Hacker News Reader

Comment by TexanFeller | Hacker News Reader

Looks like this housing is built outside of town, so it might actually work! One things cities do wrong is trying to house homeless people near downtown. It's dramatically more expensive to do it there, so there will never be enough housing or will to pay for it. The housing that was built for "low income artists to be able to live here" was even more of a joke. A bunch of condos downtown that were priced uncomfortably high for entry level tech workers. Nothing say artists have to live downtown! City planners just can't think outside the downtown box.

View on HN

Hmm, when I hear “artist housing” I always assumed they meant “interesting people who make music and maybe paint”. But “interesting” is too subjective to be real. Freestyle watercolor is no foundation of an economy.

We should not judge other humans by their ability to make rent. Some of my best friends struggle to do that.

But for a city making rent is all that really matters. They don’t care if you literally create art. They care if you buy coffee and pay sales tax.

So, do city planners look at “artists” as a revenue stream?

This is the same demographic that stereotypically spends the better part of a million bucks on an undergraduate education with no expectation of return.

Does “artist” mean “liberal artist”? As in “willing and able to buy in to and comply with a middle class lifestyle?”

There's always a funny tension on the city trying to draw in artists to make a downtown area more palatable, too, in that good artists and good art is often intended as a challenge to the status quo - the goal is to make people uncomfortable.

I say this as a Berkeley-living lefty: the left often seems to espouse policies whose practical outcomes far exceed their actual appetite for discomfort or willingness to engage with real diversity.

(Standard HN disclaimer: if the above doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you - but look me in the eye and tell me you don't know what I'm talking about.)

This does strike me as an innate tension to all of this. I grew up in a really diverse neighborhood, and at this point, as a decently successful person, if I moved back into that neighborhood, folks at the orgs I used to volunteer with would probably decry me as gentrifying the area. I've seen this with my own family, who have lived in the neighborhood for decades, but because it's now a majority minority neighborhood, they're seen with skepticism, even by people who moved there recently and are often more well-off than them.

I'm unsure at this point if I'm supposed to want to live in a diverse area, or if doing so would mean I'm ruining the area and driving out the diversity. What is the amount I'm supposed to want to engage in another culture without imposing on an "authentic" space for that community or appropriating it. It's a really tight line to walk.

Is it reasonable to try to have a community of people who make 100k+, and people who think it's generally unhealthy for anyone to make that much money?

I suspect the art itself is a red herring. When a city planner says "artist" what do they mean?

Isn't the classic example of this something like NYC's Hells Kitchen or East Village or Meatpacking District that was, at some point, the cheap neighborhood that artists and musicians could live in on their irregular low salaries, but then when some of them inevitably get famous, that mystique turns it from the bad/cheap part of town into the hip part of town that rich people go to for underground clubs and wild art shows, and in 10 years none of those people that made the area cool still live there because it's now the most expensive place in the city.

I think city marketers see "artist" in the same way that a nightclub sees women, but with less power or follow through on giving them anything free that would attract or keep them there to attract the other people.

Everyone wants to live in a city with good live music _and_ listen to Spotify all day in their 1k/month apartment.

Artist housing usually happens accidentally. Like some city overbuilds and suffers a real estate crash, or Detroit. It could also be a shutdown factory complex that doesn’t make for very good housing but works for artists (like 798 in Beijing)…until it becomes popular enough to gentrify and prices the artists out again.

Is Detroit currently an artist city? It makes sense because of what you said, but I just haven't heard that before.

You can definitely find articles on the web that think so, eg https://i-d.vice.com/en/article/9ke5p7/why-artists-are-movin...

Starving artists thrive anywhere that has cheap rent and some economy to survive with a day job.

> So, do city planners look at “artists” as a revenue stream?

Absolutely, especially if you include tourism, which you should. Look at Asheville, NC.

People, including unhoused ones and artistic ones, need to live near downtown because that's where jobs and services are, including needed social services, and transportation to the rest of the city, as well as community. In typical cities, the art galleries, museums, schools, etc. are downtown.

If you have a family and spend your time with them and at work, a home away from the city center makes sense. If you need to do a lot with people outside your home, then you want to be where the people are.

Well, provide jobs outside of misery centrals (downtowns). This is coincidentally the ONLY way that will actually help housing affordability.

> misery centrals (downtowns)

What makes downtowns "misery centrals"? In most cities, they are the most expensive places to live - they are the most expensive, nicest places to live in the world. That's part of the reason we have homelessness - $1700/month in Manhattan gets you something like 225 sq feet.

There's no substitute for downtown - we can't, somewhere else, rebuild the transportation, infrastructure, buildings, services, etc. that make it central to the community (if we did, we'd be back where we started with another downtown).

Argument through condescending dismissal isn't persuasive, and doesn't prove anything.

> What makes downtowns "misery centrals"?

Having to live without a backyard and in a small space, crowded with other people, and having to deal with constant traffic.

> In most cities, they are the most expensive places to live - they are the most expensive, nicest places to live in the world.

And that's EXACTLY what makes downtowns "misery centrals". An average person will NOT be able to afford a large comfortable apartment.

> Argument through condescending dismissal isn't persuasive, and doesn't prove anything.

The thing is, no city in the US managed to increase affordability by either building transit or increasing density. Not a single one.

I don't have data for all the world, but it also holds true for several European cities. Oh, and Tokyo in Japan.

It sounds like it would be miserable for you, a preference you are entitled to, of course.

At the same time, many, many people love it. In NYC alone millions of people pay astronomical rents and mortgages for the privilege of living in tiny spaces in close quarters, no yards, etc. They have for generations. And then we can add everyone in all the other cities, all over the wealthy part of the world, doing the same. As comparison, I wonder what the highest-demand suburban location is in the US and in the world, and where it ranks for housing costs?

It's not 'misery central', just something where you have a different preference.

> no city in the US managed to increase affordability by either building transit or increasing density. Not a single one.

Where does that come from? I understand we won't all have data all the time (I sure don't always), but until then, it's words.

P.S. Why are so many people using all caps in the last month or two? I hadn't seen much of that every on HN, iirc, and now it's all the rage. :)

> At the same time, many, many people love it.

Sure. That's what people tell themselves. Realistically, most people would prefer to live in a less dense area, but they can't do that because there are no jobs for them there.

> In NYC alone millions of people pay astronomical rents and mortgages for the privilege of living in tiny spaces in close quarters, no yards, etc.

Exactly. And it's getting _worse_ with every generation, right now NYC is at 530 square ft. per capita, down from 700 in 1980. It's even worse for Manhattan.

> It's not 'misery central', just something where you have a different preference.

Yes, it's misery central.

> Where does that come from? I understand we won't all have data all the time (I sure don't always), but until then, it's words.

I analyzed a database of all real estate sales in the US for the last 25 years. There is plenty of other research that found similar results. The _best_ outcome was something like transient single-digit percentage decreases in rents near new construction.

I don't have the links on my phone, but you can google the "Supply Skepticism" paper from the Furman Center. It's a nice overview of the literature, and it's written from the viewpoint of pro-density (to prevent questions about bias).

> Realistically, most people would prefer to live in a less dense area, but they can't do that because there are no jobs for them there.

Do you have evidence? I have the evidence of millions of people and the demand for downtowns. Otherwise, you possibly are assuming that people must feel like you do.

Plenty of surveys indicate that:

https://time.com/3678811/millennials-suburbs-cities-survey/ https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/110394-americans-prefer-the...

And so on. People really don't like cities.

perhaps fucking americans hate fucking american cities?

Nope. People in general prefer to avoid large and dense cities ( https://afry.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/new-survey-shows... ).

It's just that only the US offers an affordable option to live in spacious suburbs. Europe simply doesn't have anything similar.

sure, jan. (and may i recommend reading the links that you post before you post them? it's bloody useful.)

And public transport.

Nope. Building transit decreases affordability. Sad but true.

Maybe that affordability can be increased again by not building plumbing?

You jest, but the article is proposing exactly that.

Then let's build something that's appropriate for the location with the highest land price and not tiny shoeboxes.

What, building outside the expensive areas of a city? That would just make too much sense.

The politicians give tax breaks and in many times, outright pays $$$$$ for these private services to those in need. The owners of those services in turn donate part of the profits back to the politicians. It's just a hidden way for the politicians to transfer wealth from the tax-payer base back to themselves in a clever cloak of woke-ness. I mean, who hasn't heard of the 700K+ single bedroom houses for the needy in Los Angeles. I'm sure this happens everywhere. It's really unfortunate, and brazen tbh, that such fleecing occurs in plain site. Meanwhile, those who really need the help don't get it because it was never really about them. It was just about the optics.

https://ktla.com/news/los-angeles-is-spending-up-to-837000-t...

This is a funny thing. I recently looked into living in a central location downtown, and all the rents are far beyond my means as a Section 8 participant. But if you put "affordable housing" way out in the boonies, then how do residents access any services at a reasonable price? If we need to run all over town for stuff, why live in a God-forsaken location like that?

Downtown in my metro area is not only a transit hub, but a central location for goods and services. I could easily walk around, catch a bus or an eScooter, and have everything I want within mere blocks. Instead, these "affordable housing" developments are in suburbs where you've got one bus line and a Starbucks 3 blocks away, and your grocery stores are nowhere to be found, and your place of employment is way across town. Just not making sense.

One upside of minimum wage is lots of places have competitive salaries

I'm just not sure how you get these problems unironically.

What's so hard about having a grocery store and reliable transit to downtown?

The notorious St. Petersburg's Murino district is located outside city's boundary but it has a metro station, several grocery stores, bakeries, bars and other shops. It's not like US poor have no disposable income at all. Kudrovo has worse transit options but features an absolutely huge mall you can walk to.

Of course, if having choice everybody would prefer living in walkable distance to downtown, this is why normally it is so expensive, and you can only make it affordable by making it a miserable experience.

I don't know, but many cities do not have reliable transit. Hourly busses that stop after 9pm doesn't help at all. And thars the case for a lot of the western part of the US.

Also, thst grocery store may not exactly be profitable and be worth keeping up. Especially if Walmart or something use to station there and then left.

I believe this is an unique US situation where you are unable to scale down Walmart. Just make a Walmart Lite with no jeans or TVs but only food. Then these can be built practically everywhere, offering the same competitive prices. There are half dozen of chains like this in Russia and they often open on the other sides of same street.

They have these, they are Dollar General and they are gutting rural and low income area mom and pops. They are not a better solution.

Also, they have poor selection, especially of healthy foods.

Sounds good to me, but that's the issue with relying on corporate autocracies for societal need. Wal-Mart's goals aren't necessarily aligned with society, so unless some government contract is made there's no incentive for a Walmart-Lite

Those have already existed in the US for a decade or two. They are called Walmart Neighborhood Market and they are basically just a regular grocery store.

Our Downtown area is replete with miniaturized grocery stores, pharmacies, and other amenities that are built into the landscape there. They have sprung up commensurately with the addition of loft-type housing and other developments which are actively luring middle-class workers to live there again, after a long period of rather blighted and lifeless downtown environs.

Back in 2008, my fiancée flew out from Catalonia to visit me, and we went on many outings using rented bicycles and public transit. One Saturday, I took her to see some museums near Downtown, and we transferred in Central Station, which was more or less deserted, except for some very brave pigeons. She looked around and she was downright incredulous about the lack of passersby. I told her this is totally typical because nobody views Downtown as a place to hang out or be entertained, it's a financial and business district where people go to work and then GTFO to their suburbs.

In Europe it is very different for her: typically people live and work right in the city center, and the suburbs are something else entirely.

Are there places in Russia without grocery stores nearby?

Yes but they are usually really small. Like a village with 20 person permanent population small. Get it to 50 and a tiny shop will spring up.

And groceries from the grocery store downtown will cost 2x what the grocery stores outside of downtown will. Basically every good or service you buy downtown doubles in price so is it really a benefit to have poor people try to live there and wonder why they fail?

> Of course, if having choice everybody would prefer living in walkable distance to downtown, this is why normally it is so expensive, and you can only make it affordable by making it a miserable experience.

Well, yes, you answered your own question right there.

The US has a massive shortage of housing in desireable areas. Because of that, as soon as an area is at least a little desireable, people will start moving there in droves, driving the prices up and pricing out any attempts to put cost-efficient housing there. You can see exactly the same pattern in small towns that suddenly become popular for one reason or another and go through massive increases in pricing.

The only really practical solutions here at this point would take state- or national-level action to override the decades of municipality-level bullshit that's kept enough housing from actually being built to meet demand.

> What's so hard about having a grocery store and reliable transit to downtown?

Are you asking what's difficult about living far away from people's support networks and abilities to provide for themselves?

"you can only make it affordable by making it a miserable experience." This hurts because it's so true. We need to get over car-centric cities, but that's only happening slowly and those areas are the most expensive areas. That housing won't be going to those who need it the most.

What the GP describes is a generally accepted need by planners, etc. Regarding grocery stores, look up 'food deserts'.

Also, when you are working multiple jobs, you have even less time for overhead like commutes to distant jobs and services.

You do not have to have food deserts, that's self-inflicted.

If you are working multiple jobs, at least you should afford to live somewhere near. If you work multiple jobs and is forced to live very very far away/in ghetto, then you should realize people live better than you in third world countries, and relocate to Laos to teach English and lie on the beach. Seriously.

> You do not have to have food deserts, that's self-inflicted.

How is that self-inflicted? Should people with no money be opening grocery stores?

The rest of the ridicule - of poverty, from apparent ignorance - seems to show you have nothing more substantive to say.

They still have all kinds of incomes, nothing that Lidl-like discounter grocery store could not use. I attribute this to bad urban planning where these poor districts are kept small, too sparse and isolated, and shops are actively zoned out. But, you know, for the rest of the world this is non-issue.

What is all that based on? There is plenty written about food deserts that could be a good starting point.

Food deserts exist in relatively dense cities.

> One things cities do wrong is trying to house homeless people near downtown.

It's pretty critical to build housing where there's actually need, or it won't do much.

BS. New housing in dense centers only increase the overall amount of human misery. It sucks jobs away, and it drives up the housing cost.

Well if you build them elsewhere you're not going to do much about the unhoused population downtown. That just leads to using police violence to forcibly segregate by class....

Anyway, housing is kind of fucked so long as americans consider it a private investment rather than a common good. How do you think we got in this mess to begin with?

> Well if you build them elsewhere you're not going to do much about the unhoused population downtown.

Newsflash: neither would tiny houses. On the West Coast, the downtown homeless population is almost 100% drug addicts these days. No amount of housing can fix that.

And for the sane population (i.e. not fentanyl addicts), being AWAY from downtowns is a blessing.

> Anyway, housing is kind of fucked so long as americans consider it a private investment rather than a common good. How do you think we got in this mess to begin with?

We stopped building highways, and switched from Moses' model of building enough roads to the "urbanist" model. Where we put in transit that makes it easy to go to the downtown ONLY.

> We stopped building highways, and switched from Moses' model of building enough roads to the "urbanist" model. Where we put in transit that makes it easy to go to the downtown ONLY.

I don't think we've switched out of the Moses model yet, or we only did in the last twenty years or so—the urbanist model is still idealistic in most cities. And frankly the urbanist model probably still won't be sufficient without public housing—I'm guessing a popular push for that is still about 10-20 years out.

Obviously, prioritizing driving around a city isn't going to do jack-shit for anyone who isn't trying to prioritize driving around a city. Public transit works well enough for most folks!

> I don't think we've switched out of the Moses model yet, or we only did in the last twenty years or so

We did. Most large cities stopped building new roads, and are instead sabotaging existing ones ("road diets").

The inflection point was some time in 1990-s. October 1992 is the date of the completion of the last Interstate freeway.

> And frankly the urbanist model probably still won't be sufficient without public housing—I'm guessing a popular push for that is still about 10-20 years out.

The thing is, we don't have a housing crisis. We have around 20% more units per capita than in 1980-s, and way more square footage per capita. What we have is an over-centralization crisis.

No amount of band-aid fixes will make it better. By forcing (via economic forces) more people into misery centrals (now with housing projects to generate generational poverty!), you'll only make centralization even worse.

> Public transit works well enough for most folks!

It really doesn't. Transit is a result of city growth, you simply _have_ to build transit once the city becomes dense enough.

And I get it, in the 1970-s and 1980-s people were still worried about overpopulation. So, urbanism was born as a way to make it more bearable to live in dense cities. Now we have an opposite problem, the native US population is peaking right now and whatever growth we're going to have will be only from immigration. We don't _need_ dense cities.

> Anyway, housing is kind of fucked so long as americans consider it a private investment rather than a common good.

JeffSnazz for president 2024.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com