7 ms·

Beats living on the streets if that’s the only thing you can afford. Like the article said, there’s fine hotels for some and some truly terrible ones for other

by oluwie 10mo ago

Beats living on the streets if that’s the only thing you can afford. Like the article said, there’s fine hotels for some and some truly terrible ones for others. Still beats being homeless. Also, just because something isn’t perfect and has its flaws, doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile.

cyberax 10mo ago
See? Exactly the decay I was talking about. There are no other options. Like smaller cities with a lower cost of living. The big cities just suck away life from everything.
- rangestransform 10mo ago
  Smaller cities aggressively eject the target demographics of SROs through aggressive zoning and outright buying bus tickets to the nearest large city
  - cyberax 10mo ago
    Rent for a real apartment in a smaller city costs less than an SRO in a large city.
    - array_key_first 10mo ago
      That's because many smaller cities and suburban or rural areas are economically defunct, so property is cheap because it's essentially worthless (you can't make money off of it). Property is expensive in, say, NYC because you can use that property to do A LOT of economic activity. Property is cheap in Ponder, Texas because you can use that property to do fuck all, so you better take what you can get. You can choose to live in Ponder, Texas, but the economics of that aren't too hot.
      - cyberax 10mo ago
        > Property is expensive in, say, NYC because you can use that property to do A LOT of economic activity. Property is cheap in Ponder, Texas because you can use that property to do fuck all, so you better take what you can get. Well, exactly. And allowing SROs and then bunkbeds will only make this _worse_. Your housing costs in NYC will keep _rising_, while the living conditions for _everyone_ will keep going down. Death spiral, in other words.
        array_key_first 10mo ago
        The COL goes up in cities because they continue to be more productive, and that's just how money works. I don't know what to tell you, there's just no way around that. Opting to anarchist mode implode the economy so you get slightly cheaper housing is insane.
        cyberax 10mo ago
        "The pollution in cities goes up because they continue to be more productive, and that's just how money works. I don't know what to tell you, there's just no way around that. Opting to anarchist mode implode the economy so you get slightly cleaner water is insane." Sounds familiar? And no, I'm not proposing anything "anarchist". Tax (or cap&trade) the dense office space, provide tax breaks for remote work, provide incentives for jobs in smaller cities. That's exactly how we solved the problem of industrial pollution.
        array_key_first 10mo ago
        Suburbs cause more pollution per capita than cities, and you know that. Because, again, obviously, suburbs are just less efficient. Moving, say, water 100 miles to reach 100 people is worse than moving water 1 mile to reach 100 people. > That's exactly how we solved the problem of industrial pollution. It's not, at all. We 'solved' it by just pushing it somewhere else, and then we actually helped it by making more efficient processes. It's not that by you living in the suburbs you have no pollution. No, the pollution is made in the city, and then we just transport the end result sometimes thousands of miles to your house so you don't have to see it. That process is horribly inefficient - which is why it's fair to say that suburbs are essentially on the welfare of the cities around them. Everything you have - water, concrete, food, electricity - is coming from denser centers. You don't actually pay enough in taxes to cover that, but it's fine, because that's the cost of typical American culture. And, speaking of American culture - what you're advocating is very much the status quo. The US is extremely distributed compared to the rest of the developed world, and we pay a high price for it. We use absurd amounts of water, energy, and money to maintain our suburban lifestyle.
- parlor7751 10mo ago
  There are no jobs in the small cities, plus they typically try to keep out anyone that doesn't fit their white picket fence ideal.
  - cyberax 10mo ago
    Well, yes. See above about the urbanism death spiral. Large cities suck the life away from smaller cities. This is the direct consequence of allowing dense housing, and it's made _worse_ by allowing abominations like SROs or "microapartments". And then bunk beds (already happening in Singapore). The correct action here is to STOP doing this. Prohibit building dense housing and, more importantly, dense office space. Provide tax incentives for remote work and for offices outside of city cores. Ideally, start un-densifying cities by creating more park spaces in place of dense housing.
    - array_key_first 10mo ago
      How the fuck would de-densifying cities help with housing costs? The denser housing is, the cheaper it is per unit. Also, remote work doesn't work like that. You, yes YOU, rely on actual real people to do stuff for your community to make your life worth living. That means construction, food service, sanitation, etc. Already, this type of work is not very viable in suburban or rural areas because they're too inefficient. Many rural areas are essentially subsidized by the cities around them - they couldn't afford to have roads or electricity otherwise. If everyone is spread out everywhere, how do you provide them with the stuff they need in an economically viable way? That's the entire reason urbanism exists!
      - cyberax 10mo ago
        > How the fuck would de-densifying cities help with housing costs? That's the reality. The _only_ way to make housing less expensive is to reduce the dense population. Examples abound: Austin, Denver, etc. > The denser housing is, the cheaper it is per unit. Nope. The denser the housing, the MORE EXPENSIVE it gets. Even on a per-unit basis. That's why we have this drive to allow SROs. It'll push prices of all housing even higher. > Also, remote work doesn't work like that. You, yes YOU, rely on actual real people to do stuff for your community to make your life worth living. _Most_ of the modern post-industrial work is divided into two areas: 1. Office work. Can just as well be WFH. 2. In-person services (restaurants, childcare, hospitals, etc.). They work _better_ in suburban areas. That food truck owner in Manhattan can't afford to live there, so they likely spend hours every day to commute. In a suburban area, they can afford to buy/rent a house nearby. There are some areas that will require specialized communities around them, like universities or large hospital centers. But they for sure don't need 4 million people monstrosities like NYC. > Many rural areas are essentially subsidized by the cities around them - they couldn't afford to have roads or electricity otherwise. It's vice versa. Most of the economic value in the US is created by people living in suburbia. This is easy to see if you look at personal income tax stats. Cities receive the majority of _corporate_ taxes because corporation HQs are located in cities (duh). > That means construction, food service, sanitation, etc. Construction, food service, sanitation and so on are _cheaper_ to do in suburban areas. Why? Because of the planning overhead. Materials cost less than planning. If you want to change a sewer main in Manhattan, you'll spend several years getting all the permits, creating temporary infrastructure to pump the sewage while you're working, then spending several months carefully digging through the streets to avoid severing unmarked pipes carrying who-knows-what. In a suburban area, you just ask nearby houses to temporarily live in a hotel for a week, do the dig, and you're done. Even if you need more raw material, you end up spending less. This is not a theory, btw. There's a study that shows that the city efficiency peaks at around 300k people.

by oluwie 10mo ago

cyberax 10mo ago

See? Exactly the decay I was talking about. There are no other options. Like smaller cities with a lower cost of living. The big cities just suck away life from everything.

rangestransform 10mo ago
Smaller cities aggressively eject the target demographics of SROs through aggressive zoning and outright buying bus tickets to the nearest large city
- cyberax 10mo ago
  Rent for a real apartment in a smaller city costs less than an SRO in a large city.
  - array_key_first 10mo ago
    That's because many smaller cities and suburban or rural areas are economically defunct, so property is cheap because it's essentially worthless (you can't make money off of it). Property is expensive in, say, NYC because you can use that property to do A LOT of economic activity. Property is cheap in Ponder, Texas because you can use that property to do fuck all, so you better take what you can get. You can choose to live in Ponder, Texas, but the economics of that aren't too hot.
    - cyberax 10mo ago
      > Property is expensive in, say, NYC because you can use that property to do A LOT of economic activity. Property is cheap in Ponder, Texas because you can use that property to do fuck all, so you better take what you can get. Well, exactly. And allowing SROs and then bunkbeds will only make this _worse_. Your housing costs in NYC will keep _rising_, while the living conditions for _everyone_ will keep going down. Death spiral, in other words.
      - array_key_first 10mo ago
        The COL goes up in cities because they continue to be more productive, and that's just how money works. I don't know what to tell you, there's just no way around that. Opting to anarchist mode implode the economy so you get slightly cheaper housing is insane.
        cyberax 10mo ago
        "The pollution in cities goes up because they continue to be more productive, and that's just how money works. I don't know what to tell you, there's just no way around that. Opting to anarchist mode implode the economy so you get slightly cleaner water is insane." Sounds familiar? And no, I'm not proposing anything "anarchist". Tax (or cap&trade) the dense office space, provide tax breaks for remote work, provide incentives for jobs in smaller cities. That's exactly how we solved the problem of industrial pollution.
        array_key_first 10mo ago
        Suburbs cause more pollution per capita than cities, and you know that. Because, again, obviously, suburbs are just less efficient. Moving, say, water 100 miles to reach 100 people is worse than moving water 1 mile to reach 100 people. > That's exactly how we solved the problem of industrial pollution. It's not, at all. We 'solved' it by just pushing it somewhere else, and then we actually helped it by making more efficient processes. It's not that by you living in the suburbs you have no pollution. No, the pollution is made in the city, and then we just transport the end result sometimes thousands of miles to your house so you don't have to see it. That process is horribly inefficient - which is why it's fair to say that suburbs are essentially on the welfare of the cities around them. Everything you have - water, concrete, food, electricity - is coming from denser centers. You don't actually pay enough in taxes to cover that, but it's fine, because that's the cost of typical American culture. And, speaking of American culture - what you're advocating is very much the status quo. The US is extremely distributed compared to the rest of the developed world, and we pay a high price for it. We use absurd amounts of water, energy, and money to maintain our suburban lifestyle.
parlor7751 10mo ago
There are no jobs in the small cities, plus they typically try to keep out anyone that doesn't fit their white picket fence ideal.
- cyberax 10mo ago
  Well, yes. See above about the urbanism death spiral. Large cities suck the life away from smaller cities. This is the direct consequence of allowing dense housing, and it's made _worse_ by allowing abominations like SROs or "microapartments". And then bunk beds (already happening in Singapore). The correct action here is to STOP doing this. Prohibit building dense housing and, more importantly, dense office space. Provide tax incentives for remote work and for offices outside of city cores. Ideally, start un-densifying cities by creating more park spaces in place of dense housing.
  - array_key_first 10mo ago
    How the fuck would de-densifying cities help with housing costs? The denser housing is, the cheaper it is per unit. Also, remote work doesn't work like that. You, yes YOU, rely on actual real people to do stuff for your community to make your life worth living. That means construction, food service, sanitation, etc. Already, this type of work is not very viable in suburban or rural areas because they're too inefficient. Many rural areas are essentially subsidized by the cities around them - they couldn't afford to have roads or electricity otherwise. If everyone is spread out everywhere, how do you provide them with the stuff they need in an economically viable way? That's the entire reason urbanism exists!
    - cyberax 10mo ago
      > How the fuck would de-densifying cities help with housing costs? That's the reality. The _only_ way to make housing less expensive is to reduce the dense population. Examples abound: Austin, Denver, etc. > The denser housing is, the cheaper it is per unit. Nope. The denser the housing, the MORE EXPENSIVE it gets. Even on a per-unit basis. That's why we have this drive to allow SROs. It'll push prices of all housing even higher. > Also, remote work doesn't work like that. You, yes YOU, rely on actual real people to do stuff for your community to make your life worth living. _Most_ of the modern post-industrial work is divided into two areas: 1. Office work. Can just as well be WFH. 2. In-person services (restaurants, childcare, hospitals, etc.). They work _better_ in suburban areas. That food truck owner in Manhattan can't afford to live there, so they likely spend hours every day to commute. In a suburban area, they can afford to buy/rent a house nearby. There are some areas that will require specialized communities around them, like universities or large hospital centers. But they for sure don't need 4 million people monstrosities like NYC. > Many rural areas are essentially subsidized by the cities around them - they couldn't afford to have roads or electricity otherwise. It's vice versa. Most of the economic value in the US is created by people living in suburbia. This is easy to see if you look at personal income tax stats. Cities receive the majority of _corporate_ taxes because corporation HQs are located in cities (duh). > That means construction, food service, sanitation, etc. Construction, food service, sanitation and so on are _cheaper_ to do in suburban areas. Why? Because of the planning overhead. Materials cost less than planning. If you want to change a sewer main in Manhattan, you'll spend several years getting all the permits, creating temporary infrastructure to pump the sewage while you're working, then spending several months carefully digging through the streets to avoid severing unmarked pipes carrying who-knows-what. In a suburban area, you just ask nearby houses to temporarily live in a hotel for a week, do the dig, and you're done. Even if you need more raw material, you end up spending less. This is not a theory, btw. There's a study that shows that the city efficiency peaks at around 300k people.