People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

i apparently still feel very cap'n save an yglesias all the time, even though i don't remember to read him much anymore

people who talk seriously about other people being from deficient "stock" are the creepiest people

Especially from people who insist the US is a meritocracy. bootstraps, etc.

If they believe both things, then their reaction to people from poor "stock" not being able to make it must be "sucks to be them," huh?

I sorta resent yglesias in the way that you resent people you meet who remind you of yourself but are a little more annoying. his worldview and my worldview have enough overlap that I don't really feel like I'm getting that much from reading him.

You're setting yourself up there.

haha

i wonder what the overlap is between the period when i stopped reading yglesias and the period you started posting a lot on ilx, iatee

okay taking my posts over from quid ag on why Y's arguments strike me as funny:

"on another note, Yglesias' overarching argument in that article also seems pretty nutty to me. I think there's an important argument to be made about the history of zoning restrictions & the growth of the suburbs w/r/t white flight and certain other things. And in the 90s there was very much an issue of the long-term negative effects of low-density zoning with sprawl turning into decay in lots of areas. But an argument that in the midst of what's going on with housing *now*, zoning is in any way an obstacle to construction is pretty weird."

"so again, in the gen. stuck article: "restrictive regulations on multi-family home building" are "discouraging talented middle-income people from settling in San Francisco and New York". really? Is that the problem with the economy? That too many people are discouraged from settling in New York and San Francisco? I hadn't noticed the shortage of young people settling in costal culture centers, but now that he mentions it, where *is* the young population in NY and SF from elsewhere? It's like there's no gentrification at all! And I mean everyone in NY and SF is totally employed and everything. Like full employment. So god knows the only thing holding these cities back is more freaking people."

"Basically I sympathize that the rent is very high in dense popular locations and this sucks, but I don't think this is a problem except to all the people who have to pay the high rent. And some of them (who have been living where they are for a long time, and grew up there even, as did maybe their parents) I have lots of sympathy for. And some of them I have less sympathy for. But I fail to see how the high rent in dense popular locations issue fits into any sort of coherent narrative about broader problems with the former u.s. economy."

I think there are lots of reasons why high-density living is a good thing: economies of scale, transportation, the environment, synergies, specialization. Zoning laws are basically an artificial restriction on density. They only serve to benefit existing property owners, who are de facto monopolists.

Basically I sympathize that the rent is very high in dense popular locations and this sucks, but I don't think this is a problem except to all the people who have to pay the high rent. And some of them (who have been living where they are for a long time, and grew up there even, as did maybe their parents) I have lots of sympathy for. And some of them I have less sympathy for. But I fail to see how the high rent in dense popular locations issue fits into any sort of coherent narrative about broader problems with the former u.s. economy.

― s.clover, Monday, March 12, 2012 2:42 PM (40 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

alright so there's an overwhelming pent up demand for living in nyc or sf, (artificially) high rent due to zoning both make the cities (artificially) less competitive, discourage millions of well-educated people from moving there. and the income that people waste on rent would be being used more productively - if you didn't have to pay 50% of your income for rent, you'd eat out more etc. which would help the nyc restaurant industry. more jobs. new apartment buildings. even more jobs. new schools. etc. etc. you are thinking about nyc's economy as it exists today and saying 'how can 4 million people get jobs?' but not incorporating the gains that come from immigration, housing growth and a flexibile housing market. as well as continual economies of scale w/ productivity, information, transportation costs, etc.

er 'housing growth and a flexibile housing market' = repetition and a spelling error to boot wtg

to tie this into broader problems, there's a lot of evidence that strong industries, especially innovative industries, depend on high-density clusters of people and companies. policies that encourage high-density living and make it practical (mass transit) etc aren't just pandering to coastal elites.

i got in a minor argt with someone about this, specifically about 'historical preservation' districts and so on.

basically, the whole of a metro area is the living system and each part of it responds to the others. if there are more barriers to entry and blockages on changing things in the city core, then any need for anything new will be projected outward to less dense spaces, and be built according to those practices.

so when people try to lock down areas of the core city from (crass? ugly? this is usually aesthetic tbh) change and development, to keep it from "being like the suburbs", they are helping to build more things out in the suburbs

Zoning laws are basically an artificial restriction on density. They only serve to benefit existing property owners, who are de facto monopolists.

― o. nate, Monday, 12 March 2012 19:48 (6 minutes ago) Permalink

I'm a proponent of building more pretty much everywhere in NYC, but I think this is a bit simplistic. There do happen to be some nice aspects of lower density neighborhoods in a large city, and even though the bulk of them are enjoyed by people who already live in them, they're available to others. E.g. I enjoy visiting neighborhoods like Brooklyn Heights/Cobble Hill/Carroll Gardens and would be kind of sad to see them bulldozed for highrises.

I'm not arguing for zoning laws for the most part, and certainly not for sprawl. I'm just saying that yes rent in NY or whatever sucks, but it's not like NY & etc. are low density areas to begin with & citing things that are just massive freaking gentrification payola pits like atlantic yards doesn't really help anyone's case. And also the rents are terrible for the people paying them, and even worse for the people moving because they can no longer pay them, but new housing won't mean cheaper rents in lots of neighborhoods b/c it will mean more gentrification, and more displacement of ppl at an even faster rate, but even then new denser housing won't mean sweet fa w/r/t broader economic conditions.

also the nyc restaurant industry does better probably with ppl that can afford to pay zillions in rent than it would with ppl in more affordable housing (and more housing won't mean more affordable housing -- there's just too much demand!). also new people moving in wouldn't send their kids to public schools anyway because that's not how they roll. also I don't know in what measure you can say that nyc and sf are "less competitive." You want a less competitive city? Try st. louis. or detroit. And god knows rent is a problem there, right?

i got in a minor argt with someone about this, specifically about 'historical preservation' districts and so on.

basically, the whole of a metro area is the living system and each part of it responds to the others. if there are more barriers to entry and blockages on changing things in the city core, then any need for anything new will be projected outward to less dense spaces, and be built according to those practices.

so when people try to lock down areas of the core city from (crass? ugly? this is usually aesthetic tbh) change and development, to keep it from "being like the suburbs", they are helping to build more things out in the suburbs

― goole, Monday, March 12, 2012 3:57 PM (14 seconds ago) Bookmark

it's interesting to note that this kind of politics is kind of unique to America since America is just so damn big, even the oldest states like NJ are still very sparsely populated compared to other places in the world

And actually I think I remember hearing that New York has been trying to push some nuanced planning in Brooklyn where they down-zone some streets and upzone others, so builders can build higher and the brownstone streets can keep their character, I guess.

Look if there was a proposal to rip up the historic brownstones of yuppieville and replace them with low-income affordable housing then I'd think that was sort of neat. But that's hardly what this is about.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1302018-james-baldwin-urban-renewal-ii

there are still quite a few unused or under-used spaces in minneapolis along the riverfronts. plenty of these buildings are enormous late gilded-age warehouse and grain facilities, classic 'loft spaces' just begging for annoying upmarket gentrification.

my counterpart was arguing that it was fine for residents, through a policy process, to express a wish that the look of the place not change too much if the building was going to be developed into living & retail space. my argument was that it's better for a valuable chunk of land to be used for anything rather than sitting idle as a pretty industrial wreck. too many stipulations on what can be done with a space and nobody will do anything.

there are some ugly as shit condos around tho, don't get me wrong.

And also the rents are terrible for the people paying them, and even worse for the people moving because they can no longer pay them, but new housing won't mean cheaper rents in lots of neighborhoods b/c it will mean more gentrification, and more displacement of ppl at an even faster rate, but even then new denser housing won't mean sweet fa w/r/t broader economic conditions.

There seems to be something perverted about the way developer incentives are designed in new york -- you have all these luxury condos benefitting from tax abatements that were supposed to be for creation of affordable housing. I mean ok, maybe they sometimes create $400,000 1-bedroom condos in borderline neighborhoods, which, with an FHA loan and today's low rates could actually be affordable to, say, two teachers willing to sleep in the same room with their child.

That said, the fact that there's so much pent-up demand that housing isn't becoming cheap yet is not really a good argument for not building more, because based on the same reasoning housing will get even MORE expensive if you DON'T build.

eh brownstones are not so low density that it's a disaster. it's more of a disaster that there are still poorly developed pockets, lots, streets, parking lots, ex-factories, around them, and that when you want to replace, say, a parking lot off 4th Ave. in Brooklyn with a new high rise, you're limited in how high it can be. same as upthread, I don't think we have to lose our beloved brownstones to still increase overall density.

xpost

It would be sad to lose the picturesque brownstone blocks in Brooklyn, but we should realize that there are costs associated with keeping them - and those costs are paid for by higher rents on everyone, not just people who live on those blocks.

there's basically SO MUCH room for SO MUCH development even if you don't want to knock down old buildings. and sometimes the old buildings provide effectively higher density than some newer developments.

xpost again

philadelphia has a lot of brownstones and rowhouses, all heartsad brooklynites can come down there to visit when they get tired of their new affordable dense housing (this being after we raze all of brooklyn)

offset the costs by megadevelopment in underdeveloped areas?

basically I just don't think that, say, williamsburg or prospect heights or whatever is some sort of calamity of low density living that it is what we're talking about in NYC when we talk about the possibility of upping density

chinatown otm the idea that building up nyc depends on tearing down brownstones is concern trolling. there are plenty of non-historic lowish density areas in nyc, plenty of parking lots, plenty of completely empty space even.

I'm not gonna let go of my old buildings

Well, it's not just the brownstones but the people who live in the brownstones and don't want to live next door to a high-rise apartment tower.

build like crazy in gowanus. no restrictions. line the waterfront of the east river with ridiculous high rises.

fill in the empty spots in brownstone neighborhoods with high rises.

also rents are cheap(er) still the further out you get. not that i'm encouraging a huge swarm of people to descend like locusts on outer queens or the mid-bronx or what-have-you, but i just have a feeling that the main sort of complaint is that it is hard to get a nice condo in walking distance of like yr. favorite brunch spot or w/e.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWGwsA1V2r4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnyside_Yard

3 minute train ride to manhattan from here. can be built over.

so much underused land in the whole bedford/nostrand strip of bed stuy (by the home depot) fill it with big apartments!

also rents are cheap(er) still the further out you get. not that i'm encouraging a huge swarm of people to descend like locusts on outer queens or the mid-bronx or what-have-you, but i just have a feeling that the main sort of complaint is that it is hard to get a nice condo in walking distance of like yr. favorite brunch spot or w/e.

the solution to gentrification is gentrification?

prospect heights is a "brownstone" neighborhood that has tons of space--blocks and blocks--that should be developed. i mean if i walk btw washington and flatbush basically anywhere north of st marks its all empty lots, parking garages, warehouses, auto shops

look at all the room around the armory! and atlantic avenue, there's a street that can lose a few lanes right?

yo and eastern parkway while were at it

ps 20th century nyc 'urban renewal' was pro-car, gov't planned construction, mostly resulted in the tearing down of very high-density neighborhoods.

xps

the solution to gentrification is gentrification?

No, but the solution to lots of people complaining about rent is to sort of point out that there are other places to live besides like four neighborhoods in brooklyn. Basically my problem, I think, is this sense that people want to have gentrification but not pay for it. But basically if you want to live in a special awesome neighborhood with organic biscuits made from locally sourced buttermilk and magic fairie tears or whatever then expect to pay, since god knows you're driving up prices for everyone else already. Like you can't (deliberately or otherwise) price the poors out of the neighborhood and complain when the rent has gone up!

I kind of like eastern parkway actually. we could just make it a real 'park' way instead maybe? the real villain is empire boulevard. man if you wanna see some wasted space...

No, but the solution to lots of people complaining about rent is to sort of point out that there are other places to live besides like four neighborhoods in brooklyn. Basically my problem, I think, is this sense that people want to have gentrification but not pay for it. But basically if you want to live in a special awesome neighborhood with organic biscuits made from locally sourced buttermilk and magic fairie tears or whatever then expect to pay, since god knows you're driving up prices for everyone else already. Like you can't (deliberately or otherwise) price the poors out of the neighborhood and complain when the rent has gone up!

people live in those four neighborhoods in brooklyn because every single neighborhood in manhattan is nowtoo expensive. if you want to live in a special awesome neighborhood with organic biscuits you can do that in queens too, which is part of the reason my rent went up a week ago. people are more than willing to move to far out parts of brooklyn, it's already happening, it's going to continue happening. 'people should stop complaining and move' isn't a solution, it's why rent will continue to get expensive until we allow nyc construction match the demand.

*to match the demand

Like you can't (deliberately or otherwise) price the poors out of the neighborhood and complain when the rent has gone up!

This seems to have the argument totally backwards. Deregulation would lower rents not raise them. Zoning restrictions and affordable housing are two different things. You can have expensive apartments in low-rise buildings and cheap apartments in high-rise buildings.

"people want to have gentrification but not pay for it" sort of?
"gentrification" in this case will mean the ability to live in the city and reap the benefits, and "not pay for it" would mean not pay *as much* for it. in theory removing a lot of development restrictions could help make this possible. high rent in nyc is pretty on-point because there aren't many places to live, but that doesn't have to be the case.
the argument is that there is a benefit to the greater good of having more people live in the city, and that this can be done, and it can be done more affordably. the fairy tear biscuits are a side-benefit.

and as o. nate points out, the idea is to lower rent across the board by deregulating. so in theory poor people wouldn't need to be priced of something that exists in abundance.

"people want to have gentrification but not pay for it" is a contradiction in terms. gentrification the result of people moving somewhere cheap.

eh brownstones are not so low density that it's a disaster. it's more of a disaster that there are still poorly developed pockets, lots, streets, parking lots, ex-factories, around them, and that when you want to replace, say, a parking lot off 4th Ave. in Brooklyn with a new high rise, you're limited in how high it can be. same as upthread, I don't think we have to lose our beloved brownstones to still increase overall density.

xpost

― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Monday, 12 March 2012 20:07 (31 minutes ago) Permalink

Pretty sure this literally isn't true anymore in re 4th Ave., which was upzoned. I mean I don't know I guess there's still some limit it's just higher now?

http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/06/22/rezoning-to-encourage-street-life-on-brooklyns-fourth-avenue/

it's never going to be nice as a 6 lane st tho

well there's still a lot of unimpressive development along there. another zone with a home depot accompanied by empty lots if I'm remembering right

Deregulation would lower rents not raise them.

If by deregulation, you mean losing rent-control, the opposite seems to have happened in Boston, where rents got expensive quickly after rent controll was ditched and lots of people got priced out. If by deregulation, you mean changing zoning to encourage higher density development, maybe?