Comment by h0l0cube | Hacker News Reader

Comment by h0l0cube | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> HackerNews, the bastion of logic.

> First of all, not having the energy to wait for an elevator (!!!) and walk across roads to get to a park sounds like depression. I hope that it was checked out.

HackerNews, the bastion of decorum. To use your unqualified depression diagnosis as a rhetorical device (let's be honest, this was not a sincere display of concern), is gobsmacking. And I'm sure you said this after pushing the downvote button with great moral conviction, surely because of concern for your fellow human being.

Anyway, it's incredibly presumptuous that you'd think I didn't visit the outside world regularly. But certainly, living in a shoebox can be a recipe for depression, which can cause people to withdraw from the world. You're no doubt aware of hikikomori, a mental illness, strangely enough, most prevalent in one of the most dense population centers in the world.

> In Europe the most frequent apartment buildings are mid rises, 4-6 stories high, which can make for incredible environments.

Are you writing the brochure? I know what low-rises are. And I'll agree they're better than skyscrapers. The european ones in particular have central staircases instead of fire escapes, which is great, because the lifts are usually ancient, broken, and cramped. You'll get decent light, because zoning restrictions keep building heights within limits. You still won't get decent air flow, but they are sometimes passively ventilated owing to the age of the building. This is of course nothing like the sad cheap crap that's built today in modern city. But dream on about the rustic Parisian apartment.

Have you at least lived an apartment lifestyle full-time for a few years, or is this just coming from your speculation of what it's like? If it's just speculation, please spare me.

> Have you at least lived an apartment lifestyle full-time for a few years, or is this just coming from your speculation of what it's like? If it's just speculation, please spare me.

I've lived my entire lifetime in apartments, ranging from Eastern European panel blocks to ultra modern high energy efficiency ones. Heck, if we go the "spare me" arrogant route, based on my experience with apartments I can probably show you a thing or two (or two hundred...).

I haven't even downvoted you, because I can't. It's some sort of HN mechanism. I'm fairly sure you're the one that downvoted my original comment, though.

As usual for any type of housing, you need to choose where you live.

Claiming that everyone wants to live in a single family house is, again, just sad.

Single family houses in walkable and bikeable areas with easy access to daycares, kindergartens, schools, corner stores, super markets, pharmacies, coffee shops, cinemas, theatres, ... are insanely expensive and most people can't afford them, so the only relevant comparison is between:

Single family houses in suburbs versus medium sized apartments in urban areas.

In most of the rest of the world you can pay comparable rent (or comparable purchase price) for a decent apartment in a mid-to-high density area versus a decent house in a suburban area.

> is gobsmacking

So was your comment. You attacked my initial generic comment with a purely personal and emotional personal perspective. I think in real life terms it would be akin to what's called "emotional blackmail" ("look how hard it was for me in an apartment with bad weather" - WTF, did the apartment cause the bad weather?!!?? :-)))))) ).

Anyway, this is useless.

* * *

Again, some people prefer to live in houses, some prefer to live in apartments. Both should be built to decent standards and no one should enforce most others to live in one single type (Europe is better than the US in this regard, in the US basically everyone is forced to live in single family houses in suburbs - something crazy like 80% of buildable land is legally zoned to be only used for single family houses).

> I'm fairly sure you're the one that downvoted my original comment, though.

Turns out we're both mistaken. I don't care much for HN's monopoly money, my broader point is the righteous indignation around the point (which I thought uncontroversial) that the vast majority of people don't want to purchase apartments to live in for the rest of their lives.

> You attacked my initial generic comment with a purely personal and emotional personal perspective

Erm, no, you basically implied I was an idiot - the sarcastic "bastion of logic" comment - and then straight away moved onto a feigned interest in my welfare. When someone contradicts themselves this much, they aren't being sincere.

> I've lived my entire lifetime in apartments

And given only one chance to purchase a property, and given only the choice to live in the one house with a garden or live in the one apartment of equal quality/amenity/etc for the rest of your life, which would you choose? Honestly? And what do you think the vast majority of people would choose?

The only reason people around here are all mad about urban density is that their FAANG bosses compel them to come to the office. Take that out of the equation and then the housing affordability solves itself by dispersing the high income people into better housing, and leaving better options for everyone else. The overpriced hipster cafes will have to shut down, but I shed no tears for them.

This was my original comment:

> This is such a true, yet sad, reflection of American society.

This was your original reply:

> Doesn't everyone want to touch grass or have decent access to fresh air and sunlight? I guess if we could hypothetically build really cheap apartments deep underground, it would be sad if people didn't want to live there?

You went from 0 to hyperbole in 20 words. So I called you out.

> And given only one chance to purchase a property, and given only the choice to live in the one house with a garden or live in the one apartment of equal quality/amenity/etc for the rest of your life, which would you choose? Honestly? And what do you think the vast majority of people would choose?

You're acting like a 12 year old.

Most people chose based on location. They want to be close to stuff they need for themselves (work, necessary amenities, entertainment) and for their kids (school, necessary amenities, entertainment).

Once they've figured out the rough location(s), then they triangulate based on that.

In an ideal world, sure, everyone would have a huge mansion with a huge front and back yard, with either servants helping them with their every wish, or stores and all necessary things within 1-2 minutes of walking.

But again, we're talking about reality and compromises.

Personally I chose an apartment and many others do the same. It's not just about offices and "mad about urban density" for offices. You can't have tons of pharmacies nearby in Nowhereland. Notaries, theaters, shops, cafés, supermarkets, cinemas, clinics, hospitals, etc, etc.

As the average person, if you want the best facilities in any given area to be easily accessible, you have to live in a city. The financial math for that only works with mid to high density. It doesn't even have to be the stupid US residential skyscrapers. Mid density only requires rowhouses to begin, duplexes, stuff like that. 4 story apartment buildings are more than enough to hit densities that can sustain a very complex service economy for the locals.

In sane countries, that means living in an apartment (at least 50% of the time). Or you go the US debt-fueled route and see how that pans out in a few decades. Go check US big city budgets and their debt service evolution over the years.

> But again, we're talking about reality and compromises.

Okay, now this I'll agree on. Apartments are compromises.

> 0 to hyperbole

You might have confused a thought experiment with hyperbole. I'm not saying the hypothetical is reality. Compromises (your word) are by definition not the ideal. It would be strange to prefer the compromise, or to not be just a tiny bit 'sad' about having to make it.

> You're acting like a 12 year old.

Of course. You know when the ad hominems start you're definitely conversing with an grown-up.

Again, what you're reacting to is another thought experiment meant to tease out what your beliefs are.

> if you want the best facilities in any given area to be easily accessible

I also agree that density can make certain important amenities closer, like food stores, and medical facilities—also 20 flavors of cafes and microbreweries in walking distance. They also increase congestion making those amenities not as close as they seem, and gardens are harder to get to.

(And yes, lifts factor into this. They take time to reach you, to take you ground floor. They are also sometimes out-of-order, and this is tragic in a mid-rise where this happens often enough to be a problem and there's little redundancy. Limited passage is also a huge problem in an emergency situation, particularly for people with mobility issues. etc. etc.)

> The financial math for that only works with mid to high density.

But... to bring it back to the OP - we're talking housing cost. That is, regular people, buying somewhere to live, in a way that eventually unshackles them from paying for shelter.

Cities are overburdened. I've noticed a lot of SV and NY FAANG types get triggered by this, and blame the NIMBYs, but not without considering their own culpability. It's the 21st century, most of the overpaid service workers don't really need to meet face-to-face to get their business done, and they could disperse, and divest themselves from their spare properties.

The central thesis of the OP article is that housing cost is driven by income, and if you look at NY, which is basically SV + density in terms of high-paid service workers and skyscrapers, and TFA seems to be right.

I'll leave you the last word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com