Changing San Francisco is foreseen as a haven for wealthy and childless (1981)(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Changing San Francisco is foreseen as a haven for wealthy and childless (1981)
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/09/us/changing-san-francisco-is-foreseen-as-a-haven-for-wealthy-and-childless.html
184 comments
Over the last 100 years, the Bay Area has created a regulatory environment which essentially has made increasing housing supply 100x more difficult than the average American city. This would be "fine" if the population of the area was constant.
"Unfortunately" the area has been a source of economic growth for the last century as well. So you need two things for high housing price growth: 1) factors that restrict housing supply from responding to the market 2) economic growth or some other factor to make people want to move to the city.
For the NIMBYs, they are ok with #1. They desire that their city stays the same, it has the same architecture, unblocked vistas, the density they are used to, the natives they know.
So the NIMBYs argue to those affected by high housing costs that #2 is the real factor, i.e. "if rich people stopped moving here we would be ok". #2 is the easier argument to make, as it casts the narrative as outsiders vs natives. #1 appeals to the existing natives since they don't want change.
We have to figure out a way to change the message to awareness of #1. The average Bay Area resident has no idea how many of our state and local laws are in place to make sure that market rents / housing prices can be as high as possible.
"Unfortunately" the area has been a source of economic growth for the last century as well. So you need two things for high housing price growth: 1) factors that restrict housing supply from responding to the market 2) economic growth or some other factor to make people want to move to the city.
For the NIMBYs, they are ok with #1. They desire that their city stays the same, it has the same architecture, unblocked vistas, the density they are used to, the natives they know.
So the NIMBYs argue to those affected by high housing costs that #2 is the real factor, i.e. "if rich people stopped moving here we would be ok". #2 is the easier argument to make, as it casts the narrative as outsiders vs natives. #1 appeals to the existing natives since they don't want change.
We have to figure out a way to change the message to awareness of #1. The average Bay Area resident has no idea how many of our state and local laws are in place to make sure that market rents / housing prices can be as high as possible.
"For the NIMBYs, they are ok with #1. They desire that their city stays the same, it has the same architecture, unblocked vistas, the density they are used to, the natives they know."
... which is a totally reasonable, perfectly rational position. Further, it is a policy regime that has been achieved democratically.
Personally, I am very much in favor of infill. There is a lot of crappy two story housing stock in san francisco that has no charm and no aesthetic value and would lend itself perfectly to at least doubling of density.
But let's not talk about the opponents of this as if they are flat-earthers or white supremacists or something - their stance is just as reasonable as any other socio-economic-political view.
... which is a totally reasonable, perfectly rational position. Further, it is a policy regime that has been achieved democratically.
Personally, I am very much in favor of infill. There is a lot of crappy two story housing stock in san francisco that has no charm and no aesthetic value and would lend itself perfectly to at least doubling of density.
But let's not talk about the opponents of this as if they are flat-earthers or white supremacists or something - their stance is just as reasonable as any other socio-economic-political view.
> But let's not talk about the opponents of this as if they are flat-earthers or white supremacists or something
Sure, but NIMBYism is in direct opposition to a more socially equitable and environmentally sustainable future. To claim to be progressive while espousing gated-community like values (which is quite common in the Bay Area) is, well, a bit troublesome.
Sure, but NIMBYism is in direct opposition to a more socially equitable and environmentally sustainable future. To claim to be progressive while espousing gated-community like values (which is quite common in the Bay Area) is, well, a bit troublesome.
"Sure, but NIMBYism is in direct opposition to a more socially equitable and environmentally sustainable future."
I hate to nitpick, but ...
NIMBY is a general term that refers to preserving a particular, entrenched environment.
So yes, San Francisco NIMBYism in early 21st century does seem to be in opposition to increasing environmental sustainability. I'm sure there are plenty of NIMBY environments around the world that don't fit that mold, though.
The socially equitable part is more of a reach, however.
Nobody has a gun to their head forcing them to live in San Francisco and likewise, nobody[1] is starving in San Francisco. John Smith who bought a home in SF in the early 80s and is retired on his post office pension and social security shouldn't be redistributing his wealth to anyone.
[1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality.
I hate to nitpick, but ...
NIMBY is a general term that refers to preserving a particular, entrenched environment.
So yes, San Francisco NIMBYism in early 21st century does seem to be in opposition to increasing environmental sustainability. I'm sure there are plenty of NIMBY environments around the world that don't fit that mold, though.
The socially equitable part is more of a reach, however.
Nobody has a gun to their head forcing them to live in San Francisco and likewise, nobody[1] is starving in San Francisco. John Smith who bought a home in SF in the early 80s and is retired on his post office pension and social security shouldn't be redistributing his wealth to anyone.
[1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality.
I'm not sure how we go from John Smith opposing high density development to John Smith being asked to redistribute his wealth to anyone? While we're on the topic of wealth redistribution though, perhaps John Smith shouldn't demand that younger people redistribute their wealth to him so that he can keep paying taxes on his property that are well below the current levels. All the while railing against any effort to make housing and transit more affordable.
>[1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality.
I too hate to nitpick, but...unless we're taking a very literal view of starving, as opposed to a constant struggle to feeding yourself, you should check out the percentage of SF schoolchildren on subsidized lunches or perhaps spend some time among the homeless, particularly homeless youth. I can assure you there are plenty of people going hungry in SF.
I suppose you are correct in that no one is holding a gun to their head though, just a case of bad luck I guess.
>[1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality.
I too hate to nitpick, but...unless we're taking a very literal view of starving, as opposed to a constant struggle to feeding yourself, you should check out the percentage of SF schoolchildren on subsidized lunches or perhaps spend some time among the homeless, particularly homeless youth. I can assure you there are plenty of people going hungry in SF.
I suppose you are correct in that no one is holding a gun to their head though, just a case of bad luck I guess.
"just a case of bad luck I guess"
Middle class americans priced out of SF are among the global 1%. It's stupendous luck.
Middle class americans priced out of SF are among the global 1%. It's stupendous luck.
Point taken. I'll make sure to tell the next homeless teen I see in SF how lucky they are.
And yet it's your hypothetical John Smith homeowner who I should be sympathetic to.
And yet it's your hypothetical John Smith homeowner who I should be sympathetic to.
I have lived with people far under the 50% and they can have it much better than the sane homeless living of the scrap of the 1% in the west. Sure most opportunities here in the west will never be available to them, that doesn't make people who have been unable to take advantage of those lucky just to have them.
>Nobody has a gun to their head forcing them to live in San Francisco and likewise, nobody[1] is starving in San Francisco. John Smith who bought a home in SF in the early 80s and is retired on his post office pension and social security shouldn't be redistributing his wealth to anyone.
If John Smith is renting out his house for $4,000 a month it's other people who are redistributing their wealth to him.
Privately owned land is essentially another form of privatized tax collection and all the same rules about guns being pointed at you apply.
If John Smith is renting out his house for $4,000 a month it's other people who are redistributing their wealth to him.
Privately owned land is essentially another form of privatized tax collection and all the same rules about guns being pointed at you apply.
>But let's not talk about the opponents of this as if they are flat-earthers or white supremacists or something - their stance is just as reasonable as any other socio-economic-political view.
Sure. The NIMBYs are not flat-earthers but they are definitely an impediment to attracting the next generation of young entrepreneurial people to this area. While building more housing might hurt them slightly in the short term, it needs to be done for the greater good. If this needs legislation at the state level, so be it. In this scenario I have very little sympathy for the rational NIMBYs. They had the opportunity for years to responsibly increase the housing supply so that we didnt need heavy handed approaches, but they chose to be greedy and short sighted which means they will have to loose their power.
Sure. The NIMBYs are not flat-earthers but they are definitely an impediment to attracting the next generation of young entrepreneurial people to this area. While building more housing might hurt them slightly in the short term, it needs to be done for the greater good. If this needs legislation at the state level, so be it. In this scenario I have very little sympathy for the rational NIMBYs. They had the opportunity for years to responsibly increase the housing supply so that we didnt need heavy handed approaches, but they chose to be greedy and short sighted which means they will have to loose their power.
Maybe the restrictions on building created the growth? The Bay Area is an awfully nice place to live if you have money. Every other American city, except for maybe New York City, is endless chain store filled sprawl which requires a car to do anything in. Even New York requires a minimum two hour drive to get to some decent natural scenery while with San Francisco you don't have to go very far to get to be in a great natural environment.
I made a zoning map of SF yesterday. A lot of our city is sprawl, too: one house, one driveway, one garage per lot.
https://dcpos.ch/yimby/zoning
We can get two birds with a stone by building housing: make our city more walkable and beautiful, and also alleviate the housing shortage .
Want to support infill, upzoning, and want to beat the NIMBYs? Consider joining SF Yimby.
It's a small group of ppl who care a lot about this, they're smart and effective, and many of these local issues are right on the bubble around 50% support in low turnout elections. This means, with a bit of activism, you can swing the outcome.
https://dcpos.ch/yimby/zoning
We can get two birds with a stone by building housing: make our city more walkable and beautiful, and also alleviate the housing shortage .
Want to support infill, upzoning, and want to beat the NIMBYs? Consider joining SF Yimby.
It's a small group of ppl who care a lot about this, they're smart and effective, and many of these local issues are right on the bubble around 50% support in low turnout elections. This means, with a bit of activism, you can swing the outcome.
I'd also recommend joining the efforts to put "split roll" (removing the Prop 13 restrictions for commercial property) on the ballot in 2020. The biggest turnouts are in presidential election years and there should be an electrified voter base then. Zoning is often favored by well-heeled incumbents, many who get a free ride on new homeowners, and with a stable tax base cities can begin to invest again in more infrastructure, schools, parks, etc.
https://www.facebook.com/MakeItFairCA/videos/164108883947055...
https://www.facebook.com/MakeItFairCA/videos/164108883947055...
This is awesome. I'd like to support yimby efforts. Do you have a link where I can see how I can contribute as developer?
Their website is SFYIMBY.org. I work for another organization that does similar work called the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition.
There are plenty of pro-housing organizers in San Francisco if you're willing to get plugged in and volunteer.
There are plenty of pro-housing organizers in San Francisco if you're willing to get plugged in and volunteer.
Clickable: https://sfyimby.org
@who_is_firing what's your Github?
[deleted]
How do you join?
Add the sfbarf/ sfYimby calendar to your google calendar: http://www.sfbarf.org/
As you can see, there's at least one thing to do per week. Our monthly meetings are the 1st Wednesday of the month but there is a ton of stuff to do besides that.
As you can see, there's at least one thing to do per week. Our monthly meetings are the 1st Wednesday of the month but there is a ton of stuff to do besides that.
sfyimby.org !
there are meetings every month, next one should be posted soon. https://facebook.com/pg/sfyimbyparty/events/
there are meetings every month, next one should be posted soon. https://facebook.com/pg/sfyimbyparty/events/
Also @foggyeyes69, do you have a Github?
Putting together a list of technologists who care about Yimby stuff.
Putting together a list of technologists who care about Yimby stuff.
[deleted]
>Every other American city, except for maybe New York City, is endless chain store filled sprawl which requires a car to do anything in.
Ever been to Chicago, New Orleans, Austin, San Diego, Denver, Santa Fe, Boston, Providence, Miami etc?
Ever been to Chicago, New Orleans, Austin, San Diego, Denver, Santa Fe, Boston, Providence, Miami etc?
I agree about Chicago and Boston, and I've never been to New Orleans. However, you can't walk anywhere in Austin.
I went to a CocoaConf in Austin two years ago. I snapped a lot of desire path photos, because my daily walk from my hotel to the conference was mostly devoid of pedestrian facilities, including even sidewalks.
http://m.imgur.com/a/NhaYH
Clearly, people are walking there, but the city doesn't seem to give a shit.
http://m.imgur.com/a/NhaYH
Clearly, people are walking there, but the city doesn't seem to give a shit.
TIL desire path
I mean, if you live and work downtown it's pretty alright.
But then you don't really have easy walkable access to Burnet, East Side, SoCo, etc. I mean, you get 6th. Maybe Rainey depending on where you live downtown.
But yeah, I lived halfway to Bee Cave and worked on 360. That made me much happier than being directly downtown.
But then you don't really have easy walkable access to Burnet, East Side, SoCo, etc. I mean, you get 6th. Maybe Rainey depending on where you live downtown.
But yeah, I lived halfway to Bee Cave and worked on 360. That made me much happier than being directly downtown.
I live in Austin (central, Hyde Park area) and walk, bike, or bus everywhere.
Those are probably the only two cities on that list which would be (relatively) doable without cars. Pretty good public transit and significant areas that are fairly dense.
Not New Orleans. Like any city, you can identify areas where you might live and work without a car but you're going to have pretty limited mobility. Public transit is somewhat better than it used to be but it's still fairly limited--now a variety of streetcars but no subway for obvious reasons.
Not New Orleans. Like any city, you can identify areas where you might live and work without a car but you're going to have pretty limited mobility. Public transit is somewhat better than it used to be but it's still fairly limited--now a variety of streetcars but no subway for obvious reasons.
~ fly-over country ~
Chicago, Denver, Austin and, say, Santa Fe are "fly-over country"?
I think you misunderstood the term, it's loosely geographical, and more geopolitical.
I think you misunderstood the term, it's loosely geographical, and more geopolitical.
HN is, as always, not the perfect avenue for sarcasm.
And yes, I've heard people refer to the Midwest as "fly-over" country, ignoring specifically Chicago, Denver, Austin, Houston, and Dallas.
And yes, I've heard people refer to the Midwest as "fly-over" country, ignoring specifically Chicago, Denver, Austin, Houston, and Dallas.
Seattle is an extremely walkable/bikeable city and has plenty of nature right outside. It also has a very sizable tech population with excellent salaries, especially considering the lack of income tax sucking 10% out of every paycheck.
Oh no it's terrible here, rains all the time, you'd hate it. Should probably stay in the Bay Area.
You're joking, but the weather can really be an issue for some people. For me and my family, it's not so much the rain as the appalling lack of sunshine year round and the early nightfall in winter. And the "Seattle Freeze" is not a myth, either.
As a native minnesotan now living in Seattle, I have to say that rumors of bad weather are greatly exaggerated.
I've heard the only place worse than Seattle is Portland. Filled with cannibals.
I think you misspelled "cannabis" ;)
And traffic is the worst - geographically, it's a natural bottleneck. You're fine if you live centrally, but otherwise it's a crapshoot how long it will take to drive anywhere.
Maybe if you live downtown, but i visited and couldnt go anywhere without a car. Theres basically no public transport.
Yes, exactly, don't come here! No public transit. No massive collection of rapid rides[0], no growing light rail system[1], and no bus usage just below San Fran and growing [2]. And certainly no huge and growing collection of bike trails [3]. Really there's just rain and coffee here. At least it's some good coffee.
[0] http://metro.kingcounty.gov/travel-options/bus/rapidride/ [1] http://soundtransit3.org/map#map [2] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-sees-b... [3] http://stb-wp.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/09...
[0] http://metro.kingcounty.gov/travel-options/bus/rapidride/ [1] http://soundtransit3.org/map#map [2] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-sees-b... [3] http://stb-wp.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/09...
Can you please cite your source for the good coffee? I hate when people don't give evidence in their posts here. Seriously, this community is going to hell.
Well I didn't cite because we don't have any. I mean really we have basically no Coffee [1]. I mean, TBH, we are a boring bland place with only big box shops - no record stores or anything unique [2]. You should really just drive through and pay no attention.
[1] - https://www.bustle.com/articles/155686-which-us-city-has-the... [2] - http://www.infogroup.com/defining-the-hippest-us-cities
[1] - https://www.bustle.com/articles/155686-which-us-city-has-the... [2] - http://www.infogroup.com/defining-the-hippest-us-cities
Seattle has also aggressively ramped up apartment construction with demand. Rents are projected to level next year, which is nice.
the restrictions aren't on the green areas. The city can keep all of our parks and nature and be fine. The restriction are on the building heights and number of units on vast areas of the city that are already developed.
For example, the west portala Sherwood Forest area is essentially a suburb within the city. There are huge lots that are 5000 sq ft when next door neighborhoods you have 1600sq ft lots with 2-3 units. Essentially you have suburb neighborhoods right next to others that have 10x the density.
A developer would love to buy units in those areas and convert to duplexes but is literally impossible to do this.
So again, it's not a question of preserving our parks but a question of preserving our suburbs within the city so rich people get to live in a suburb within the city and watch their property prices skyrocket instead of allowing the city to expand and accommodate the middle class.
For example, the west portala Sherwood Forest area is essentially a suburb within the city. There are huge lots that are 5000 sq ft when next door neighborhoods you have 1600sq ft lots with 2-3 units. Essentially you have suburb neighborhoods right next to others that have 10x the density.
A developer would love to buy units in those areas and convert to duplexes but is literally impossible to do this.
So again, it's not a question of preserving our parks but a question of preserving our suburbs within the city so rich people get to live in a suburb within the city and watch their property prices skyrocket instead of allowing the city to expand and accommodate the middle class.
Also, the city allows buyers to take what used to be a family home (e.g. 4-5 bedrooms), tear it down and put up a 1-2 bedroom house (more modern, more amenities, e.g. garage, sauna, etc). Why policymakers allow this if they believe there's a supply problem is beyond me - on my block the number of bedrooms has gone down by about a quarter in the last few years as a result...
What's the regulation that allows you to do that ? From what I understood, you aren't legally allowed to reduce the number of units that a property is zoned for.
Units =/= bedrooms. People are replacing units with 3-4 bedrooms with 2-bedroom units that have larger rooms.
The building regulations in SF have done more to encourage suburban sprawl than to discourage it.
Of course if density weren't outlawed SF would look different, but it would still be a very appealing place to live. You could triple the number of housing units in SF and it would be a city of low apartment buildings and townhouses with great views. You could increase the housing supply 10-fold and it would be a city of midrise apartment buildings with a fantastic climate and beautiful parks just outside the city.
Of course if density weren't outlawed SF would look different, but it would still be a very appealing place to live. You could triple the number of housing units in SF and it would be a city of low apartment buildings and townhouses with great views. You could increase the housing supply 10-fold and it would be a city of midrise apartment buildings with a fantastic climate and beautiful parks just outside the city.
Yep, replacing the rowhouses in Richmond & Sunset with 5-story walkups would probably triple the housing supply by itself.
I don't really know much about SF or local utilities. I know agriculture takes up most of California's water supply. But even though a relatively small amount is consumed directly, would there be enough water to substantially house 2x-3x the current population? How much would price spike?
Well, a lot of the people who can't afford to live in SF, but would like to, still live in California, consuming California water. They just live farther out in the north, east, or south bays.
Of course, if SF actually had 3, 5, or 10 times the population it does today then there would probably have to be a lot of infrastructure changes too. But the limit probably wouldn't be available water for residents.
Of course, if SF actually had 3, 5, or 10 times the population it does today then there would probably have to be a lot of infrastructure changes too. But the limit probably wouldn't be available water for residents.
Household water usage, especially for dense housing like apartments that lack yards, is such a small percentage of overall water usage that it's a rounding error. Agriculture and then industry are the main users of water.
I'm living in the bay area right now and I find it one of the most ugly and boring places I've ever seen. Can't wait till I'm out of here. San Fransisco is less boring and ugly, but at night it's crawling with homeless junks and the weather sucks. Silicon Valley is also this endless chain store thing you describe and there's almost no nightlife.
I stopped reading at "The weather sucks"
It's pretty divisive. Some people dream of living a place where they can wear a light jacket all the time. Other people love intense heat.
But it's hard to argue against an average of 1 day of precipitation per month in June, July, August and September...And if you live in the right neighborhood, it's also sunny from 10-4 every day in that period as well...
But it's hard to argue against an average of 1 day of precipitation per month in June, July, August and September...And if you live in the right neighborhood, it's also sunny from 10-4 every day in that period as well...
> But it's hard to argue against an average of 1 day of precipitation per month in June, July, August and September...And if you live in the right neighborhood, it's also sunny from 10-4 every day in that period as well...
Nah, it's easy to argue against that, you just have to had lived in SoCal where it's sunnier and a nice comfortable bit warmer :p
Nah, it's easy to argue against that, you just have to had lived in SoCal where it's sunnier and a nice comfortable bit warmer :p
I stopped reading at "I stopped reading"
Restrictions on building probably makes SF more sprawling, not less. Imagine if you allowed people to buy up a block in Sunset District and build 40 story apartment buildings. People wouldn't have to live in Livermoore anymore.
It might just be me, but a neighborhood of 5-story apartment buildings isn't less nice to live in than one of 2-story rowhouses.
I agree with coldtea that this view doesn't match reality. I live in Santa Monica and while there is sprawl in Los Angeles county, I can walk or bike to everything I need, including my work or the beach. The trails of the Santa Monica mountains are close, let alone a couple hour drive to San Gabriel mountains or the Joshua Tree desert.
Never understand why everyone on HN is all "build baby build" all the time.
They pulled out all the stops in Brooklyn (or most of them) and let me tell you it is not pleasant. Unless you like "modern" looking condos that fall apart in five years.
But I guess people don't move to SF for the sturdy quaint old houses. Apparently there's not much love for an urban-looking Brooklyn either. Generic rules.
They pulled out all the stops in Brooklyn (or most of them) and let me tell you it is not pleasant. Unless you like "modern" looking condos that fall apart in five years.
But I guess people don't move to SF for the sturdy quaint old houses. Apparently there's not much love for an urban-looking Brooklyn either. Generic rules.
I guess I would sacrifice the look of my city so that normal middle class people like teachers, policemen, firemen, artists, and minorities could live beside myself and fellow engineers and doctors.
The whole "we need to preserve the architecture of my city" is a first world problem. What comes before that is the ability for the middle and lower class to survive in the city. Cities are living dynamic entities and should be capable of change.
The whole "we need to preserve the architecture of my city" is a first world problem. What comes before that is the ability for the middle and lower class to survive in the city. Cities are living dynamic entities and should be capable of change.
It's also unclear that building more luxury housing (because that is what will be built, there as here) stabilizes rental prices for everyone else.
I can see why it's tempting to think about it as a supply and demand problem. But be realistic about the motivations of developers, too.
And it's not like "affordable housing" requirements work, either, when those are defined relative to average income.
I can see why it's tempting to think about it as a supply and demand problem. But be realistic about the motivations of developers, too.
And it's not like "affordable housing" requirements work, either, when those are defined relative to average income.
Luxury housing becomes more affordable with time. There are plenty of buildings in New York that were targeted upscale at the time they were built, but are no longer upscale and thus rent to people lower down the income spectrum now versus then.
Fellow New Yorker here. Thanks to all of that construction, rents here have actually decreased over the past year: https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-new-york-rent-tre...
That's why we're all "build baby build": Increase supply enough to meet demand and you can get prices to drop. It's worth it in order to help maintain the existence of affordable housing.
That's why we're all "build baby build": Increase supply enough to meet demand and you can get prices to drop. It's worth it in order to help maintain the existence of affordable housing.
[deleted]
As someone forced to move to the Bay Area, it'd also be nice if "rich people" had an alternative to moving here for employment.
Yes we need to petition the large tech companies to be more supportive of remote work and invest more in their satellite offices.
In addition to building more housing, there need to be a high tax on private cars entering and being parked in cities. The money from this tax should go towards funding public transport, which itself would benefit from the increased density.
It is strange that even on HN the only solution to housing crisis is "find a way to build more". That's not the 90's anymore, a lot jobs can be done remotely now, a lot of jobs are if you consider how many times you work with people that are in other offices.
You have small cities dying all over the country side because it becomes difficult to justify paying for general amenities like hospital, schools, ... and cities where you quickly hit the limit of high density too. You can replace a suburban sprawl by high density block of flat, but you need to upgrade the infrastructure to support it massively and the cost does not scale linearly past a point.
Seems to me there is a sweet spot there in the middle where the cost of public infrastructure is effective, a variety of living style at various price points, and there is still enough people for modern service to be cost effective. A bit like Europe if you get rid of the top 3-4 largest cities in each country.
If there is something that is prime for disruption, here you have it: this is a problem everywhere in the world, this is a problem that is solved the old non technological way, but with an already proven way to solve the problem using technology. The only bit that is missing is the proper incentive and a well balanced set of already existing technologies thrown in to make up for the major incentive of moving in a large city: the jobs are all packed in there too.
You have small cities dying all over the country side because it becomes difficult to justify paying for general amenities like hospital, schools, ... and cities where you quickly hit the limit of high density too. You can replace a suburban sprawl by high density block of flat, but you need to upgrade the infrastructure to support it massively and the cost does not scale linearly past a point.
Seems to me there is a sweet spot there in the middle where the cost of public infrastructure is effective, a variety of living style at various price points, and there is still enough people for modern service to be cost effective. A bit like Europe if you get rid of the top 3-4 largest cities in each country.
If there is something that is prime for disruption, here you have it: this is a problem everywhere in the world, this is a problem that is solved the old non technological way, but with an already proven way to solve the problem using technology. The only bit that is missing is the proper incentive and a well balanced set of already existing technologies thrown in to make up for the major incentive of moving in a large city: the jobs are all packed in there too.
Do you have a source for your claim about the there being a point in density where infrastructure costs stop scaling linearly? Intuitively, economies of scale imply the opposite of what you're saying--that infrastructure becomes less expensive per capita as density increases.
Most cities in the US have huge barriers to housing expansion, particularly of the affordable kind.
It is not a problem unique to SF, it just shows its worst there because its the highest growth.
It is not a problem unique to SF, it just shows its worst there because its the highest growth.
Prop 13
This post (https://medium.com/@andersem/a-guy-just-transcribed-30-years...) shows that, with a few blips, SF housing prices have been increasing at a fairly consistent 6.6% per year for the last 70(!) years, well above inflation or GDP growth, and the compounding effects add up pretty quickly.
Fun fact: that 600k studio apartment might seem outrageous now, but in 30 years at 6.6% it'll be $4,345,645, and your grandkids will get a nice $16,267,583 500sqft place to hang their hats in 50. Get in while it's good folks.
Stocks increase about that rate annually but people don't seem to have an issue with that.
I'm not sure what you're getting at--people don't complain about stocks increasing at that rate because they aren't negatively affected by that. When housing increased a rate that significantly exceeds that rate that wages increase, people will have to leave and the social structure of the city changed drastically when only a certain type of person (in the case of SF, typically wealthy, male, and childless) can live there.
> only a certain type of person (in the case of SF, typically wealthy, male, and childless) can live there.
You should note that young women in cities earn more than young men: http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...
You should note that young women in cities earn more than young men: http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...
That article also has this to say, directly to the point at hand:
> The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men's — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully.
So I'm not sure what you mean to prove by citing it. If you mislike and mistrust gendered rhetoric, you're welcome; so do I. But perceiving a lack of intellectual consistency on the part of one's interlocutor is no cause to hold oneself to a similarly weak standard.
> The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men's — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully.
So I'm not sure what you mean to prove by citing it. If you mislike and mistrust gendered rhetoric, you're welcome; so do I. But perceiving a lack of intellectual consistency on the part of one's interlocutor is no cause to hold oneself to a similarly weak standard.
You are correct, but it's understandable that people would be more emotionally invested in where they live, or would like to live, than in their stock portfolio. You need to live somewhere, but you don't need to invest in the stock market.
Also there's the wrinkle of the down payment, mortgage interest, property taxes, and maintenance. You aren't required to save up $200,000 down and borrow $800,000 to buy $1 million worth of stocks at once. The most I've ever had to save up was $3000 for a Vanguard fund and then you can dollar-cost average your investments after that.
Returns on property in SF, on the other hand, will almost certainly require paying tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest, property taxes, and maintenance. This reduces the rate of return below that of stocks.
However, you would have these costs elsewhere, just lower.
I'd be really interested in an analysis of this problem of stocks vs. Bay Area real estate. This analysis would take into consideration the real rates of return, financing costs, rent lost while saving up a down payment, salary differentials, career risk due to job concentrations, mortgage default risk due to career risk, and loss risk due to lack of dollar-cost averaging.
I suspect that living outside the Bay Area and investing in stocks would come out ahead up to a certain income level, which is attainable for only a small number of people (probably smaller than the number of people who think they can handle it and are discounting certain risks/being irrationally optimistic).
Also there's the wrinkle of the down payment, mortgage interest, property taxes, and maintenance. You aren't required to save up $200,000 down and borrow $800,000 to buy $1 million worth of stocks at once. The most I've ever had to save up was $3000 for a Vanguard fund and then you can dollar-cost average your investments after that.
Returns on property in SF, on the other hand, will almost certainly require paying tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest, property taxes, and maintenance. This reduces the rate of return below that of stocks.
However, you would have these costs elsewhere, just lower.
I'd be really interested in an analysis of this problem of stocks vs. Bay Area real estate. This analysis would take into consideration the real rates of return, financing costs, rent lost while saving up a down payment, salary differentials, career risk due to job concentrations, mortgage default risk due to career risk, and loss risk due to lack of dollar-cost averaging.
I suspect that living outside the Bay Area and investing in stocks would come out ahead up to a certain income level, which is attainable for only a small number of people (probably smaller than the number of people who think they can handle it and are discounting certain risks/being irrationally optimistic).
The contrast between asset classes is that real estate allows for a much greater degree of leverage than the stock market does. "Margin calls" are not instant as housing price fluctuations are slower and repossession is a long process, allowing people to catch up longer. And there are several cash flow opportunities.
Most people don't own stocks, either directly or indirectly [1]. Everyone needs a home.
1: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/08/the-stock-gap-american-stock-...
1: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/08/the-stock-gap-american-stock-...
Real estate is typically much more leveraged than sticks, leading to far higher returns for owners .
Because people aren't born short stock like they are housing: https://thezikomoletter.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/you-are-nat...
[deleted]
"The only thing that stopped keeping up are salary increases."
While I agree with you on the whole "tech blame game", the quoted statement makes no sense. Of course housing prices mirrored salary increases previously. That's a natural phenomenon. As you know, this is a supply issue being mistaken by the rebellious barista set as a demand issue.
While I agree with you on the whole "tech blame game", the quoted statement makes no sense. Of course housing prices mirrored salary increases previously. That's a natural phenomenon. As you know, this is a supply issue being mistaken by the rebellious barista set as a demand issue.
The only thing that stopped keeping up are salary increases.
What's wrong with your overall summation of the situation is that the housing crisis is -- like most things that go systemically wrong in economics and public policy -- a product of multiple sources of causation, acting in concert.
That's why you can't (meaningfully) just say, "See, there's this other favor X [lack of middle class salary increases] at play. Therefore this factor Y everyone keeps talking about [high-salaried tech workers pouring into town] can't be the major factor. In fact, it's merely trendy."
Because in reality the housing crisis is a product of X, Y, Z, and a host of other factors acting in concert.
What's wrong with your overall summation of the situation is that the housing crisis is -- like most things that go systemically wrong in economics and public policy -- a product of multiple sources of causation, acting in concert.
That's why you can't (meaningfully) just say, "See, there's this other favor X [lack of middle class salary increases] at play. Therefore this factor Y everyone keeps talking about [high-salaried tech workers pouring into town] can't be the major factor. In fact, it's merely trendy."
Because in reality the housing crisis is a product of X, Y, Z, and a host of other factors acting in concert.
I was waiting for your comment. I primarily didn't want to write a dissertation with two footnotes. I also didn't want to point to the people whose salaries have caught up with housing price increases.
Those weren't footnotes. My point was that you were completely mischaracterizing the core nature of the problem.
Meh, it's what I've said here and elsewhere for years: California has always been expensive, always will be. (Where definition of CA == "SF/LA/San Diego, not Stockton".) The only difference I've seen lately versus historically is that during the most recent housing crash Bay Area housing didn't seem to get hit much, if at all. OTOH, there was a considerable dip in CA housing prices in the 70s that didn't seem to affect the rest of the country.
The CA housing market, if nothing else, gives newspapers something to chat about on slow news days.
The CA housing market, if nothing else, gives newspapers something to chat about on slow news days.
Prices in San Francisco were rock bottom in 2008-2009. I saw some insanely low listing prices at the time. I'm talking stuff listing for less than $400,000 that's listing for over $1.5 million today. Unfortunately I had _just_ begun graduate school on the East coast. I spent many nights trawling Trulia with my jaw agape, pleading with my S.O. (comfortable in her rent controlled apartment) to consider buying something.
Those prices don't show up on most historical charts because there were very few sales overall, and of course most sales were at the very high-end which are typically much more inelastic price-wise.
Most of the market was exceptionally illiquid, which is why many of those listings were so slow. Alot of renovations and new construction that had just come onto the market were discounted to fire sale prices, dragging other listings with them, and _still_ didn't sell until a year or two later. Banks simply weren't making loans, and the all-cash buyers weren't around either because the stock market had tanked.
The market rebounded much faster here than elsewhere. But, still, if you actually had hard cash at the time, and an appetite for risk (nobody knew if and when things would rebound) you could have made a killing. Some people did.
Those prices don't show up on most historical charts because there were very few sales overall, and of course most sales were at the very high-end which are typically much more inelastic price-wise.
Most of the market was exceptionally illiquid, which is why many of those listings were so slow. Alot of renovations and new construction that had just come onto the market were discounted to fire sale prices, dragging other listings with them, and _still_ didn't sell until a year or two later. Banks simply weren't making loans, and the all-cash buyers weren't around either because the stock market had tanked.
The market rebounded much faster here than elsewhere. But, still, if you actually had hard cash at the time, and an appetite for risk (nobody knew if and when things would rebound) you could have made a killing. Some people did.
I would think the more relevant number is year-to-year increase benchmarked to the median increase across major US metropolitan areas. You're right though: median wealth and income were probably also growing much more commensurately mid-to-late 20th century than they do now.
Agreed. It's easier to blame what's in front of our eyes and trending. However, I wouldn't go as far as saying the tech industry had nothing to do with it. It's all relative.
the 'tech industry' is now. the gold speculators were then. the city could have just as easily become a carcass of the industrial era like many others.
One factor that may explain the reduced correlation between salaries and rent growth is the increase in dual income families.
"The only thing that stopped keeping up are salary increases"
That's a pretty big only.
That's a pretty big only.
You might be right, but this feels like a facile argument. Is SF an outlier in the last 30 years? Perhaps tech industry has supported a recent continuation of trends that died in the rest of the country. How has SF housing policy compared to the rest of nation impacted prices? What about cost of living _besides_ housing?
That's by no means comprehensive, but I'd just suggest a) more sources and b) a more holistic look at the issue than housing prices.
That's by no means comprehensive, but I'd just suggest a) more sources and b) a more holistic look at the issue than housing prices.
But, housing prices essentially are the issue. A region where teachers, baristas, and janitors can't afford to live just can't function.
But it does. I'm a software developer who could barely afford to live in SF. And yet people clean the floors, make coffee, and teach children there. Because they don't live there - they commute from cheaper areas.
Like just about every other major city.
Like just about every other major city.
When I was in grad school in SF in 95-01 I lived on a $25K salary. I did this by sharing a place with several people, in the outermost part of SF. I had to spend about 1.5 hours on MUNI a day. It was pretty miserable but it was the only place I could afford.
Prices have appreciated, but if you're not trying to buy a house, and you're willing to compromise a lot, I think you can live in the city on a teacher salary ($60K/year).
Prices have appreciated, but if you're not trying to buy a house, and you're willing to compromise a lot, I think you can live in the city on a teacher salary ($60K/year).
That lifestyle as a teacher is probably only desirable or realistic for the young. Once you want to settle down/have kids/whatever, you probably want to either buy a house, or not compromise quite so much. Does that mean that SF will have only young teachers? Most the experienced ones will move somewhere more affordable. Is that a problem for the city?
Or, all the teachers marry high-income partners and can thereby afford to continue living there.
~~I'm trying to find an article I'm sure I've seen on HN of marriages mapped by occupation. I'll edit if I can find it, but I believe I remember that teachers tended to "marry up".~~
EDIT: et-al found the link I was looking for. However, it doesn't seem to support my memory of teachers "marrying up".
~~I'm trying to find an article I'm sure I've seen on HN of marriages mapped by occupation. I'll edit if I can find it, but I believe I remember that teachers tended to "marry up".~~
EDIT: et-al found the link I was looking for. However, it doesn't seem to support my memory of teachers "marrying up".
Was it this interactive chart by Bloomberg?
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-whom/
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-who-marries-whom/
YES! Thank you. I found another article on Bloomberg, but it was not this one. However, it doesn't seem to be support my memory of "marrying up".
wow thats an amazing chart to extrapolate from!
Young people come here for a temporary period and then leave. Only the ones become affluent enough stay.
Why would any teacher do that when they could live comfortably on that salary pretty much anywhere else in the country?
Well, teacher salaries are lower in other parts of the country (though it is also true that salary vs cost of living is less out of whack in most of them).
I'll give you teachers and janitors, but region "just can't function" without baristas? That is, glorified people who serve coffee?
I agree they'd be a huge part of it. I guess I'm just trying to call out that you can't completely discount the influence the tech industry has had on the bay area by looking at _just_ housing prices. I'm certain there's more to it than that, even if it's the single biggest issue.
I commented this as a reply to the parent comment, but in case you don't see it I think this will interest you: https://medium.com/@andersem/a-guy-just-transcribed-30-years...
SF housing has averaged 6.6% yoy increases for the last 70 years.
SF housing has averaged 6.6% yoy increases for the last 70 years.
I think sometimes there is a meme that if it's been said before, that’s proof that the complaint or worry is baseless and hysterical.
But this isn’t so.
Just because it's been said before doesn't make it untrue. San Francisco is in fact not an easy or great place for those with children but not wealth.
But this isn’t so.
Just because it's been said before doesn't make it untrue. San Francisco is in fact not an easy or great place for those with children but not wealth.
Most of America isn't a great place for those with children but not wealth!
I think what makes San Francisco a target is that it isn't a great place for those without children who would be classified as wealthy in any other part of the country.
You can probably find a path to home ownership in a safe neighborhood with decent services in any city in the country if you are in the upper quartile of incomes for that area.
The housing prices in San Francisco are such that most incomes even in the upper quartile would take a decade to save for a downpayment. You need two incomes (Two working parents) in the upper quartile of incomes in the area to get you to home ownership in a good neighborhood.
I think what makes San Francisco a target is that it isn't a great place for those without children who would be classified as wealthy in any other part of the country.
You can probably find a path to home ownership in a safe neighborhood with decent services in any city in the country if you are in the upper quartile of incomes for that area.
The housing prices in San Francisco are such that most incomes even in the upper quartile would take a decade to save for a downpayment. You need two incomes (Two working parents) in the upper quartile of incomes in the area to get you to home ownership in a good neighborhood.
> Most of America isn't a great place for those with children but not wealth!
I don't follow.
As you said yourself, in most places in the U.S., a middle or upper-middle class family can afford to live in a home big enough for a family (which by global standards, is likely big enough for two or three families). And the home's in a safe neighborhood. What prevents this scenario from being great?
I don't follow.
As you said yourself, in most places in the U.S., a middle or upper-middle class family can afford to live in a home big enough for a family (which by global standards, is likely big enough for two or three families). And the home's in a safe neighborhood. What prevents this scenario from being great?
I’m with you. Obviously wealthy children will have more advantages no matter what, but I personally grew up with one working parent (dad was a teacher with a summer job and some small side jobs) who was able to support me, my mother, and 5 siblings in a smallish US town. I was able to receive a good public education, and we had all the necessities (if nothing else – no nice vacations or fashionable clothes). It was a safe town… sports programs, extra-curriculars. Cheap homes. That one working parent was able to buy a 4-bed home, renovate the attic, add an enclosed porch, re-side and re-shingle, and pay off the mortgage while raising this family. This scenario would be entirely impossible in San Francisco and even most of the Peninsula.
Definitely agree that other places are more affordable, especially if you bring a nest egg from working a few years in an expensive Metro area like NYC, SF etc.
But the 80s and 90s -- through the first Dotcom crash -- were also a different era. The Economist considered the US the #1 country to be born in 1988, and only #16 in 2013. This is reflected in the fall in the number of good middle-class jobs, housing affordability, health care costs, traffic and infrastructure, and overall declining quality of factors.
But the 80s and 90s -- through the first Dotcom crash -- were also a different era. The Economist considered the US the #1 country to be born in 1988, and only #16 in 2013. This is reflected in the fall in the number of good middle-class jobs, housing affordability, health care costs, traffic and infrastructure, and overall declining quality of factors.
> Soaring housing costs, urban violence, shifting ethnic patterns and an increase in childless adults living together may be turning San Francisco, which the Chamber of Commerce likes to call ''everybody's favorite city,'' into a haven for the young, the old, the wealthy and the childless.
Love reading posts of old articles from the 80s and 90s. It's like nothing much has changed over the past 30 or so years. Except the average housing price has gone up from ~$100,000 to ~$1,000,000 (you know, cuz of inflation and stuff...)
Love reading posts of old articles from the 80s and 90s. It's like nothing much has changed over the past 30 or so years. Except the average housing price has gone up from ~$100,000 to ~$1,000,000 (you know, cuz of inflation and stuff...)
Since you quoted the one sentence that made me scratch my head, I'll glom onto it here. How are any of those things good for young people?
The young who are childless but still have a high income. That implies, though, that if/when they have kids, they're going to find San Francisco to be less attractive...
Sure, but most young people don't have a high income.
It's a lot more likely that they do when you precondition on them living in SF.
Doesn't that apply equally to everybody?
Of course, "when people have kids" is frequently the point where many people living in just about any city in the country (or at least a denser part of an urban core) pick up and move to the suburbs however reluctantly. For reasons of better public schools, more space, lower crime, etc.
I think it's more that they the bad for people with children.
In a similar vein there's this book that was mentionned in YC's winter reading list: https://www.amazon.com/Pandaemonium-Coming-Machine-Contempor...
I haven't received it yet but it seems promising
I haven't received it yet but it seems promising
Interesting bit:
>in 1970 the number of Hispanics was arrived at by a computer model that listed everyone with a Spanish surname as Hispanic
because census in 1970 did not allow differentiation Hispanics. It also probably means that decrease in whites from 70's to 80's is overstated.
>in 1970 the number of Hispanics was arrived at by a computer model that listed everyone with a Spanish surname as Hispanic
because census in 1970 did not allow differentiation Hispanics. It also probably means that decrease in whites from 70's to 80's is overstated.
They could check this by testing the same model against later census results.
NYtimes writing news about SF as a haven for wealthy and childless is like SFchronicles writing about NY as haven for wealthy and carless.
Except this was written in 1981 when NYC wasn't exactly the shining globalized mall it was today and the wealthy were fleeing like hell to CT and Jersey.
That's interesting, and true. In the early 80s, the middle class abandonment of cities running at full throttle. New York and San Francisco had enough of an urban core to retain some of their middle class, but yeah, a lot of people left. This was the era of dirty harry movies, where people felt it was all kind of coming apart, that cities were sinking ships, and that you might want to get out while you can.
It started turning around in the 90s, culturally (I remember commentaries on shows like "Friends", that an urban ideal was emerging, at least among young adults). This wasn't a brand new thing by any means, but preferring an urban environment started to make its way back into the mainstream again. And now, interestingly, it's full throttle once again, but this time, it's people trying to cram into cities rather than fleeing them. Rather than talking about "getting out" of SF, people talk about being "priced out" of San Francisco and NY and regrettably feeling forced to move to the suburbs. I'm not sure how much of this is really sincere - I live south of 280 in SF, and a lot of people who say they were priced out would turn their nose up at my neighborhood. But still, I don't think this kind of talk was as common in the early 80s.
On another note - I felt New York was worse than SF, in terms of blight, in the early 90s when I lived there. Growing up in SF had certainly prepared me for the homelessness and aggressive panhandling, but it was heavier in NY. This may of course just reflect the neighborhoods I was in, but in NY, people asking for chance would follow me for blocks, negotiating (do you have subway tokens? I take subway tokens!) I was frequently approached for spare change in bars and restaurants (once, I dropped some money while paying for my coffee, a homeless man in NY jumped up to collect it for me, then held onto it as he entered negotiations for how much he would keep - possession being 9/10ths of the law, I guess).
I went back to NY recently, after 20 years away, and my perception is that you're experience far less of this sort of thing in NY than SF now. Certainly, there were still homeless people in NY, but the aggression I'd experienced earlier really wasn't nearly as notable. In SF, I'd say it's gotten steadily heavier, more aggressive. Not sure why.
It started turning around in the 90s, culturally (I remember commentaries on shows like "Friends", that an urban ideal was emerging, at least among young adults). This wasn't a brand new thing by any means, but preferring an urban environment started to make its way back into the mainstream again. And now, interestingly, it's full throttle once again, but this time, it's people trying to cram into cities rather than fleeing them. Rather than talking about "getting out" of SF, people talk about being "priced out" of San Francisco and NY and regrettably feeling forced to move to the suburbs. I'm not sure how much of this is really sincere - I live south of 280 in SF, and a lot of people who say they were priced out would turn their nose up at my neighborhood. But still, I don't think this kind of talk was as common in the early 80s.
On another note - I felt New York was worse than SF, in terms of blight, in the early 90s when I lived there. Growing up in SF had certainly prepared me for the homelessness and aggressive panhandling, but it was heavier in NY. This may of course just reflect the neighborhoods I was in, but in NY, people asking for chance would follow me for blocks, negotiating (do you have subway tokens? I take subway tokens!) I was frequently approached for spare change in bars and restaurants (once, I dropped some money while paying for my coffee, a homeless man in NY jumped up to collect it for me, then held onto it as he entered negotiations for how much he would keep - possession being 9/10ths of the law, I guess).
I went back to NY recently, after 20 years away, and my perception is that you're experience far less of this sort of thing in NY than SF now. Certainly, there were still homeless people in NY, but the aggression I'd experienced earlier really wasn't nearly as notable. In SF, I'd say it's gotten steadily heavier, more aggressive. Not sure why.
Manhattan still seemed outrageously expensive compared to most other places in the mid-80s or so, even if it was dirty and dangerous compared to today. That said, given prescience, I'm sure there were bargains to be had in what were not necessarily quite yet up and coming neighborhoods.
New York and San Francisco are both havens for the wealthy and childless.
But is this a real problem? Different areas are good for different types of people. If you want to have children, move to somewhere you can have a proper backyard, because leaving your kids indoors all day will send both you and them crazy.
But is this a real problem? Different areas are good for different types of people. If you want to have children, move to somewhere you can have a proper backyard, because leaving your kids indoors all day will send both you and them crazy.
I grew up in NYC. I certainly didn't stay indoors all day. You know there's like five or six absolutely massive sprawling parks in the city right? Not to mention exploring your neighborhood on bike and by foot. Growing up in the city is amazing and I feel bad for my peers who tell me of their suburban youth with the backyard and pool but they had to walk 30 minutes just to go to a store or see a friend.
Yea, ironically you actually spend much more time outside in NYC because everyone walks everywhere, and there's always a nice park within a couple blocks of wherever you are.
Same, grew up in a (small) city and it was amazing. We roamed and explored and had fun.
My sister, 8 years younger, not so much. Everyone had clubs and extracuriculars and computers and homework and TV. No free time to roam and explore after school before parents come home.
My sister, 8 years younger, not so much. Everyone had clubs and extracuriculars and computers and homework and TV. No free time to roam and explore after school before parents come home.
I know that things have changed since I was a kid in the 80s and suburban parents are no longer happy sending their kids outside to roam the streets unsupervised.
But surely even back in the day, parents wouldn't have sent young children to hang out unsupervised in Central Park?
But surely even back in the day, parents wouldn't have sent young children to hang out unsupervised in Central Park?
The first time I rode the subway without an adult I was 10 or so. I had my little brother with me and he was about 6. We went to Prospect Park pretty often. This was the early eighties.
Similar for me, I grew up in New York and was taking the subway by myself to school from age 11 on (also early '80s). I can't remember when I first went to say Central Park unsupervised by adults but am sure it was by age 13.
What is the a good city now for mid-income childless ? More fun activities, concerts ect and low taxes that go to roads and public transport and not schools, parks and libraries.
When you say "mid-income", do you mean around $55K (roughly the median household income in the US) or the "Hacker News Mid-Income" of $150K+ ?
Austin is good if you don't mind hot, dry weather.
The city is young and reasonably liberal and strikes a fine balance between urban living and outdoor activities. Our live music scene is also the best in the nation.
There is no state income tax either, so with an annual income of $75k, you will save $4k a year compared to California. Sales tax is also lower by a percent or two.
The city is young and reasonably liberal and strikes a fine balance between urban living and outdoor activities. Our live music scene is also the best in the nation.
There is no state income tax either, so with an annual income of $75k, you will save $4k a year compared to California. Sales tax is also lower by a percent or two.
Dry? Maybe compared to Houston. Very humid compared to Las Vegas or Arizona.
Austin, Houston, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, etc
Do you really want a city where the taxes don't go to schools and libraries? Not everyone will be childless, you know; you might want their kids to receive a good education rather than just roam the streets...
Many of the cities in the midwest have had small booms due to a good mix of recreational activities, affordable housing, solid job markets, and a good environment if you chose to have kids.
Of course, they don't have the "cool" factor of SFO or NYC etc.
Of course, they don't have the "cool" factor of SFO or NYC etc.
If you're used to mountains, oceans, et c you might find the landscapes and outdoor activities (aside from boating at the ubiquitous man-made lakes) in the Midwest lacking, to put it mildly. Most of it's also pretty far from anywhere that's much more interesting. If you're lucky you'll be in a location where you can take a 3-day weekend of mostly driving and spend a day somewhere better, but that's about as good as it gets. Hard to get decent fresh seafood at anything like a reasonable price, too, for obvious reasons, so hope you're not in love with seafood. Flights to Asian or European countries are more expensive than and take longer than on the West and East coasts, respectively, too, again for obvious reasons.
It is cheap though, and some of the cities have decent (and improving) culture, considering how inexpensive they are.
Source: lifelong Midwesterner, lived in four Midwestern states.
It is cheap though, and some of the cities have decent (and improving) culture, considering how inexpensive they are.
Source: lifelong Midwesterner, lived in four Midwestern states.
I can't speak for other cities, but Minneapolis is nothing like that.
It's only a few hours drive from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (massive wilderness area), two hours from Lake Superior/the North Shore (skiing/mountain biking/hiking), and incredibly close to thousands of lakes/cabins (very few of which are manmade). MSP airport is also a major hub for Delta and has affordable/quick connections to nearly every major market (either directly or via ORD). Culturally it has renowned theatres (second only to NYC in per capita theatre seats) and has decent nightlife/culture. It's as car dependent as any American city but has a huge bike culture (possibly the #1 bike city in America?). Diversity is also growing - my local school district in a relatively affluent suburb has 160 languages being spoken. There are also 17 Fortune 500 companies in Minnesota and a healthy economy (with plenty of IT jobs).
I'm lived here for 10 years after moving from New Zealand so am well aware of what coastal/mountain living is like. I've also spent time in London, Sydney, Chicago, DC, Boston, San Francisco, Madrid, Hong Kong, LA, Paris, and Copenhagen so have a sense of what living in a more well known city is like. Like I said, it's not NYC or SFO but it's definitely not what most people expect. The local joke is that it's impossible to get people to move here but then no one leaves because of how good the wages are compared to the cost of living and amenities.
Then again, maybe Minneapolis is part of a Northern identity that some have kicked around!
It's only a few hours drive from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (massive wilderness area), two hours from Lake Superior/the North Shore (skiing/mountain biking/hiking), and incredibly close to thousands of lakes/cabins (very few of which are manmade). MSP airport is also a major hub for Delta and has affordable/quick connections to nearly every major market (either directly or via ORD). Culturally it has renowned theatres (second only to NYC in per capita theatre seats) and has decent nightlife/culture. It's as car dependent as any American city but has a huge bike culture (possibly the #1 bike city in America?). Diversity is also growing - my local school district in a relatively affluent suburb has 160 languages being spoken. There are also 17 Fortune 500 companies in Minnesota and a healthy economy (with plenty of IT jobs).
I'm lived here for 10 years after moving from New Zealand so am well aware of what coastal/mountain living is like. I've also spent time in London, Sydney, Chicago, DC, Boston, San Francisco, Madrid, Hong Kong, LA, Paris, and Copenhagen so have a sense of what living in a more well known city is like. Like I said, it's not NYC or SFO but it's definitely not what most people expect. The local joke is that it's impossible to get people to move here but then no one leaves because of how good the wages are compared to the cost of living and amenities.
Then again, maybe Minneapolis is part of a Northern identity that some have kicked around!
I think it's telling that both posts disputing my characterization have put forward Minnesota and other Lakes areas as the evidence against me. I can say those South and West of you don't typically mean that area when they say Midwest (it's too nice).
> If you're used to mountains, oceans, et c you might find the landscapes and outdoor activities
Couldn't disagree more, there are thousands of lakes in the midwest. Northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are huge forests with countless natural lakes for hunting, hiking, fishing, camping, ATV, etc. Plus there are the great lakes which are basically like an ocean.
If you like outdoor activities, hike, or get a canoe or a boat and you'll never be bored in summer. In winter, get a snowmobile or get into cross country skiing and you'll never be bored.
> It is cheap though, and some of the cities have decent (and improving) culture, considering how inexpensive they are.
This is true and very important. You can still easily live "the American dream" (easily own a house, newer cars, have a family, go on vacations, shop, save) on an average middle class income in the midwest and the south. Living comparable in western coastal states of CA/OR/WA would require easily 2.5x-6x or more the income for the same results.
Couldn't disagree more, there are thousands of lakes in the midwest. Northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are huge forests with countless natural lakes for hunting, hiking, fishing, camping, ATV, etc. Plus there are the great lakes which are basically like an ocean.
If you like outdoor activities, hike, or get a canoe or a boat and you'll never be bored in summer. In winter, get a snowmobile or get into cross country skiing and you'll never be bored.
> It is cheap though, and some of the cities have decent (and improving) culture, considering how inexpensive they are.
This is true and very important. You can still easily live "the American dream" (easily own a house, newer cars, have a family, go on vacations, shop, save) on an average middle class income in the midwest and the south. Living comparable in western coastal states of CA/OR/WA would require easily 2.5x-6x or more the income for the same results.
"What is the a good city now for mid-income childless ? More fun activities, concerts ect and low taxes that go to roads and public transport and not schools, parks and libraries."
Maybe Denver ?
Colorado has relatively low tax rates and Denver is sort-of-kind-of-almost a real, functional big city downtown.
If you're at all inclined towards weekend-outdoorsy things, it might be a good choice.
Personally, if I had to choose a city besides San Francisco (where I live) I would choose Minneapolis, but it's not for everyone (and MN taxes are relatively high).
Maybe Denver ?
Colorado has relatively low tax rates and Denver is sort-of-kind-of-almost a real, functional big city downtown.
If you're at all inclined towards weekend-outdoorsy things, it might be a good choice.
Personally, if I had to choose a city besides San Francisco (where I live) I would choose Minneapolis, but it's not for everyone (and MN taxes are relatively high).
I would put forth Cleveland. We have very fast growing food and beer scenes. The orchestra is world renowned and also quite affordable to see. There are many quite good museums in university circle (most of which have no entry fee).
The theater district is (I am told) the largest outside of NYC (although I'm not sure by what metric). Regional theater is pretty big here as well if you want to see stuff outside Broadway, etc.
There are many concerts in the city, but Columbus and Pittsburgh are both reasonable drives and get a lot of concerts. Several of the venues (The Grog Shop, Aurora, Beachland Ballroom) get up and coming acts and musicians from large bands doing solo projects, often for low prices as well.
Housing is affordable, for the most part, although downtown housing is close to capacity at the moment due to lots of young people moving downtown. Outside of downtown, I am a fan of both Lakewood (westside, cheaper) and Shaker Heights (eastside, more expensive), both of which have access to light rail to downtown. Some of the cheaper suburbs are mostly 1960s housing stock, built in the era of GI mortgages, so they look kind of same-y, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are also parts of the area (like East Cleveland), which are probably undesirable to live in.
Cleveland offers a decent amount of outdoor activity as well. Obviously, the lake and river are available for many different outdoors activities (Kayaking, Canoeing, Jet Skis, swimming, boating) and there are several beaches. The metro parks system has parks around the outskirts of the entire city. Cuyahoga Valley National Park is a short drive south. You are within driving distance of Wayne National Forest, Hocking Hills, and Allegheny National Forest. Many other outdoors areas in eastern PA are within a reasonable drive.
I'm not sure I agree w.r.t. taxes paying for parks and libraries. I enjoy both of those things and think they are valuable. Additionally, Cleveland (and Ohio in general) has a pretty great library system. Living in Cleveland, you have access to every Cleveland and suburb library (via ClevNet) and the Cuyahoga County Public Library, including eBooks and Audio Books. You also can order books from any Ohio Library via OhioLink.
Taxes are a problem, I think, with Cleveland. The city and most of the suburbs have a local income tax (between 1 and 2% flat rate usually) and the state of the roads and public transit does not seem to reflect the tax rate (although some areas are better than others). Sales tax is the highest in the state at 8% (compared to 7% elsewhere in OH), although food is tax-free. It is lower than Chicago (10.25%) and higher than Pittsburgh (6%).
The theater district is (I am told) the largest outside of NYC (although I'm not sure by what metric). Regional theater is pretty big here as well if you want to see stuff outside Broadway, etc.
There are many concerts in the city, but Columbus and Pittsburgh are both reasonable drives and get a lot of concerts. Several of the venues (The Grog Shop, Aurora, Beachland Ballroom) get up and coming acts and musicians from large bands doing solo projects, often for low prices as well.
Housing is affordable, for the most part, although downtown housing is close to capacity at the moment due to lots of young people moving downtown. Outside of downtown, I am a fan of both Lakewood (westside, cheaper) and Shaker Heights (eastside, more expensive), both of which have access to light rail to downtown. Some of the cheaper suburbs are mostly 1960s housing stock, built in the era of GI mortgages, so they look kind of same-y, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are also parts of the area (like East Cleveland), which are probably undesirable to live in.
Cleveland offers a decent amount of outdoor activity as well. Obviously, the lake and river are available for many different outdoors activities (Kayaking, Canoeing, Jet Skis, swimming, boating) and there are several beaches. The metro parks system has parks around the outskirts of the entire city. Cuyahoga Valley National Park is a short drive south. You are within driving distance of Wayne National Forest, Hocking Hills, and Allegheny National Forest. Many other outdoors areas in eastern PA are within a reasonable drive.
I'm not sure I agree w.r.t. taxes paying for parks and libraries. I enjoy both of those things and think they are valuable. Additionally, Cleveland (and Ohio in general) has a pretty great library system. Living in Cleveland, you have access to every Cleveland and suburb library (via ClevNet) and the Cuyahoga County Public Library, including eBooks and Audio Books. You also can order books from any Ohio Library via OhioLink.
Taxes are a problem, I think, with Cleveland. The city and most of the suburbs have a local income tax (between 1 and 2% flat rate usually) and the state of the roads and public transit does not seem to reflect the tax rate (although some areas are better than others). Sales tax is the highest in the state at 8% (compared to 7% elsewhere in OH), although food is tax-free. It is lower than Chicago (10.25%) and higher than Pittsburgh (6%).
Pittsburgh!
I was just there this past week. I could not believe how much the city has changed since I was last there 5 years ago. It is taking off
Sorry, Northeast winters suck. Really, really, suck.
Pittsburgh doesn't really get hit with bad winters - not the way that, say, Buffalo does.
Pittsburgh.
Scottsdale is wonderful.
Relevant recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13453644
Nice to see that 36 years later they're writing the same thing. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/san-francisco-children... "San Francisco Asks: Where Have All the Children Gone?"
[deleted]
Cause I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom, please flush it all away.
I wanna see it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away.
Originally meant for LA, but oddly applicable.
Originally meant for LA, but oddly applicable.
Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be.
Looked up the lyrics, had some fun. A lot of verses fit well with both settings.
Fuck that Mark Zuckerberg and Fuck all his clones. Fuck all these swag-toting Hip coder wannabes.
Learn to swim.
Fuck retro anything. Fuck your tattoos. Fuck all you junkies and Fuck your short memory.
Learn to swim.
Fuck those recruiters With hidden agendas. Fuck these dysfunctional, Insecure activists.
Fuck that Mark Zuckerberg and Fuck all his clones. Fuck all these swag-toting Hip coder wannabes.
Learn to swim.
Fuck retro anything. Fuck your tattoos. Fuck all you junkies and Fuck your short memory.
Learn to swim.
Fuck those recruiters With hidden agendas. Fuck these dysfunctional, Insecure activists.
It's funny how people think this crap was just invented in the past 10 years in SF.
I work as an housing activist in SF. If you want to get more involved, shoot me an email and we'll get coffee. [email protected]
What's a "housing activist"?
How do we get people to change something ominous yet moves slowly across generations? We're all afflicted with a short attention span and plenty of day-to-day problems, and we elect leaders to deal with the here and now.
This issue affects so many wicked problems, including how social systems respond to human-made environmental devastation.
Thankfully there are some leaders who will do the hard thing.
This issue affects so many wicked problems, including how social systems respond to human-made environmental devastation.
Thankfully there are some leaders who will do the hard thing.
and then this piece lands: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/san-francisco-children...
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
[deleted]
All the rhetoric and oddly empowering blame game to the tech industry (at least for us tech people) is merely trendy.
The only thing that stopped keeping up are salary increases.