Comment by bobthepanda | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobthepanda | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

different people value different amenities.

> I have more land, I can see trees / stars.

This could be a good amenity for you, but not for everyone. Me, I don't really like the idea of having to maintain all that land as well as having to drive everywhere because everything is so far apart.

An amenity I need that I definitely would not be able to get in a small town would be access to a Chinese grocer. As someone who is ethnic Chinese, I have recipes that need ingredients that either aren't normally found in regular US markets or are available in poor quality and at higher prices. Delivery of niche goods is astronomically expensive. That limits me to a few major cities.

> Then Sacramento, San Diego, Colorado, Texas, etc. is where people would move. This would help wealth inequality (spreading the wealth) and improve mental / societal health.

The first part is happening, the second part isn't. If anything, some of them are starting to see San Francisco type problems, and it didn't take very long for them to get there because there are so many Californians that it takes a small percentage of CA's population to go and massively disrupt a smaller city.

I think it's fair that people value different things. BUT my point is that we shouldn't assume everyone needs to live in the same location to obtain their wants.

> An amenity I need that I definitely would not be able to get in a small town would be access to a Chinese grocer. As someone who is ethnic Chinese, I have recipes that need ingredients that either aren't normally found in regular US markets or are available in poor quality and at higher prices. Delivery of niche goods is astronomically expensive. That limits me to a few major cities.

I live near a town of 15,000 people, they have a Chinese grocer, multiple Mexican grocers, an African grocer and several home style greek restaurants, thai restaurants, some great sushi, etc.

The U.S. is very diverse and there are different people everywhere. Like I said, I can drive 40 min and be in a multi-million person city while still living out in the country. When I lived in SF it would still take me 30-60 min to get to many places via public transit.

I guess if you really need "high quality" niche goods, sure... But I've never had an issue lol

Where is this place, if you don’t mind me asking?

Not going to give it particularly away, but here are some similar towns I've visited before deciding on my current town (very similar):

* Bloomington, Champaign, Morris, Charleston IL

* Kenosha, Sheboygan WI

* Hendersonville, Gatlinburg, Greeneville TN

* Milton, Concord NH

There's probably more, but these are just off the top of my head. They were fairly similar in the sense you had most amenities and what you didn't have was <1 hr away.

To your point, almost all high-visitor (winter/summer) based community will have the above amenities. Places like Burlington, VT or Truckee, CA.

I can only speak to Champaign (UIUC engineering) and Bloomington, IL, but I think your prior comment misrepresents the circumstances in these cities.

The Asian/African/(-American) populations are mostly transient (students) and while grocery options exist they are oriented toward a student’s diet: expansive in snacks and novelties, but short on staple vegetables, grains, and meats. I’ve heard of times in the past when friends of mine had to travel to Chicago, which is 3 hours away, for their haircuts because their regular stylist closes down for the summer when students leave.

Not to say this is representative of the other cities on your list, but your comparing the ones I’ve experienced to San Francisco is laughable.

> I’ve heard of times in the past when friends of mine had to travel to Chicago, which is 3 hours away, for their haircuts because their regular stylist closes down for the summer when students leave.

This sounds more like a person is doing something unnecessary / eccentric. The majority hair stylists are definitely there year round lol.

As I said, it's not a comparison directly to San Francisco in terms of all amenities - obviously a city such as SF with a massive Asian population will likely have additional options for food.

As you said, if that's all you value than sure; massive city is your best bet. You'll give up other amenities for the food selection (such as space).

I was pointing out that you can get 95+% of your wants and 100% of your needs met in a place that costs 1/4 as much with plenty of opportunity as well.

I think most students don't realize how many different grocers and what not there are either. For instance, I knew people who would travel large distances to a trader joes... why? Because the brand name / status is what they were looking for. If you weren't looking for that, you can get almost anything you wanted.

A team I managed worked in Champaign IL (why I knew about it) and all the adults I spoke with said they could make any dish they wanted (they were: American, Iranian, Vietnamese and Chinese). The Vietnamese guy in particular would bring in homemade food every day with pretty exotic produce.

> BUT my point is that we shouldn't assume everyone needs to live in the same location to obtain their wants.

Aren’t you doing the opposite, and assuming that people can just happily substitute their lives somewhere else? Or did they do that and still think SF is preferable?

If there is clearly a shortage of housing in SF, do you think that people haven’t tried looking other places?

College towns and seasonal activity towns with specialty stores tend to see the stores slow or shut down during the off-season, which is a problem if you want to be a year-round resident.

You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody is saying that everyone needs to live in SF. The argument is simply that developers should be allowed to supply housing that meets demand. The fact is that lots of people do want to live in cities, for various reasons; but they can't, because building dense housing is illegal or heavily disincentivized.

If you want to live in semi-rural America that's great, I prefer a similar situation for myself. I fail to see what that has to do with allowing or disallowing density in cities. In fact allowing density in cities preserves rural and natural areas outside of cities, so that seeing cows and hiking in forests is available for those who want it. Feels like a win-win.

> > Then Sacramento, San Diego, Colorado, Texas, etc. is where people would move.

> some of them are starting to see San Francisco type problems, and it didn't take very long for them to get there because there are so many Californians that it takes a small percentage of CA's population to go and massively disrupt a smaller city.

Yes, all those Californians moving to Sacramento and San Diego really wrecked their pre-existing way of life.

Whoops, I'm typing this from bedrest, so that made more sense in my head as I was writing it.

(What's the demonym for the Bay Area, anyways?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com