Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

That would make NYC 5x as dense as SF. But your numbers are wrong. San Francisco's land area is 46.9 square miles. New York's land area is 304 square miles. New York's density is about 50% higher.

But it's not clear that New York shows any a path forward. They did build up, and prices are still high. Maybe that's a sign that blindly increasing housing supply doesn't actually solve the problem.

View on HN

Yes, in some parts of NYC (Manhattan, cool parts of Brooklyn) prices are indeed very high, but there are plenty of parts of NYC where you can find fairly affordable housing while still being in public transit range of the things that make NYC a major "World City". My friend is paying <1500/mo for a 1 bedroom in a good part of Astoria that's about 35 mins by foot + subway from times square. He only moved there a few years ago so it's not like he's taking advantage of some crazy rent control either.

You'd never find something equivalent in the bay area, so overall I think the "density argument" has some validity. Even more so if there would be willingness to expand the public transit infrastructure.

Astoria is probably next up on neighborhoods to explode in rent. Hell, LIC of all places is starting to look like parts of Williamsburg.

One guy finding a decent apartment still doesn't demonstrate that increasing density does much to solve problems. Also, I question your definition of affordable. $1500/month is 36% of the US median wage. People making less need to live somewhere too.

It also looks like you can find equivalent things in the Bay Area: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?maxAsk=1500&bedrooms=...

I am definitely in favor of expanding public transit, though. I think that's a much better way to increase network effects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com