Related Posts
What are the best ways of tax exemption
Enthusiast
Pro
Pro
Thoughts on Transfix? Anyone invested?
More Posts
Rising Star
What is Op Transfer Pricing
Additional Posts in Politics
Visual Storyteller
Conversation Starter
Finally something to agree on🙏
Chief
Conversation Starter
Rising Star
Chief
Visual Storyteller
Has Cuomo won a golden globe yet?
Rising Star
Visual Storyteller
Rising Star
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
For those of us blessed with high incomes (>$200K), cities like SFO and NYC are often highly desirable - even with their flaws - if you prefer life in a global city. I grew up in a tiny podunk town and would never in a million years move to a city like Omaha for cheaper rent and lower taxes.
But if you’re not in the top 2 - 5% of income earners, these cities have largely failed you in terms of economic opportunity...which is sad.
Why would anyone ever live in SF who didn't have to? I mean... these real estate prices and you literally have to step around hobo shit walking to work every dayn
Forget Omaha. What about places like Denver, Charlotte, Atlanta, Columbus, etc?
Even on a Million.... A million or two represents a dramatic quality of living shift in ATL, Denver, or Charlotte. Difference between a high rise condo and a mansion.
I've spent time in Denver, Charlotte, and Columbus. Columbus is a hell hole. Denver and Charlotte have their nice places, but you'd see all they have to offer in under a month. You cannot compare them to NYC or SF. Not even remotely. Someone looking for excitement and incredible food will really hate being told the best steaks are at Texas Roadhouse.
Only two on that list I’d consider are Denver and Atlanta, others are too small and regional. And it would have to be based on career, not saving costs or wanting to deal with less traffic, etc. I’d always take a city like London, Paris, NYC, SFO, LA over regional cities...but I’m not the average middle class person.
Meh, to each his own. I’d much rather have a moderately-sized but modern condo in Manhattan than some 6,000 square foot McMansion in a deep red Republican suburb of Atlanta where cultural amenities are lacking and I have to drive a private car 20 miles round-trip just to drop off dry cleaning.
This is all deeply missing my original point, anyhow. We all know cities like Atlanta are far more affordable for the middle class than SFO. To me, the point is that surely one of the biggest failures of progressive policy goals is a nation where many coastal metros are prohibitively expensive to the 90% of Americans who aren’t pulling down six figures.
Can you point me to a state that people want to live in (read:high demand) that HAS done a good job on middle class housing affordability?
Loose zoning regulations and not burdensome regulations that stifle development. Pretty much the exact opposite of California
At its core it’s an economic problem. NY and SF is where jobs are, especially in an increasing knowledge based economy. Labor productivity gains - which is the strongest driver of wages has been highest in these cities over past 50 years. More people and higher wages = higher rent and cost of living.
Now in usual cases market forces act to reduce rents. SF gets too expensive to live- let’s set-up an IT hub in Denver. But knowledge based economy is sticky- bigger the IT sector becomes in SF (and consequently more expensive) more business it attracts.
Solution lies in relaxing zoning laws, but guess who gains most with rigid zoning laws - current land lords who are also the biggest voter bloc.
We need to get rid of low density zoning and parking minimum requirements in cities
Guessing you're single?
Hellhole is a bit dramatic. But it's also preference. Personally I like spending my spare time outside, and the cities I mentioned offer a lot more of that in exchange for less of a nightlife scene.
Demand isn't the same thing as people wanting to live there. A lot of that is driven by the available jobs being office jobs.
Ok, still can you tell me a state that’s done a good job? Not attacking, genuinely curious. I’m not at all nuanced on the subject
IBA1 - if it was directed at me, I’m in a relationship with my partner also being in a high income career. Makes the cost of living much more tolerable. Both in our 30’s. Don’t have kids, don’t want them, and not big fans of the outdoors other than periodic vacations.
I actually think both Texas and Utah have done good jobs at accommodating rapid growth without becoming insanely unaffordable.
How did they do whatever they did?
@BAC1: Well, Texas has done it by shredding a social safety net for the truly working class. And loosening regulations to just overbuild cheap housing anywhere. Which worked out really well in Houston, etc.
A2 - I broadly agree with you, but the trade-offs are tricky. If SFO dropped all zoning laws tomorrow and became Manhattanized with high-rise development everywhere, wouldn’t that destroy the character of the city and severely strain the local infrastructure? Plus, who is to guarantee that those newly built housing units would cater to middle and working class families? It seems that the most common new development in places like NYC and SFO are luxury high-rises. I saw a report indicating that SFO had over the last few years built 189% of the housing needed for high-income households and only 18% of the demand for the middle.
Yep agree - that’s why they are trade offs 😀.
Getting rid of zoning laws is an extreme, but they can definitely be relaxed. Will it destroy the character - may be, depends on the extent of dezoning. But here is the thing, if you derive higher utility from the enjoying character of the city than from shorter commute or lower rent then may be zoning laws should stay in place.
Did not understand numbers that you quoted - what is the base for 189%.