Comment by lmm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Reality: McMansions are popular because they are comfortable and provide living space for an actual family. While being NOT more expensive on a per-unit basis than tiny condos in major urban centers.

> I get it, millenials got screwed by the unfortunate confluence of 2008 and by the economy finally transforming from manufacturing economy into a service-based one. They can't afford large houses, so the psychological defense mechanism kicks in: "Hey, these McMansions are bad anyway. It's good to downsize into a shoebox".

So they're popular because they're affordable, but they're hated because they're expensive? Which is it?

> But at this point we perhaps should start answering the question: do we want cities to continue being densified into Manhattan-style concrete canyons, or should we make sure that our children can live in nice houses that our generation was not able to afford?

Manhattan is popular, aspirational even, for a reason. Every generation before the 1950s was built by gradual densification. The wrongheaded decision to try to pickle cities in aspic via zoning laws is what creates housing unaffordability. A "nice" lifestyle is far more about being able to live somewhere you can work and socialize than about having zillions of sterile square feet to yourself.

> So they're popular because they're affordable, but they're hated because they're expensive? Which is it?

Millenials can't afford to buy either a McMansion, or a condo in a city. They can afford to rent an apartment.

> Manhattan is popular, aspirational even, for a reason. Every generation before the 1950s was built by gradual densification.

Yup. And there's a reason why the US became the world leading power with unparalleled quality of life after 1950-s.

American post-war affluence is because of McMansions? That’s certainly a novel theory.

Yup. They just were not called "McMansions" at the time.

Affluence definitely followed the conscious policy decision to build a network of freeways and highways, with a focus on suburban lifestyle.

To expand a bit on that, car-oriented cities allowed US citizens to:

1. Have shorter commutes than Europeans. This _still_ holds true!

2. Be able to access more businesses within the "reasonable commute" range.

> car-oriented cities allowed US citizens to:

> 1. Have shorter commutes than Europeans. This _still_ holds true!

> 2. Be able to access more businesses within the "reasonable commute" range.

Citation? That's the opposite of everything I've seen here and elsewhere; Americans seem to see an hour-or-more commute as normal. Car-based cities give you great commute times until those pesky other cars start commuting and filling up the roads.

For 1980 the US average commute time was 21 minutes. For Paris that was 38 minutes. For London it was 40 minutes.

For the current state of affairs: Commute time in Paris: 32 minutes, commute time in Berlin: 31 minutes, commute time in London: 47 minutes. US average: 27 minutes.

For reachability: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00020-2

> Car-based cities give you great commute times until those pesky other cars start commuting and filling up the roads.

Even bad car-based cities are generally _better_ than the best transit-oriented cities. Even with congestion and decades of neglect, forced by anti-people pro-urbanism crowd.

Just look up commute times and think. I suggest looking up Houston, TX (so-called "car hell") and comparing it with major European cities.

Paris commute times are much higher than in the rest of the country. France's average commute time is currently at 25 min, which lower than US average. Ergo… Also excellent transit-oriented cities are just that, excellent. Had a 20 min commute in Singapore a while, it was just terrific – excellent flow, perfectly convenient, great selection of hawkers to start the day with a curry puff or whatever suits your fancy before popping into the ultrareliable and silent MRT… Beats driving any day, and especially what you get in a bad car-based city like Jakarta with its average driving speed on weekday mornings of 5 km/h…

No offense intended, but the second leg of cyberax’ point still stands — quoted below — higher percentages of the total jobs in a metro area are within the average range of an average US metro dwelling household also, as long as they don’t have to worry about costs of car repair and insurance.

If Paris’ airport built two new runways and they both filled up with international flights immediately, would this be taken as evidence that their construction was an irresponsible waste of scarce public investment? It would rather be celebrated as a validation of forecast utility to the public and to the economy. Same for urban condo buildings filling up. Yet American traffic jams are gross and different from runways? How so?

> Affluence definitely followed [as well as preceded; but, in any case, a set of feedback loops, not simply affluence preceding networks’ construction —-Ed.] the conscious policy decision to build a network of freeways and highways, with a focus on suburban lifestyle.

> To expand a bit on that, car-oriented cities allowed US citizens to:

> 1. Have shorter commutes than Europeans. This _still_ holds true!

> 2. Be able to access more businesses within the "reasonable commute" range.

> No offense intended, but the second leg of cyberax’ point still stands — quoted below — higher percentages of the total jobs in a metro area are within the average range of an average US metro dwelling household also, as long as they don’t have to worry about costs of car repair and insurance.

I don't think it does though? Figure 4 on their link shows the transit-oriented cities in Europe and China doing a lot better on that metric than US cities.

> I don't think it does though? Figure 4 on their link shows the transit-oriented cities in Europe and China doing a lot better on that metric than US cities.

The axes have different scales, look again. The Figure 4 shows that the US cities cluster around 500000 jobs accessible by car. And cars are the main mode of transportation in the US.

Figure 3 shows that European cities cluster around 100000-200000 jobs accessible by public transit.

It's also true that many European cities are actually competitive when you do use a car. But we're looking at transit vs. car use.

> The axes have different scales, look again.

Within each graph the scale is the same, and the European/Chinese cities do significantly better (are higher up the graph) than the US cities. (I do wonder why London and Paris are missing from Figure 4).

> It's also true that many European cities are actually competitive when you do use a car. But we're looking at transit vs. car use.

They're better than competitive; their trendline for job accessibility is 2x or more better than the US one. Car-oriented city design results in much worse job accessibility, even for car users.

> Paris commute times are much higher than in the rest of the country.

Do you think urbanization cancer will spare you, if you have an Eiffel Tower in your country? Paris metro area is about 1/6-th of France in population, and it's growing. That's why commute times will keep getting worse, while commutes themselves are going to get more and more miserable.

The US average commute time is weighted down by large coastal cities, that are growing like a cancer, following anti-human urbanist policies. If you look at smaller cities in the US, then it's basically a commute heaven. E.g. Salt Lake City is at 20 minutes, Boise ID is at 15 minutes.

> For 1980 the US average commute time was 21 minutes. For Paris that was 38 minutes. For London it was 40 minutes.

> For the current state of affairs: Commute time in Paris: 32 minutes, commute time in Berlin: 31 minutes, commute time in London: 47 minutes. US average: 27 minutes.

As the other reply said, misleading to compare a city average with a national average.

> For reachability: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00020-2

As far as I can see that's showing reachability, including by car, is much better in transit-oriented cities in Europe and China than in the US? Why do you think that supports your argument?

Most Millenials who can afford to rent an apartment can afford to buy a condo in a city - maybe not SF or NY, but a studio condo on Chicago's North Side, or in older buildings in the Loop, can be had under $150k. A newer studio or older one-bedroom can be had under $200k. Sure, there's a HOA, but it usually includes some amenities; the key difference in affordability is the dramatically lower down payment (the largest barrier to home ownership for most young people) than a large suburban house. A mid-six-figure McMansion is in a completely different price class - especially when accounting for the heating, cooling, and insurance costs of the much larger home.

Having acres of fertile square feet to yourself is indeed a nice lifestyle.

I'll be honest, that sounds like a ton of work.

Yes but to many it is a relaxing form of work, just like a better form of mental and physical workout combined with “forest bath” or “bird song bathing” — depending on the local biome and season of course

Acres? Those are bona-fide mansions and estates.

The definition of McMansion I’m familiar with, at least in Los Angeles, is demolishing a 2bd/2ba bungalow to build a 5bd/4ba house, usually by getting rid of all fertile backyard/frontyard in the first place. They have another pejorative name, too— “Boxy Moderns”

This is super common in Santa Monica or Beverly Hills, for example. Even San Francisco!

And yet, for some reason, this is completely fine to build without any zoning meetings but the second you propose a 5-unit 1bd/1ba apartment building with the same profile in a “single family neighborhood” it’s ruining the entire “character” of the place and requires 3-5 years of bureaucracy and, depending on the neighbors, litigation.

The number of family units to hold responsible (and to hold each other responsible) accounts for all of the resistance, and quite frankly, there should be more.

You can have a house with a family with kids or you can have a box with a half dozen losers in it, and statistically one of them is a felon. Sane people choose the former.

…?

In these neighborhoods a 1bd condo would still sell for above $800k, minimum. More than likely $1.2-1.5m, looking at Zillow. They’d rent for at least $7k/mo.

If we’re generalizing, like you are, then they’d allow the well-off professional class to live and work in their neighborhood and send their kids to the same schools as the investor-class and trust fund kids-turned-homeowners who haven’t done anything in decades other than be born to the right family.

Unless you’re talking about white-collar convicted felons? Which I can guarantee you, once again, they already live in these neighborhoods and aren’t the ones trying to move into it.

If that sounds like hyperbole, then sure— but so is yours.

It can be, for some people. Rural lifestyles work, urban lifestyles work; suburbia gets the worst of both worlds, even with the messed up economics that subsidise it it's still not a pleasant way of living (AIUI there's an established bias that people naturally underestimate how long they'll be stuck in traffic commuting and how miserable it will make them).

> AIUI there's an established bias that people naturally underestimate how long they'll be stuck in traffic commuting and how miserable it will make them

Grew up in the burbs of southern California so I had 22 years of experience with the traffic there. Turned me into an urban or rural dweller. Nothing in between. It's just not worth it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com