Unaffordable cities today: your view?

[Cirrus]

• It is good that wealth has returned to cities.
• It is bad that we choose to have policies that exclude the non-wealthy from living in cities.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

• It is good that wealth has returned to cities.
• It is bad that we choose to have policies that exclude the non-wealthy from living in cities.

Explain these policies.

[hauntedheadnc]

With cities becoming unaffordable to all but the rich, I wonder how exactly are we supposed to advocate for responsible urban growth if most of the population is excluded from living in an urban setting. If the rich fill the cities, the suburbs become less desirable and therefore more affordable, appealing to the poorer people (and what scraps there are left of the middle class) who then move there, and then get screwed over by having to commute back into town to work. Meanwhile, in the rare air of the city, people are scolding the suburbanites for their wasteful, resource-intensive, traffic-generating lifestyles.

So what exactly are they supposed to do? It's a question worth asking because, even if you started redeveloping the sprawl in a responsible urban manner, guess who could afford to live in the new developments?

What it comes down to is that it's just plain responsible, from a social and an environmental perspective, to at least try to accommodate more than just the Thad and Bootsie set in urban development.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

In Austin and probably other cities, there are many fortunate people who were established in the inner city decades ago (like me), such that our homes are paid off at the same time that only the very affluent can buy these homes now. At the same time, our property taxes are very high, and many people claim that they've had to move further out because of that.

Taxes are atrocious.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by 10023

Explain these policies.

Zoning, basically.

Urban affordability is all about supply and demand. In many cities in recent years, there has come to be greater demand for housing in desirable walkable areas than there is supply of housing in those areas. The solution would be to upzone the desirable areas in order to allow supply to keep up. But that rarely happens. This lack of supply has 2 effects:

1. The desirable area itself gradually becomes exclusive to only the wealthy

2. Nearby areas become exclusive too, as wealthy buyers flow to the next most desirable location.

The key to understanding gentrification is that the "battlefront" is not the poor/middle class neighborhood that's gentrifying today. The battlefront is the already wealthy neighborhood where there's big demand for growth, but where zoning laws prevent enough growth from taking place. And so the growth happens wherever it can, which is why gentrification spreads.

People look around and see a lot of new buildings and say "golly, there's so much growth and it's all expensive, why do we need all these new buildings." Well, we need them because even though there are a lot of them, they're still not keeping up with demand. And it's never going to be the rich person who doesn't get the home they want; if we don't build enough new units, displacement of the poor/middle-class happens even faster because the rich are still buying up units, but the sum total isn't going up.

So yeah. Basically, by cowing to NIMBYs and using zoning to prevent/slow growth (especially in the most desirable areas), we gradually make cities unaffordable. But zoning is not an act of god. It's policy that we choose to adopt and could choose to change if we had the political will.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Makes no sense for a restaurant waitress, physician assistant, nurse, food vendor, local engineer, etc to have a job in NYC or SF and travel miles to the city center 6 days a week just to work.

If none of them would do it (or didn't find it worthwhile to do it), the businesses would have to pay more for their services...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by 10023

Explain these policies.

-Rent Control
-Downzoning
-Overly strict building codes
-General NIMBYISM
- "Affordable Housing" requirements

These are the source of about 90% of the affordability crisis in cities that have one...

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

So what exactly are they supposed to do? It's a question worth asking because, even if you started redeveloping the sprawl in a responsible urban manner, guess who could afford to live in the new developments?

What it comes down to is that it's just plain responsible, from a social and an environmental perspective, to at least try to accommodate more than just the Thad and Bootsie set in urban development.

Bingo. How can cities continue to thrive as places of great human activity if only a small elite group can afford to live in them?


We always talked bad about the suburbs but they are sounding like a better option these days if one cannot afford to live in the most urban parts of a city with okay housing, schools, etc.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

If none of them would do it (or didn't find it worthwhile to do it), the businesses would have to pay more for their services...

Regardless, it's a terrible life to live

[chris08876]

Naturally cities that are desirable and major economic nodes crucial to the financial stability of the nation will be expensive, but in my view, it should be the responsibility of the local, state, and even feds to curtail the rising of prices. Or in other words, not make it inaccessible.

When you out price the majority of people, and make it an enclave for the super rich, it kills the culture and makes the place mundane. There should be an emphasis on the middle class as thats where frankly most are at. That's why they must be pro-development and build until construction is jammed into everyone lives. For the better of the city, and the people.

Stabilize prices, make the area desirable for business, and things will naturally flow smoothly.

I view a housing crisis as a failure of the local, state, and federal government(s). Such a rich nation, yet housing for some cities is an issue. Its pathetic to be honest.

Our shitty development policies and prices in the urban centers continue to drive folks into the suicidal burbs, with their aesthetically poor homes, and horrid office blocks. Not to mention clogged highways that are not meant for "X" volume.

NJ is a good example. Terrible urban sprawl that quite frankly can't handle the volume of folks. Our highways are garbage. Horribly over clogged. Take a look at I-287. Its nothing but a 25 mile parking lot on any given day.

But anyways, more folks in the cities, more housing, more walk ability and mass transit= good.

[montréaliste]

I would begin with a clean sweep of all tradespeople and artisans, anybody who works with their hands is highly suspect, excepting surgeons, of course.

I can't begin to tell you how irate I become when I cross lower class individuals on my icy sidewalk, except when I am told the culprit is bound to integrate a far-off district of the city. Whew!

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by JManc

Taxes are atrocious.

What kind of taxes are you paying in Kingwood? I'm paying about $10K on a 1400 sq ft, dated, 50 year old inner city Austin property. There are times when I've really been thinking about selling and moving further out. The pros and cons are obvious.

[the urban politician]

Poor areas are high in crime. Why would we want that?

We should build walls around wealthy districts of our cities and charge exorbitant fees for entry.

[jd3189]

^^^ That's another topic and not really what I would advocate.

I want cities to retain their competitive edge over suburbs by having more affordable options for the middle class and those who work low paying jobs in the city and have to choose between commuting several hours a day or living in a crappy dorm in downtown.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Poor areas are high in crime. Why would we want that?

We should build walls around wealthy districts of our cities and charge exorbitant fees for entry.

Why did we ever get rid of moats?

See, sometimes I doubt there is such a thing as progress.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

What kind of taxes are you paying in Kingwood? I'm paying about $10K on a 1400 sq ft, dated, 50 year old inner city Austin property. There are times when I've really been thinking about selling and moving further out. The pros and cons are obvious.

Austin is getting crazy. We're no where near there yet in Kingwood and values dipped somewhat here due to Harvey..half of Kingwood flooded but we still pay $7K. We pay another $5K on our other house in Clear Lake.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dubu

So people like Elon musk can have there own city? He basically just steals ideas and makes a fancier version, like the rocket, someone invented that in the 40’s.

Er, the Chinese invented that maybe 1000 years ago. But Musk's contribution is a reusable rocket that not only takes off but lands upright and where you want it to making it reusable. Nobody did that before Musk although it was a staple of 1950s TV science fiction.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

What kind of taxes are you paying in Kingwood? I'm paying about $10K on a 1400 sq ft, dated, 50 year old inner city Austin property. There are times when I've really been thinking about selling and moving further out. The pros and cons are obvious.

As I understand it, Texas has no state income tax so the state has to get money from somewhere.

In "high tax" California, I pay about $5000 property tax on a 950 sq ft 2/2 condo (midrise, built 1982) in downtown San Francisco (2 blocks from City Hall). But I also pay 3-4% (effective rate) state income tax.

I am NOT thinking of moving anywhere. The walk score where I am is 97 and I don't own, nor feel I need to own, a car which is a considerable saving. We have a small fleet of Zipcars in the building and at least 5 Uber/Lyft vehicles within blocks that will arrive within 5 minutes when I don't feel like using any of the 4 bus lines passing within a block (and Hertz 2 blocks away for when I need to rent a car for an out of town trip).

Oh, and I think I can get ANYTHING delivered, which I anticipate will be a real advantage as I age into frailty.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

As I understand it, Texas has no state income tax so the state has to get money from somewhere.

In "high tax" California, I pay about $5000 property tax on a 950 sq ft 2/2 condo (midrise, built 1982) in downtown San Francisco (2 blocks from City Hall). But I also pay 3-4% (effective rate) state income tax.

I am NOT thinking of moving anywhere. The walk score where I am is 97 and I don't own, nor feel I need to own, a car which is a considerable saving. We have a small fleet of Zipcars in the building and at least 5 Uber/Lyft vehicles within blocks that will arrive within 5 minutes when I don't feel like using any of the 4 bus lines passing within a block (and Hertz 2 blocks away for when I need to rent a car for an out of town trip).

Oh, and I think I can get ANYTHING delivered, which I anticipate will be a real advantage as I age into frailty.

"I think I can get anything delivered". Where do the delivery people live? In a tiny room in the Tenderloin? In a city apartment they share with 5 people in the Mission to afford the rent? In a distant exurb like Stockton or Manteca?

[CaliNative]

I'm a progressive, even liberal on many issues. I have a special problem with liberals who live in NIMBY enclaves and do all they can to keep zoning laws strict to keep out homeless housing and affordable housing for the hoi polloi who make the cities work. Either raise wages for the working poor, or subsidize affordable housing they can afford. Build Build Build.

Liberal NIMBY Poster Child #1: Marin County California. Liberal NIMBY Poster Child #2: Santa Monica California. Liberal NIMBY Poster Child #3: San Francisco California.