
'Talent Wants Transit': Companies Near Transportation Gaining the Upper Hand - bootsz
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/29/671203167/talent-wants-transit-companies-near-transportation-gaining-the-upper-hand
======
scarejunba
I think what’s interesting is that there are people in the Bay who want to
live in apartments and take transit to work and there are people who want to
live in houses with gardens and stuff. The people in the latter group do not
want to allow the people in the former group to have the experience they
desire. But that’s because the people in the latter group do not want just to
live in houses with gardens. They want to live in houses with gardens where
their neighbours also have houses with gardens.

So we have these big fights about property rights and whatnot when it’s just
that the two aims are incompatible and the latter group wants the status quo
(which is necessarily easier to adhere to)

~~~
Twirrim
I'll bite... I've protested apartments being built near my house-with-a-garden
in the suburbs (Seattle area).

Not because I have a particular interest in my house price, or want to
interfere with other people, but because the plans are doing absolutely sweet
FA to improve the infrastructure to cope with the additions. In general, I'd
be happy for the extra apartments if they came with extra infrastructure. We'd
all benefit from it.

In one case, they started planning to add hundreds of apartment blocks
specifically targetting young families, and yet the way it was being done
there would be zero money going towards local schools to deal with the extra
influx. Usual construction requires money towards schools, but there are
loopholes, and the developer was using them, and the city seemed happy to let
them.

Nor were there any plans to deal with the additional cars being added. Even
with good transit links to Seattle, the roads leading to the proposed site.

Nor were there plans to deal with increased sanitation or power demand on an
already flaky power grid.

The list literally goes on and on. What we keep seeing around here is
developers interested in doing the absolute bare minimum to build apartment
blocks, and a city content to just let them overload an stretched resources.

~~~
WaxProlix
Whose job is it/should it be to get that infrastructure built, and on what
timeline? Obviously it's not reasonable for a private contractor to have to
build a school addition for each housing block (or is it?), but if the people
haven't moved in yet then there's no data to show the city so that they can
project tax/levy money and scale schooling, transit, and other infrastructure
appropriately.

If we let the circular dependencies stymie us at all turns, we'll never get
anywhere. Gotta start somewhere, and having people to clamor for services
seems like a good place to do so as any to me.

~~~
vkou
> Whose job is it/should it be to get that infrastructure built, and on what
> timeline?

The new residents, so, by proxy, the developer putting the apartment block in.

Of course, the developer immediately starts grousing about regulation, and
excessive fees, and apparently, this is the reason for why we can't have
sub-$400,000 apartment units.

> Obviously it's not reasonable for a private contractor to have to build a
> school addition for each housing block (or is it?)

It is reasonable for them to pay the city enough money to construct the
infrastructure necessary to serve the new density they are adding.

~~~
helen___keller
infrastructure in sprawl costs more per capita than in dense urban
developments. If these people will move to the same city anyways, maybe the
city should be subsidizing the cost of the infrastructure because it’s cheaper
to provide it to a big building on an existing street than it is to a new
subdivision down the road

~~~
maxsilver
> infrastructure in sprawl costs more per capita than in dense urban
> developments. (snip) it’s cheaper to provide it to a big building on an
> existing street than it is to a new subdivision down the road

Unfortunately, even if you divide the costs per person, it's still often
cheaper to get 40 people new water lines in say 20 average suburban homes,
than it is to get 40 people new water lines in say, one building in Manhattan.

Infrastructure costs do not scale evenly per mile. The capital costs in
infrastructure are rarely the actual wires or pipes, it's the installation and
maintenance labour. Which are considerably more complex and more expensive in
dense urban environments, than it is in the sprawl.

There are plenty of downsides to sprawl (it's a waste of land, for instance).
But sprawl is nearly always cheaper (even after removing all subsidies),
that's kind of the whole reason sprawl exists in the first place.

~~~
Karrot_Kream
The problem is, you're comparing a Manhattan high-rise to 20 single-family
homes. Price/performance tends to be mid-rise apartments, which look like
duplexes for the most part. These mid-rise apartments are cheaper per-capita
both capital wise and maintenance wise than sprawly single-family homes.

Sprawl exists because of zoning codes, not because of a market equilibrium.

If you're interested in the phenomenon, read [https://www.strongtowns.org/the-
growth-ponzi-scheme/](https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/)
about the Growth Ponzi Scheme.

~~~
maxsilver
> you're comparing a Manhattan high-rise to 20 single-family homes.

That's generally what people mean by "Dense Urban" vs "sprawl", yes? You could
replace "Manhattan" with "Chicago Loop" and it would be the roughly identical.

> These mid-rise apartments are cheaper per-capita both capital wise and
> maintenance wise than sprawly single-family homes.

They aren't, sprawly apartments (like duplexes, or low-mid-rise apartments)
are roughly equivalent to costs as sprawly single family homes, and dense
apartments are more expensive.

This gets confusing, because sprawly apartments (like duplexes or low-rises)
are usually lower quality and lower maintained than nearby single family
homes, and therefore are cheaper. But if you brought the SFH down to that
lower level of maintenance, they too would be cheaper in a similar way. (And
similarly, if you brought those low-density apartments up to the quality of
nearby SFH, they would be slightly more expensive).

> Read Strong Towns

I have, many _many_ times. They get promoted on HN on a _literally daily_
basis.

Strong Towns is a fun blog to read, but unfortunately, Strong Towns is simply
wrong sometimes. Their understanding of suburban finances is one thing they
are semi-routinely incorrect on, they assume most suburbs are only financially
viable if they continiously grow -- and while this is true for some, it is not
common for most. The Growth Ponzi scheme they mention, while true for a
handful of suburbs, does not apply in any way to 75% or more of suburbs across
the US.

Don't take my word for it. Most municipalities budgets are public record (they
should all be, really). Look up one near you, and see this for yourself.

~~~
maxsilver
I'll break this down another way.

I'm going to pick a random suburb that happens to be near me. They are about a
33% even split of old suburbs (1940-1960s), middle suburbs (1970s-1990s) and
new suburbs (2000s+), with maybe 15% of that new suburb land still totally
empty. There are a few duplexes and apartment buildings in there, but nothing
dense. No buildings higher than 3 stories, it's like 95% low density stuff.

Their budget for 2017 includes $7,143,000 towards "Major Streets and Local
Streets". That's costs for basically every road except the freeways (those are
maintained by the state). This suburbs spends that, every year, on roads
alone.

"OH MY GOD THATS SO EXPENSIVE" says StrongTowns, "OBVIOUSLY SUBURBS ARE
DOOMED!"

There are 75,000 people living in this suburb. That 7 million dollars, divided
per person (per capita) per month, comes out to $8/month per person. (That's
number is artificially high, because it includes none of the businesses or
retail that also pay taxes -- it assumes just the residents alone shoulder all
the burden).

Even ignoring all business revenue, for less than the cost of a Netflix
subscription per person, this suburbs maintains every single street in the
entire suburb.

An average house in this Midwestern Michigan suburb, costs about $150-200k. A
single family home pays a couple hundred dollars per month in property taxes.
It costs just $8 of those couple hundred dollars per month, to maintain every
single street in the suburb.

Is it possible the municipality mis-counted something? Sure! Is it possible
they aren't fully accounting for every possible road cost? Perhaps! Let's
pretend they mis-counted by something extreme, let's assume they are a full
50% under-estimating on _literally every street_ in the sububrb.

That doomsday scenario means a citizen might have to pay $16/month for roads,
instead of $8. Oh no, what a terrible world that would be

I'm not pretending every suburb is identical. I'm sure there are suburbs that
spend more than $8/per person per month on roads. Some suburbs are more
sprawled out than others. But generally speaking, there is no great
infrastructure apocalypse coming down upon us. It's just not happening, unless
some major disaster wipes everything out all at once (like a hurricane, or a
tornado, or a screwup like Flint's Water crisis).

\-----

The Growth Ponzi scheme makes a great headline for StrongTowns. But for most
people, it's completely fanfaction. It is not grounded in any reality
whatsoever, for the vast majority of people who are reading it.

~~~
Karrot_Kream
> There are 75,000 people living in this suburb. That 7 million dollars,
> divided per person (per capita) per month, comes out to $8/month per person.
> (That's number is artificially high, because it includes none of the
> businesses or retail that also pay taxes -- it assumes just the residents
> alone shoulder all the burden).

Are you assuming that each of those 75,000 people owns property and pays
property tax? That is a pretty inaccurate statement.

Moreover I too will engage in your random exercise. Let's pick Paso Robles, CA
[1]. Rather than guestimating property taxes based on some weird anecdotal
extension of my own property tax, I'm going to take a look at the city budget
[2]. The city earned $10,370,327 in property taxes in the 2017 FY. The city
paid $1,258,730 to maintain its streets in the same FY. That's 12.1% of
property taxes devoted _just_ to street maintenance. In fact, if you look at
the city budget, property tax can _barely_ pay for the public works of the
city. Without other sources of revenue, the city would fall woefully behind on
its payments.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paso_Robles,_California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paso_Robles,_California)

[2]: [https://www.prcity.com/DocumentCenter/View/23619/Two-Year-
Ad...](https://www.prcity.com/DocumentCenter/View/23619/Two-Year-Adopted-
Budget-FY-2018-19-and-2019-20-PDF)

~~~
maxsilver
> Are you assuming that each of those 75,000 people pays property tax?

Yes, because effectively, they are. Renters pay for it through their rent
(landlords don't just eat costs for free) and obviously children don't pay for
their own, and homeless folks don't and such. But effectively, most every
resident is paying property taxes (or someone is paying their share for them)
in some way or another.

> I too will engage in your random exercise. Let's pick Paso Robles, CA

So, using your approach for the suburb I picked, all road construction +
maintenance + repair costs are about 20% of the total suburban budget.
Approximately $8/person/month. (This is in Michigan, where we have
snow+ice+flooding for 6 months straight each year, so that seems totally
reasonable to me.)

Using your own link for Paso Robles to the budget they provided, they're
devoting 12.1% of property taxes to street maintenance. With ~29k people,
that's ~$4/person/month.

So, your suburb spends even less to maintain their roads (per capita) than
mine does. Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that just further reinforce the
fact that there is no coming "infrastructure apocalypse" for roads? If Paso
Robles needed to _double their entire road budget_ for some magical reason,
you'd still be paying less than what folks up here already pay every single
year.

> In fact, if you look at the city budget, property tax can barely pay for the
> public works of the city. Without other sources of revenue, the city would
> fall woefully behind on its payments.

Isn't that also a good thing? In a perfect world, the total taxes collected
would pay for all the services provided, with a little set aside for a rainy
day and nothing more left over.

~~~
Karrot_Kream
> Yes, because effectively, they are. Renters pay for it through their rent
> (landlords don't just eat costs for free) and obviously children don't pay
> for their own, and homeless folks don't and such. But effectively, most
> every resident is paying property taxes (or someone is paying their share
> for them) in some way or another.

I think this is a weak argument you're using to make the price per capita seem
low. If your income is $10 / mo, and you pay $4 in property tax, then you are
spending 40% of your income in property tax.

> Using your own link for Paso Robles to the budget they provided, they're
> devoting 12.1% of property taxes to street maintenance. With ~29k people,
> that's ~$4/person/month.

That's still 12.1%. Whether it's $4/person/month or $1/person/month, it's
12.1% of property tax.

> If Paso Robles needed to double their entire road budget for some magical
> reason, you'd still be paying less than what folks up here already pay every
> single year

Again, how does that matter? The city will now be paying 24.2% of their
property tax on road maintenance, leaving a shortfall.

> Isn't that also a good thing? In a perfect world, the total taxes collected
> would pay for all the services provided, with a little set aside for a rainy
> day and nothing more left over.

Right but what about emergency services, and city vehicle fleet maintenance,
and sewage, and parks... The property tax _cannot_ pay for all services
associated with the sprawl. Oh and building new infrastructure. The city
relies on a bevy of other taxes and entitlements to pay their budget,
including various State transportation subsidies.

~~~
code_duck
“If your income is $10 / mo, and you pay $4 in property tax, then you are
spending 40% of your income in property tax.”

Those numbers don’t seem very realistic?

------
newfocogi
I don't necessarily think "talent" wants transit. Something that matters to
every job seeker is what "home" is going to look like, and being close to
transit opens up more types of "home" to choose from. Some talent wants the
pace of downtown while others want 4 bedroom houses with yards. Being near
transit does a better job of providing both of those to candidates, thereby
increasing the talent pool's size.

~~~
mc32
People also just don’t want to be stuck in traffic for an hour and a half. If
101 were as free flowing as it was in the mid 90s the desire for transit would
be less but given arteries like 280, 101 in the SF bay area or 95, 90, 93 in
the Boston area are perennially clogged the alternative is transit.

~~~
rconti
Meanwhile, we FLY down 101 every morning because reverse commute down the
Peninsula into the valley. I don't think the people who complain about CA from
what they hear online could even believe the speeds we manage.

~~~
asavadatti
There is no reverse commute in the bay area anymore. It's uphill both ways

~~~
rconti
So I'm lying, then. As are all of the traffic maps that show eastbound bridge
traffic being wide open in the mornings, south 280 and 101 being wide open in
the mornings, and the opposite in the afternoons?

It doesn't really take me 20 minutes to go 22 miles in the heart of Silicon
Valley at rush hour?

okay then.

~~~
pianoben
My personal experience of driving south from ~San Francisco down to Sunnyvale
along 101 in the mornings is that it takes me around 1.2 hours, on average.
I'm not sure what traffic maps have to say about it, but every time I drive
down I hit backups at Millbrae, San Mateo around 92, Menlo Park (the Facebook
exit), Palo Alto which is just always congested, and Mountain View.

In fact, the traffic is the deciding factor for me in ruling out regularly
working in the Peninsula.

Where do you start, and at what time of day, to get 20-minute drive times? I'd
love to know the secret.

~~~
rconti
Marsh, 7:35, to Winchester in SJ.

~~~
masonic
That places you downstream of all Facebook traffic.

~~~
rconti
Ish. Actually I live pretty much right next to Facebook, so Facebook traffic
is my traffic. Trust me, when I commuted from the north, I'd spend 3-5 minutes
sitting on my own damn offramp just to go a few hundred feet to my house while
all the FBers and bridge folk were trying to turn left onto a gridlocked
overpass :)

~~~
masonic
Heck, when I worked in that neighborhood, the Marsh Road overpass was just
_one_ lane each way!

------
jarjoura
I currently live in SF and work in South Bay, but this is probably the last
job I'll accept down there. Being able to walk to work, or at least jump on a
short bus ride to work cannot be understated for quality of life.

~~~
avalys
I'm the opposite. I'm 31, live in the South Bay, and am so happy to jump in my
car and spend 30 minutes driving to work, sipping coffee, thinking about the
day ahead, and listening to news or music. On the way home, the commute is a
chance to unwind and relax.

I find San Francisco claustrophobic, and I can't think of a more miserable
commute than walking to, waiting for, and riding public transportation in the
rain or heat with a crowd of other people. I've turned down jobs in the city
for that reason.

I don't pay any more for the house I'm renting than a decent apartment would
cost in the city, and I have a small yard and a quiet neighborhood to live in.

I don't know how you city people do it.

~~~
GordonS
You drink coffee while driving?

Seems unwise.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Where do you live that this is surprising?

I see people putting on makeup and checking email while driving. Not while
stopped in traffic, actually being in control of a rapidly moving vehicle.

~~~
so33
More anecdata: I have seen:

    
    
      - Someone watching a video on YouTube while driving
    
      - Someone on their phone, with headphones on, while driving
    

People are using their cars like they’re already driverless ;)

~~~
rndgermandude
I've seen a driver watching porn on a maybe 20 inch screen while on a packed
but still speedy Autobahn. One hand holding the screen while steering with his
wrist pressed against the wheel (looked rather elaborate and acrobatic even),
kinda, while the other hand was out of sight and "busy" somewhere "below".

I've seen another driver having her foot on top of the wheel, cutting her
toenails with a clipper, also on the Autobahn.

And the amount of truck drivers I seen reading a newspaper (actual-paper one,
usually "Bild") while behind the wheel is astonishing.

------
angmarsbane
Yes! When the Expo line opened in Los Angeles I restricted my job search to
companies accessible via the line.

I chose my next job because it was accessible via the Ballona Creek bike path
and buses (though the 2 buses made a 20 min drive take an 1hr+).

My current job is a shorter bus trip and a shorter bike ride. I'm not willing
to drive 1-2 hrs one-way to work. I want time to be a part of my community, to
have hobbies, to do more than drive, eat, sleep, work and to get that time I
need a short commute.

If a long commute limits my existence to drive, eat, half hour couch potato,
and sleep than the job is not worth it.

~~~
burfog
What if the Expo line goes down? There could be a strike, a suicide on the
tracks, some other sort of wreak, track maintenance, etc.

Roads are highly redundant. You can route around almost anything.

Also, why not move to the job? That is the huge win for shortening a commute.

~~~
matchbok
What if there is a crash on the highway? What if your car breaks down? What if
have a medical emergency and cannot drive?

~~~
burfog
"Roads are highly redundant. You can route around almost anything."

Crash on the highway: pick a different road

Car breaks down: rent one (BTW, not scalable to a mass transit strike)

Medical emergency and cannot drive: call for an ambulance

~~~
matchbok
Not sure where you live, but "pick a different road" doesn't really work for
99% of the country.

~~~
fibbery
I can't wait to pick a different Bay Bridge

~~~
souprock
Well, you're commuting too far, but anyway: San Mateo has a bridge, you can go
via San Jose, and you can go via Marin County.

Even the Bay Bridge is seldom 100% out. It has multiple lanes, unlike a
typical rail line.

------
squozzer
For me, transit not so important but a low-hassle commute is. If transit is
the only way to achieve that, great.

For example - When I first worked at my current job, it was a 45-90 min drive
over interstate. A year later, I moved closer and now it's a 15-30 min drive
over regular streets.

Upsides: Lower commuting stress - even when my current drive home looks fubar,
I can tolerate it long enough to either get home or find a pub and wait it out
over a brew.

Downsides: My housing costs tripled.

My previous job was a 30-60 min drive, but later took a shuttle bus that had a
stop right in front of my job.

Upsides: After 30+ years of interstate commuting, taking my hand off the wheel
for a couple of years was a godsend.

Downsides: The bus stop was basically a street corner with no shade or rain
protection, so waiting for the bus on some afternoons was a bit challenging.

------
btbuildem
"Talent wants transit" says transit salesman. OK.

I don't want transit, I want a relatively short commute that doesn't kill my
soul. Ideally not working from the office all the time, IDEALLY NOT WORKING
EVERY DAY.

~~~
jgh
Ultimately this is probably the real solution: Less work, more remote.

~~~
sytse
Indeed, after getting next to transit the next step will be allowing more
remote work, until companies are all remote.

~~~
helen___keller
Remote work is great and I agree it needs to become more culturally accepted,
but almost every remote-only worker I talk to about it with has mixed
feelings. The gist I get is that remote work has its ups and downs and usually
their preferred ideal world would be having an office to go to but only 1-3
days a week, depending on the individual.

------
dfxm12
I wonder if talent wants transit specifically, or if they just want an
employment situation where they don't need to drive their car to work or be
limited in where they must live.

Telecommuting fits this as well, if the job allows for it.

~~~
xapata
I've been telecommuting for about 6 years. I'd prefer good transit and a nice
office.

------
rconti
The stats are sort of misleading. Of COURSE 97% of people drove to an office
park in an Illinois suburb, because that was the only way to get there.

OF COURSE almost every commutes to downtown Chicago by transit, because
parking costs are insane.

I'm not saying I'm not pro-transit; I am. Very much so. But these stats don't
capture how many of the 97% hated commuting by car but had to, and how many of
the 90% "non-automobile" commutes are being done by people grudgingly (or
AFTER driving a car to a train station, paying for parking, waiting for a
train, and wishing they had a nice big free parking lot at their destination).

~~~
sdenton4
As a human living on earth, I don't actually much care what the 97% or 90%
actually think about their commutes. Using transit instead of single-occupant
cars is a huge improvement from an environmental and economic standpoint.

~~~
nostromo
You should care because the real way to get people to use transit is by making
it better than the alternative.

~~~
jchanimal
Raising the price of gas helps too.

~~~
bitshepherd
Not really, no.

Raising the price of gas negatively affects the working poor more than helps
the environment. That subset of society may not live in an area accessible by
transit, or their employment requires them to be in a different location than
is feasible to travel to by transit.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Raising the price of gas negatively affects the working poor more than
> helps the environment_

In the short run. In the long run, the proceeds could be used to encourage the
working poor to move to cities where they don't need a car. Given how
financially terrible car ownership is for America's poor--between traffic
tickets, civil forfeiture, police violence, predatory lending and collection
practices, insurance practices, _et cetera_ \--I think it would be a net boon.

~~~
RandomInteger4
This is a horribly naive statement which disregards the existence many
different jobs other than office and retail.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _disregards the existence many different jobs other than office and retail_

Gas taxes can be raised in a way that is neutral to our working poor. It's a
minor adjustment to the lowest tax bracket.

------
baybal2
I'm very glad that issues of urban development are now getting more attention
on HN.

Urban development will be one of the biggest challenges of 21st century.

This issue deserves both more money, and talent being directed to solving it.

And Californian people, your issues are truly severe. I met Chinese people who
ventured to SF and Silicon Valley, and called it an urban hell.

------
SketchySeaBeast
I recently moved from a job where it was a half hour car drive home to one
that is a 15 minute public transit commute - counting from the "I'm leaving
the office now" text to my wife to unlocking the front door. It's been a huge
quality of life improvement for me.

~~~
helen___keller
I took an internship in college that was an hour car drive and swore off car
commutes before even graduating. Now I do 45 minute door-to-door with transit
and I’m quite happy. I can only imagine how great a 15 minute transit commute
would be, unfortunately most places that close to downtown are expensive as
heck in Boston.

------
Fej
As a daily NJ Transit commuter... I'm very grateful to have easy access to one
of the few commuter heavy rail systems in the country. I live in the suburbs
and rail is so much nicer (and safer) than driving.

------
gok
"half of all newly created jobs are within a half mile of a CTA or Metra rail
station"

I'm kind of surprised it's only half actually...where is there Chicago office
space more than half a mile from a Metra or CTA station?

~~~
moorhosj
It is the Chicago region, not just the city. Examples are; Oakbrook (where
McDonald's moved from), Downtown Naperville, Schaumburg, Elk Grove Village,
etc.

~~~
gok
Ah that makes more sense

------
jseliger
This is particularly interesting in light of the way Nashville just rejected
transit: [https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/05/what-went-
wro...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/05/what-went-wrong-with-
nashvilles-transit-plan/559436/)

------
dsimms
I sort of wanted them (NPR) to say "but how can you have a driveway moment on
transit?". Listening to NPR is one of the very few redeeming features of
driving to work.

~~~
dredmorbius
Podcasts.

------
AlaskaCasey
Cities should take this to heart and really invest in creating seamless public
transit experiences or they'll get left behind in attracting large companies
that can bring jobs to their areas.

------
ReptileMan
Talent doesn't want transit. They want minimal commute or to minimally attend
office at all.

~~~
rsynnott
I mean, that's very person-specific. I wouldn't take a job that was mostly
work-at-home.

------
skybrian
Yay transit, but it seems like this trend tends to make housing more expensive
as businesses move to the hearts of already-crowded cities and make rents even
worse. Wouldn't it be better for a company to move its headquarters to a new
transit stop that's in an outlying area?

~~~
bobthepanda
It makes land more expensive; if zoning allows housing doesn't have to be
expensive. There may be a few years of lag because construction is not
instantaneous, but supply can eventually catch up.

Seattle has started seeing sustained rent drops after a housing boom (and then
oversupply) coinciding with the Amazon boom.

------
supergeek133
Is it transportation or just short commute/ease of commute?

I live in Minneapolis, for awhile I used to work in the southern suburbs. On a
good day the drive was 30 minutes during rush hour. On a bad day you were
talking 1-2 hours.

Now I live 10 minutes from work, and I can't imagine doing anything else. Even
when I speak to recruiters I increase my salary ask and tell them it's for the
commute. I get laughed at.

Meanwhile I talk to people that live 45-60 minutes away just so they could
"get more house for the money" and constantly complain about their time to get
to work/get home.

However, the earlier comment about job density is probably the most relevant
thing I haven't thought of.

------
gowld
This is only news because of the historical anomaly of California (Silicon
Valley and Hollywood). Everywhere else, "talent" flocks to big cities with
transit (NY, Chicago, Boston, DC, etc in the US; I'm sure it's simila rin
other nations), as transit is is part of how a city grows, and population
growth is codependent with economic growth and the network effects of "talent"
industries that generate wealth.

~~~
rconti
Except the first example in the article was in Illinois.

~~~
moorhosj
Except it is about Chicago, not Illinois. Chicago's overall population has
stagnated since 1990, but is now the most-educated big city in the country.
This implies that "talent" is indeed flocking to Chicago while it sheds it's
industrial past.

"Combined with other data, the continuing tale-of-two-cities story suggests
large numbers of lower-income African-Americans are fleeing Chicago while
somewhat lesser numbers of better-educated and higher-earning whites, Asian-
Americans and blacks are coming in. That's leaving the city better off in some
ways than it was a decade ago, but smaller."

[https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20171004/BLOGS02/171...](https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20171004/BLOGS02/171009951/chicago-
census-data-show-shrinking-city-growing-wealthier-educated)

------
ed_balls
and companies offering remote job gaining even bigger upper hand.

------
AngryData
Travel time to and from work is unpaid hours required for work. If it takes
people 45 minutes to work that is an hour and a half every day that they get
nothing for that is not voluntary.

------
baybal2
My advise for Californians:

1\. Densify population centres.

2\. Rehouse people from single family houses into highrise appartments.

3\. Improve ground level infrastructure.

4\. Transition to mixed development policy.

5\. Abolish zoning in favour of universal sanitary codes.

~~~
briandear
> Rehouse people from single family houses into highrise appartments. Except
> many people find that high rises suck. What to let your little kids out
> front to ride their bikes? Go down the elevator, through a lobby, onto a
> very crowded sidewalk or the major road out front. In a house, I can have a
> backyard. Walking the dog doesn’t require 5 minutes of elevators and
> hallways. Kids can play outside. I am not opposed to high rises at all, but
> suggesting that people be “rehomed” is what I am objecting to. However else
> minariby arbitrary height restrictions would be a good start. Some people
> would like to live in greater density, but attempting a 40 story apartment
> in Mountain View would be by howls of protests from environmental groups.
> There is room for all sorts of housing to meet everyone’s lifestyle needs,
> the problem is that the regulation has become an albatross and it prevents a
> market response to increased demand. Try to build a mid rise in Palo Alto;
> people there would lose their minds.

~~~
baybal2
You have a wrong idea about highrise living, and in particular distinction in
between main highrise classes.

I classify three that are well recognised around:

1\. Standalone towers with chic small apartments - those are more oriented
towards bachelor living for upper working class. Think of them in a "starbucks
vs a restaurant" comparison.

2\. Apartment complexes - these are city block sized developments, with more
or less fully managed amenities, some times including daycare, playgrounds,
mini-strip malls. These do avail for family living.

3\. Shitty box apartments - for everybody else, the cheapest option.

> but attempting a 40 story apartment in Mountain View would be by howls of
> protests from environmental groups.

I think 40 storey's will not do it in such expensive neighbourhood. It can be
economically feasible with 50 storey with modern construction technology, and
60 if you can make it look "high-end" enough.

------
pts_
You know what else talent wants? Work from Home to actually use their talents
instead of chit chatting.

------
meesterdude
Transit? Talent wants remote.

------
pascalxus
Talent wants to not be homeless. Transportation and housing are thus very much
intertwined. Most people would gladly move closer to work, given the
opportunity, but it's usually just too expensive.

------
helen___keller
>Rail and bus systems around the country have backlogs of repair and
maintenance needs in the billions of dollars, and transit advocates say not
only is more state and local funding needed for upgrades and to expand transit
routes, but a big federal infrastructure investment is needed, too. Without
it, they fear the nation's economic growth could suffer. But they note such
funding may be hard to to get out of a federal administration that seems at
times hostile to transit, and instead seems to want to invest more in
highways.

We have two big crises: people can't afford to live near jobs (with
insufficient new housing being built in top cities), and transit
infrastructure near jobs is crumbling, neglected, or nonexistent, depending on
the city.

Local municipalities don't want to build more housing because, in the grand
scheme of things, a single municipality can't fix the housing crisis, but
allowing new construction in inner-city neighborhoods or low-cost-but-
desirably-located towns is a guaranteed path to gentrification, so most choose
to opt out. Richer neighborhoods don't want new housing because it would
damage their picture-perfect neighborhood character, affect their schools and
infrastructure, etc. So, neighborhoods near the city stay frozen in place,
save a few luxury developments at the prime locations in the city because
these developments can bankroll getting past municipal blockades.

The federal government can fix both of these by cooperating with states. Offer
money earmarked for public transit to states that meet guidelines promoting
large-scale (and, hopefully, equitable across rich & poor neighborhoods)
upzoning efforts near their job centers. Subsidize transit-friendly dense
developments on a large scale, instead of subsidizing suburbs as we have since
WWII.

The good & bad would probably be:

-Good for the environment, as suburban sprawl is greatly damaging to the environment (and necessitates a car-centered lifestyle).

-Good for companies that can more easily attract workers to their headquarters in cities.

-Good for workers who wanted to live in the city but couldn't afford it, or workers who spend a large percentage of their budget on housing because they have a job in the city.

-Good for government budget in the long run (probably) because the cost of infrastructure per capita is cheaper in city than in sprawl

-Good for the economy in the long run? No one really knows on this one, but I would argue current trends show cities are going to be big on capitalizing on 21st century economic opportunities (hence why companies want to relocate near transit).

-Bad for current suburban homeowners, one may expect suburban homes to decrease in price.

-Good or bad, depending on location, for current urban property owners. Urban home prices will (by design) go down with this policy thanks to an influx of housing, but landowners may still make a big profit (for example, if you own a single family home or duplex near a transit line, and it gets upzoned, you could sell it at a premium to a developer who wants to build a midrise or highrise on the land. On the other hand if you own a condo in an existing highrise, it will probably go down in value with a glut of new housing on the market)

------
cromestant
why not just make work be a state more than a place.... Working from home has
so many benefits, including reduction of costs to both employee and employer.

