|
maine is pretty drat great, though im sad to see its as expensive as boston, thats some bullshit right there
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
i dont take well to living right in the middle of a city anyway i like having a decent amount of living space and im willing to trade expensive toys n poo poo for a house with a garage and a room i can put like exercise stuff in
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Portland and some parts of the suburbs are but theres cheap stuff if you go a few minutes out
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
The problem is more you cant get paid as much as boston.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
qhat posted:In fact I'd probably move to Minnesota before I move to NYC. bonus: excellent hockey team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
there is no death slow and painful enough for property hoarders it's been a long time since such a small group of people have been so utterly parasitic and had such a deleterious effect on a civilization scale
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:there is no death slow and painful enough for property hoarders what do you mean by property hoarder
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:there is no death slow and painful enough for property hoarders the housing crisis is real and perpetuated by assholes with too much capital and too little conscience
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
if i was to ever run for office my pet policies would be housing and public transportation
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
DaTroof posted:what do you mean by property hoarder well, you know how there's a bunch of people driving all these new build condo developments in the middle of every major city, where the units are all bought sight unseen, and there's some system for turning the lights on and off in each unit periodically even though nobody actually lives there? yeah, those people who the gently caress did you think i meant
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
idk about boston but in Portland the problem is the city nimbys wont let anyone build up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
that's the problem in every city
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:well, you know how there's a bunch of people driving all these new build condo developments in the middle of every major city, where the units are all bought sight unseen, and there's some system for turning the lights on and off in each unit periodically even though nobody actually lives there? we need socialist policies that will heavily punish these people
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
bbbbut what about my neighborhood character????
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:that's the problem in every city yup somerville and cambridge are very very very nimby and thats why they kinda suck to live in if youre not a homebody
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:we need socialist policies that will heavily punish these people nah we need fewer restrictions on building so their property values drop and make hording a waste of money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:idk about boston but in Portland the problem is the city nimbys wont let anyone build up. “but our sightlines” is what i always hear in vancouver. it’s got so bad here that the new development guidelines have $1750 as “affordable” for a one bedroom. even my hyper-capitalist, min-wage-is-totally-livable friend called bullshit on that one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:well, you know how there's a bunch of people driving all these new build condo developments in the middle of every major city, where the units are all bought sight unseen, and there's some system for turning the lights on and off in each unit periodically even though nobody actually lives there? i honestly had no idea as far as i knew property hoarding could just mean owning more than one home, like you live in washington during the summer and florida during the winter buying property you literally never use didn't occur to me because it's weird and stupid
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
DaTroof posted:buying property you literally never use didn't occur to me because it's weird and stupid “it’s a good investment, property values only go up!” - a thing someone said to me completely straight-faced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
the only other example i could think of was rental properties that sit empty because the owner priced them too high
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
jony neuemonic posted:“it’s a good investment, property values only go up!” - a thing someone said to me completely straight-faced. genuinely looking forward to the next housing crash, and this is not a lie i love seeing assholes lose all their money
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
a "housing crash" means a 20% fall in prices there's a bunch of petit bourgeois loving scum who are leveraged up to their eyeballs who will get wiped out, but the truly wealthy won't be significantly affected, and they're the guys who are just buying dwellings in bulk and then just sitting on them, the petit boug are at least renting their poo poo out. property isn't the same thing as shitcoins, the price isn't going to go to zero because it is actually an essential commodity with inherent value. the problem will not be corrected until there is an iron fisted central government policy to forcefully correct it but idk apparently that's stalinism according to boomers and they're still in charge of literally everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:a "housing crash" means a 20% fall in prices once again the leftie millenials and genz will have to save the world
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
i grew up in the uk. in the 70s, long before i was born, there was an excellent solution to this problem. you had local housing authorities. local governments bought land, developed it, maintained the dwellings therein, and rented them out to the general public. people from many different social classes all lived on the same street. there was private home ownership and private rental too, of course, but mortgages were far more expensive and less accessible than they are today. but this arrangement didn't serve to fatten up a bunch of wealthy loving parasites so it was killed through a wonderful innovation called "right to buy", where tenants were allowed to purchase their dwelling from the housing authority outright and thereby deplete the stock to zero. high-density public housing was also relentlessly attacked through a propaganda campaign about "sink estates". amongst other things it made the galaxy brained argument that public housing was in such high demand that waiting lists were enormous, so people got stuck living in places they didn't want to live for long periods of time, so let's just severely curtail the whole system instead of actually meeting the loving demand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
got a phone interview with an indie game company in LA today i've worked with these dudes before, but that was like a decade ago i think the phone call is a "hey what are you up to and what do you want?" conversation for both of us
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
I agree with shaggars recommendation of Portland, but Oregon instead
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Looking at my soon-to-be income and cost of living comparison calculators, housing seems to be the most major factor in encouraging me to just stay in my small city. There's little in the way of mass transit, but I live in an incredibly walkable neighborhood. My commute is about to nearly double form 8 minutes to 14 minutes, which actually legit has me down. I hate driving to work. I could live in Chicago though. Now that I think about it, door-to-door commute would be about the same since university parking be the way it do. Not gonna bike to this new job ever though and that's depressing. I want to move just to, y'know, move, but the economic downsides are significant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
qhat posted:After growing up in London I'm completely done with huge cities. I personally would not consider anywhere like that as a serious relocation option. london is like 1/5th the density of nyc, very much more expensive, and much less interesting. i wouldn't extrapolate much of anything from london to new york. the development patterns are not similar. london is a smaller metro area and much less densely built city. london is basically los angeles except with even more traffic, even more pollution, even more crime, and shittier weather. it's a city that makes los angeles look good and cool. Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Mar 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:if i was to ever run for office my pet policies would be housing and public transportation the two things that, as a local government official, you have practically no ability to improve
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:i grew up in the uk. in the 70s, long before i was born, there was an excellent solution to this problem. you had local housing authorities. local governments bought land, developed it, maintained the dwellings therein, and rented them out to the general public. people from many different social classes all lived on the same street. there was private home ownership and private rental too, of course, but mortgages were far more expensive and less accessible than they are today. "right to buy" was a deeply brain-damaged handout. tens of billions of pounds of public property sold for pennies on the dollar. (pennies on the pound?) that said, local housing authorities never really worked. as in the united states, public housing was often substandard condition, it lost money hand over fist, and there was no obvious way to raise money to build more of it. lastly, and most importantly, high-density public housing is the solution that folks want to apply to other people. no one wants to live in a modernist concrete disaster built by the lowest-bidding government subcontractor unless they have absolutely no other choices. it's just an awful way to live that fails to meet needs above the most basic attempt to keep rain off your head -- safety, community, comfort, etc are all left behind. low-density public housing has been much more successful in meeting people's needs on both sides of the pond, but it also costs more, because you can't just build concrete warehouses an hour outside town and stack the bodies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Public housing should not generate a profit. Roads should not generate a profit. Sewerage should not generate a profit. Education should not generate a profit. This is all infrastructure that facilitates the actual productive economy: accommodate healthy and educated workers in reasonably comfortable conditions in sufficiently concentrated areas, then bring them into close proximity during the day so that (economically productive stuff) happens, then bring them back out again so they can rest and entertain themselves and whatever else. Then again, by that logic agriculture should also be nationalized and not run for profit, yet it is entirely privately owned and it does produce a profit and even has a sizable financial derivatives market. Which doesn't seem like such a bad arrangement, on the whole, though of course there is a whole bunch of government regulation around agriculture both in terms of food safety and market stabilization. Notorious b.s.d. posted:"right to buy" was a deeply brain-damaged handout. tens of billions of pounds of public property sold for pennies on the dollar. (pennies on the pound?) Sounds like a very successful policy to me. Notorious b.s.d. posted:that said, local housing authorities never really worked. as in the united states, public housing was often substandard condition, it lost money hand over fist, and there was no obvious way to raise money to build more of it. privately owned rental accommodation, as we all know, is much better in all of these regards isn't it, except for the part where it makes lots of money for the people at the top.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
My dad who worked all his life in the building trades and very frequently with local authorities is extremely cynical and critical of local authorities for being a load of loving useless wankers who are not just corrupt, but also intellectually incapable of carrying out even the most rudimentary of projects. Governments could solve the housing crises all over the world right now with legislation and funding, there's just literally no political motivation to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
yeah a lovely tenement sounds way worse than a tent or a sheet of cardboard in a doorway
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
qhat posted:move to Minnesota no dont
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:Public housing should not generate a profit. Roads should not generate a profit. Sewerage should not generate a profit. Education should not generate a profit. I don't expect a return on investment, but most infrastructure needs to break even on its operating costs. especially roadways. I just expect services not to lose money hand over fist. public housing that cannot pay for itself is unsustainable, as every country in the world has discovered at considerable expense. Sapozhnik posted:privately owned rental accommodation, as we all know, is much better in all of these regards isn't it it literally is you will notice that it's very rare for a private developer to build a soviet-style shitburg an hour away from the city and then rent the units out for pennies and let the roofs leak. no one has ever built a private housing project as bad as the standards set by french banlieus or the american "PJs" or u.k. council housing. even if it were profitable to build utter poo poo and let it go to ruin, the public would revolt at the impact on local crime rates edit: also, lots of public housing projects are successful. success is an option! but success isn't cheap, and it doesn't look like high-density megaprojects. it's expensive, down-to-earth mixed-income stuff in low-rises and "terraces" in the uk parlance. coincidentally, exactly the sort of inventory that was most likely to be liquidated during the "right-to-buy" 1980s... Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Mar 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
PokeJoe posted:yeah a lovely tenement sounds way worse than a tent or a sheet of cardboard in a doorway depends how likely you are to be beaten or raped in the doorway vs the tenement complex towards the end, pruit-igoe was largely abandoned. some number of the good citizens of st louis concluded that sleeping rough in a midwestern climate was a safer choice than living in public housing
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
jony neuemonic posted:“it’s a good investment, property values only go up!” - a thing someone said to me completely straight-faced. it's mostly international money laundering (by dollar volume) and they don't care if they only get $5 million out because none of the $10 million they put in was theirs to begin with e: or if it was it won't be worth anything to them in the scenario where they're suddenly on the outs with whoever owns the cops and courts at home Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Mar 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
IMO I think a Chinese credit implosion would be enough to cause a global meltdown in property prices. Especially here in Vancouver.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Dongslayer. posted:no dont it's p nice here
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
i just want having a decent home and financial security to be possible without pulling at minimum software engineering-level wages
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 23:29
|
|