Hacker News Reader

Comment by deadbabe | Hacker News Reader

People don’t have the right to simply live in highly desirable areas for very cheap.

It is time for people to accept that if they want affordable housing they should look at some lesser developed areas in the country. Otherwise it’s pay to play.

View on HN

People don’t have the right to simply live in highly desirable areas for very cheap - I find that it's less people can't afford to live in their dream locations as people can't afford to live where their jobs are, or within reasonable commuting distance.

And the jobs? The amenities that make areas highly desirable require workers who can actually commute to them.

It's a game of chicken. The people who live in these areas and expect to be served without complaint either acquiesce to density and lower property values, or risk (occasionally fiery) demonstrations against the unfair and unworkable situation. Their goal is to keep the game running, so that everyone else doesn't decide on one or the other end state. Essentially, "Highly desirable areas that are too expensive for low/middle-income workers," is a transition state.

In my city, the homeless are offered free housing that is away from the downtown area. They do not want it. Preferring instead to camp in downtown where they want to be.

Cheaper housing is available if people are willing to move to less densely populated areas.

At the end of the day, housing is all about supply and demand. Like most other things in life. There is not enough supply in the areas where people want to live. And no country has been able to figure out a solution for that problem.

> And no country has been able to figure out a solution for that problem.

Minor nit, the "solution" is well known, it's to increase supply of housing by removing zoning regulations and letting the increase in demand pull more supply out of the market. It's just not politically popular, everyone is for it in the abstract but campaign against multifamily homes being constructed in their backyard. Basically, we know how to build homes but do not know how to convince people that neighbors who can't afford McMansions are still desirable neighbors.

What about when housing is equally unaffordable in the less desirable areas? Keeping in mind that wages are probably less in those areas.

Also, less desirable areas are not necessarily constructed to be any more functional or sustainable, so why should we promote that? Areas that are "less desirable" in my city are swathes of oversized, copy-pasted houses massively spaced apart with near zero amenities. 100% car dependent. Near-dystopian land use, really. We don't need more of that. Instead, I'd much rather take amore sustainable approach to housing across the board.

What happens in society when every city is filled with the retired rich and zero actual workers?

Look at Aspen, CO - the indigent commute in from far away because they are priced out and disposable.

In places like Lisbon and Milan, the rich live in the center and the young folks live on the outskirts. The outskirts then become trendy and cool and filled with bars and restaurants and cafes (can also look at Brooklyn, and now we are seeing a second Harlem Renaissance as well). Eventually the rich realize this and move to that place, and then the young people move again. But no matter what, the young people always end up living in the most desirable area because they commune with each other and create a desirable community in that place; meanwhile retired wealthy people are inherently uncool and consume more than they contribute.

The price of houses will fall and the price of basic services, food, etc. will skyrocket as people flee the stagnant cities and core economic activity moves elsewhere. It will never go this far of course (zero actual workers is an asymptote), but that's the way it will trend.

This is already happening in many neighborhoods in California. I imagine elsewhere in the US too. People who keep it running have to commute long distances.

There is nowhere someone can live for $200/mo, as they could in some lesser developed countries. The floor has been established by speculation, building codes, and minimum services. It sounds like a good idea to make sure all dwellings have electricity and running water, but when the alternative is a tent under the freeway, it's actually much worse.

been noticing this for years.

solar and starlink keep on improving. i continue to be surprised remote work communities arent commonly developing in scenic, non-traditional locations. it seems idealistic, but makes a lot of sense on paper

100%. I myself am waiting for less fringe "network states" to appear so I can join one.

We're past that and to the point of neighborhoods voting against any development and supply increase.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com