be supported by the food I eat. I'm not someone who wants to live in nature, I actually do prefer a city with access to groomed nature. No, that's not everyone, and that's okay! But it's many people who enjoy and stay in major cities.

Climbing actual mountains typically takes hours to just get there even if yoi are on them.

It is also different more dangerous sport then wall climbing (which is pretty safe).

> It truly boggles the mind that the local government does nothing to help the situation and often puts policies in place that exacerbate the situation.

Pardon my cynicism, but too many tax dollars are spent on just maintaining the status quo. And a lot of them go into the maintainers' management fee.

> the ones that are in the city for work, and the ones that are in the city because they love cities. COVID creates an exodus of one, but people in the latter category are also moving into cities as well as prices drop and they are no longer priced out.

I think it's short sighted to think that Covid won't impact on the numbers of the latter, who may re-evaluate whether they actually love big cities at all.

I also think that these categories are not fixed, I have been in both, and Covid may alter the dynamics of how many change between which groups and at what ages.

> who are very much not doing as well mentally and are looking forward to being back in the city.

Why do you think they're not doing as well mentally? Isolation? Lack of things to do?

I've noticed that the pandemic really emphasizes my relationships with my neighbors. We've never been so close, and now all of our world is smaller, so we're talking a lot more from our balconies, sharing recipes and planting tips. It's nice but certainly a throwback to older times where you knew all of your neighbors.

Your suggestions mostly hit it. When you're used to constantly meeting friends in the city, it's a drastic social life change. I think also many people who enjoy cities like high levels of stimulation, and the suburbs simply don't offer as much. I'm thinking museums and events and the like. So even in the city, people will still struggle on that end. So basically yeah, I suspect lack of things to do in those cases.

FWIW, I'm actually not interacting much with neighbors but I'm glad to hear you are and would not be surprised to find a macro increase in that right now. Interesting to see how people are adapting in different ways!

The housing supply is essentially fixed in the short and medium term, so we will mostly see an equilibriation in prices to keep them mostly full. So it's trivially true that some people will move in as prices fall.

However, it's mistaken to think that all the people were in the city but now are leaving were there for jobs. There is a large population of folks who work south of SF, who moved there (and reverse commute) for the benefits of city living, but have now left because those benefits are largely absent with the pandemic.

>These HN comments don't seem to grasp that there are two distinct groups of people here, and these trends can/will counteract eachother: the ones that are in the city for work, and the ones that are in the city because they love cities. COVID creates an exodus of one, but people in the latter category are also moving into cities as well as prices drop and they are no longer priced out.

Exactly. And it seems well planned cities with outdoors/health/lifestyle perks are extremely attractive to these folks who love cities right now (as opposed to polluted concrete rat race).

Will be interesting when nightlife/irl events resume. FOMO to reconnect irl on the horizon?

I’m desperate at this point to move from my middle of nowhere socal “city” of <100k people to an actual city now that prices are falling and I can work remote. My goal is to get it all sorted by November.

My only activities right now are eating out and walking, so cities are actually still very appealing - lots of places to walk to and lots of restaurant options. And some day, maybe 8 or 9 months from now, I might even be able to go to a museum. I love museums and most cities seem to be full of them.

? There are plenty of cities to move to that are not SF or NYC and I bet the vast majority of those bailing SF are moving to other urban areas.

If you dig into the comments, it seems the anecdotal evidence isn't pointing that way, but more towards suburban living. That said, to address the main issue:

> There are plenty of cities to move to that are not SF or NYC

If you are a city lover of my ilk, in the US, there are actually quite few options that hold the same traits beyond these two. Seattle, Chicago, Boston, and LA would be maybe the other four. For reference, those values generally would be things like good public transit / lack of car need, high density of food and cultures, walkability, arts/culture scenes (many museums, local art scenes, local music scenes), etc.

That's not to say you can't find mini versions of these among a set of 10-20 smaller US cities, but for those who primarily value these things, options are actually quite limited and thats IMO one of the big reasons we see huge rising city prices as the group who has these values grow. It's a supply problem. My theory is that if smaller cities started invested in public transit projects, that alone could alleviate some of the crazy city pricing we see today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com