Please someone explain something to me regarding the tech sector and housing. Why is it that the most location independent sector, tech workers, are huddling around certain urban areas? It makes absolutely no sense.
Shouldn't tech workers or even just simply technology savvy people be able to work anywhere that has fast internet? So why is that community not living in the countryside or in small spread out concentrations, instead of everyone having to pile into certain cities?
Sure, if I could get gigabit fiber in the middle of South Dakota, I could work just as easily as anywhere else. Unfortunately, there wouldn't be anything for me to do outside of work.
I live in NYC right now and it's fantastic (and fantastically expensive). I can walk to any number of world class restaurants and museums, take the train to see even more amazing things, and generally feel like I have the world at my fingertips. Is that pricey? Yes. But I work so that I can make enough money to do things I find fun, some of which are things outside of work.
Please someone explain something to me regarding the tech sector and housing
Edward Glaeser wrote a book that answers your question: Triumph of the City. Cities promote knowledge transfer and idea generation because of all the random interactions that happen among people. It's useful to be among people who are doing things like what you're doing. Cities offer great ways for cooperation and competition.
If you're doing routine tasks over and over again that can be done remotely maybe you don't need to live in a city. But the rest of us do, and the reasons make a lot of sense!
As someone once described to me, if you have a lot of money, the world's great cities, London, NYC, LA, Hong Kong are your playgrounds. Living, working, and playing within a walking distance or transit-friendly distance is strongly becoming an aspiration for those who have the skills or money to afford it.
If you make $300-400K/year in New York City, you can afford to live a little. Midtown or Chelsea apartment. Nice restaurants. Drinks in bars. $7 lattes.
Personally, I've decided to leave the rat race of Silicon Valley / SF and take my family somewhere more quiet where we could settle down. I've had one hell of a time finding a job that would be okay with a remote employee, though. I had a couple companies who at the start said they would but when the day of the real interviews came they would suddenly get cold feet.
For all the complaining about a lack of talent, the people making the hiring decisions sure don't seem to want to compromise on this point. That sort of "perk" is huge for me -- it's the sort of thing that would make me interested in your company in the first place.
There's still a large value IMO of working physically next to those you work with. The ideas flow easier, meetings can happen organically, there are no timezone issues, etc.
Yes, this sector can work remotely less painfully than others, but that doesn't mean its optimal.
Because the vast majority of people that are young and ambitious prefer to live urban areas with all the advantages that come with it.
And with the high level of gentrification in many successful cities, unlike 25 years ago those urban centers are now also attractive for older people and people with families, people who used to move to the suburbs.
People want to be there, and contrary to what a very vocal minority suggests, most people don't want to work remotely, at least not full-time, and those that do don't necessarily want to do it from the middle of f-ing nowhere.
I'm sure there are a lot of tech workers who live in the countryside, it's just that we don't hear about them very often. We read mainly about the people in the tech centers, because that's where all the networking happens, and that's where all the journalists are.
I make a database client, and when I look at the billing addresses of my customers, I do see a lot of companies based in San Francisco; but the majority of customers are from pretty random locations all over the world.
"[Almost any city with a real tech presence]'s Home Shortage Could Stifle Startups"
Sama's tweet from about a month ago really resonated with me: "it's so unbelievably frustrating how hard it is to get lots of new housing built in the bay area. this one thing would solve so many probs."
There are so many factors at play here, but it mostly boils down to politics.
As more entrepreneurs start tacking big problems with lots of red tape (i.e. banking, brokerage, medicine, insurance, etc.), I wish more people would look to housing and how to keep costs sane.
PS - email me if you're in the space or have ideas. Real estate entrepreneur here. Would love to hear ideas, give my opinion, or chat about possible solutions.
The barrier to new development in SF isn't red tape per se, but democracy. The existing residents don't want to alter their neighborhoods through a massive increase in population, demographic shift, blocked views, etc. They vote in policies that artificially restrict the housing stock (40ft height limit, endless community generated red tape, low income housing requirements in new buildings, restrictions on evicting rent controlled tenants). This leads to dated, unmaintained buildings, higher rent, and decreased labor mobility, ultimately shooting everyone of the in the foot.
To 'disrupt' this you would need to eminent domain a good chunk of the city a la the Western Addition in the '50s.
Are there historical parallels to the current situation? Has there been another time or place where a young population all of a sudden became rich in the span of only a few decades and wanted to live in urban areas, which were currently occupied by less rich communities?
It's easy to blame politics, but those politics are based in social reality.
"Keeping the costs sane" for tech workers would mean putting the housing out of reach of many ordinary people.
There is a finite amount of space, and the reason why housing scarce in many cities in Europe is because a large portion is reserved for rent controlled social housing (which unlike the US isn't just the extreme low end).
Not doing that clearly doesn't work either (see SF), and has so many negative social side-effects that are unacceptable in Europe, so you don't even have to bother trying to suggest it.
It simply comes down to too many people wanting to live where there's not enough space. To solve that, you have to look at social factors, not bureaucracy and real estate.
Personally I would suggest looking at the people who actually wouldn't mind getting out of those cities but currently can't for various social and economic reasons. Ironically, those are not the tech workers who could at least theoretically work remotely.
Lived in Stockholm for ~1½ years, ending in the spring of 2013.
Was lucky enough to have the company I was recruited for help me by having their name on the rental agreement, covering any expenses the owner might have if I thrashed the place, didn't pay rent, etc. Ended up finding a place for 13.000SEK/month on the outskirts of Stockholm, at the very last subway stop.
For most of the employees starting at the same time as me, most of their rental agreements were only valid for a year or so (and the owner could kick renters out pretty much at any time), forcing people to go and find other apartments, which is not easy when the employer no longer offers support with the contract.
One colleague of mine found that his response rate was extremely low on his bot that automatically applied for an apartment, which matched his criteria, as soon as it came up online. He suspected his non Swedish sounding name was a factor, so he changed the name in the message to something Swedish-y ("Sven Karlsson" or smth. like that) and instantly the response rate rose dramatically. As a foreigner, not having anyting on your Swedish credit report doesn't help either.
Yikes, I'm sorry for your experience. I think highly skilled foreigners coming to Sweden to work is such a recent that society is lagging behind. I've heard many stories of people changing their last names to their husband/wife's in order to get job interviews etc. I hope as time goes on people will be more accepting.
It's basic supply & demand that rent control causes housing shortages. If rent control was replaced with adequate rent subsidies for landlords (for the lower/mid class tenants) and some of the more draconian regs were eased, this problem would be solved overnight. Politically however, this is probably impossible and/or extremely controversial, but I believe this arrangement would be better for all tenants.
Yup. Simply disassociating the benefits of rent control from the housing unit it is attached to would go a long way to permitting development. The way things are today, rent control basically serves as an almost permanent mutex on the development of the underlying real estate.
I'd be more useful if cities made it a policy that the amount of housing subsidy you receive is proportional to the year you moved to the city. That would achieve the same goal as rent control (i.e. affordable housing), but alleviates the mutex on many structures that could be torn down to make way for structures that permit great density.
Affordable housing programs are fine. Tying up the underlying asset indefinitely is counterproductive.
An average 80 sqm 3 rooms apartment in Stockholm rents about 6800 kr/month (a bit less than 1000$ approximately). But you can only get this if you are in rental queue.
This is the money that any working person (doesn't matter a software developer or electrician, plumber or car mechanic) can pay easily.
The rental queue works like first-comes first serve basis. And the first-come means whoever registered first on the rental queue site. The main queue is maintained by Stockholm State. There is no way for anyone to pay more money and get ahead in queue.
Apart from that, there are always new buildings which have no queue but rent is more (40 or 50% more than usual. Anyone who is willing to pay that amount can get an apartment within 2 months time frame.
Then there is a 3rd black market. A lot of people sublet there for shorter and some for longer terms.
Having said that all, I've thought about this problem but couldn't come to the prefect solution. When state controls the rents & the process renting, it gives guarantee to low-income families that they can also live in nice neighborhoods.
This is the biggest problem. There really is no rental market to speak of, so talking about rental queues being 10 years long is not really relevant. If you want to live in Stockholm for a longer time you need to buy. This also means it takes months and months getting your loan approved, finding an apartment and waiting to move in. Only the waiting to move in part can take more than 3 months.
The flip side is, once you've bought a place, it can be really really cheap to live in with the current interest rates. We pay less than $1000 for a two bedroom in central Stockholm for instance, all included (interest, fees, electricity, water, heating, tv, broadband). This also means absolute prices are insanely high, and will probably continue to rise since there's still room for it to grow.
Same housing problems in Copenhagen. I'm a student who just lives back in my home country and flies over to Copenhagen for exams because I couldn't find housing. If I want to get something, I have to be there so I can hunt down people in person. There's really no sort of easy way to just get an apartment room, and I've found that willing to pay more doesn't really help (though maybe if you're willing to rent out something for 3-4k USD a month + drop 12,000 on a deposit you might have better luck).
Where are you from? And are you studying something that you can get SU from? There are special student housing (called "Kollegium" rooms) in Denmark, where only students are allowed to live. And the rent is considerably lower than normal rental apartments.
It's been a while since I've studied, so my information might be outdated, but feel free to send me an email if I can help in any way. I live in Copenhagen.
Shameless plug, but my current tenant might eventually move out soon and I am looking for someone else to take over once he leaves (might be 1-3 months from now)
Let me know if interested.
It's in central Södermalm. I genuinely despise it, but many people (including my partner) like it so I'd suggest looking it up first.
Yeah, unfortunately most European cities are built to the max density allowed with old buildings that cost a lot to maintain and that offer an inferior experience to modern ones.
Rent controls and policies made for a negative populational growth only make things worse
Not really, part of the reason people want to live centrally in the first place is the density and the high quality turn-of-the-century housing. Tall ceilings, nice wooden floors, large windows. It sounds like you've never actually been inside one.
[+] [-] wahsd|11 years ago|reply
Shouldn't tech workers or even just simply technology savvy people be able to work anywhere that has fast internet? So why is that community not living in the countryside or in small spread out concentrations, instead of everyone having to pile into certain cities?
[+] [-] manacit|11 years ago|reply
Sure, if I could get gigabit fiber in the middle of South Dakota, I could work just as easily as anywhere else. Unfortunately, there wouldn't be anything for me to do outside of work.
I live in NYC right now and it's fantastic (and fantastically expensive). I can walk to any number of world class restaurants and museums, take the train to see even more amazing things, and generally feel like I have the world at my fingertips. Is that pricey? Yes. But I work so that I can make enough money to do things I find fun, some of which are things outside of work.
[+] [-] vwoolf|11 years ago|reply
Edward Glaeser wrote a book that answers your question: Triumph of the City. Cities promote knowledge transfer and idea generation because of all the random interactions that happen among people. It's useful to be among people who are doing things like what you're doing. Cities offer great ways for cooperation and competition.
If you're doing routine tasks over and over again that can be done remotely maybe you don't need to live in a city. But the rest of us do, and the reasons make a lot of sense!
[+] [-] wallflower|11 years ago|reply
If you make $300-400K/year in New York City, you can afford to live a little. Midtown or Chelsea apartment. Nice restaurants. Drinks in bars. $7 lattes.
[+] [-] Blackthorn|11 years ago|reply
For all the complaining about a lack of talent, the people making the hiring decisions sure don't seem to want to compromise on this point. That sort of "perk" is huge for me -- it's the sort of thing that would make me interested in your company in the first place.
[+] [-] brandonmenc|11 years ago|reply
Because it's not really as location independent as you think.
[+] [-] evantahler|11 years ago|reply
Yes, this sector can work remotely less painfully than others, but that doesn't mean its optimal.
[+] [-] santacluster|11 years ago|reply
And with the high level of gentrification in many successful cities, unlike 25 years ago those urban centers are now also attractive for older people and people with families, people who used to move to the suburbs.
People want to be there, and contrary to what a very vocal minority suggests, most people don't want to work remotely, at least not full-time, and those that do don't necessarily want to do it from the middle of f-ing nowhere.
[+] [-] jakobegger|11 years ago|reply
I make a database client, and when I look at the billing addresses of my customers, I do see a lot of companies based in San Francisco; but the majority of customers are from pretty random locations all over the world.
[+] [-] merrua|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gatsby|11 years ago|reply
Sama's tweet from about a month ago really resonated with me: "it's so unbelievably frustrating how hard it is to get lots of new housing built in the bay area. this one thing would solve so many probs."
There are so many factors at play here, but it mostly boils down to politics.
As more entrepreneurs start tacking big problems with lots of red tape (i.e. banking, brokerage, medicine, insurance, etc.), I wish more people would look to housing and how to keep costs sane.
PS - email me if you're in the space or have ideas. Real estate entrepreneur here. Would love to hear ideas, give my opinion, or chat about possible solutions.
[+] [-] fludlight|11 years ago|reply
To 'disrupt' this you would need to eminent domain a good chunk of the city a la the Western Addition in the '50s.
[+] [-] cmelbye|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diafygi|11 years ago|reply
Has this happened before? How did it turn out?
[+] [-] santacluster|11 years ago|reply
"Keeping the costs sane" for tech workers would mean putting the housing out of reach of many ordinary people.
There is a finite amount of space, and the reason why housing scarce in many cities in Europe is because a large portion is reserved for rent controlled social housing (which unlike the US isn't just the extreme low end).
Not doing that clearly doesn't work either (see SF), and has so many negative social side-effects that are unacceptable in Europe, so you don't even have to bother trying to suggest it.
It simply comes down to too many people wanting to live where there's not enough space. To solve that, you have to look at social factors, not bureaucracy and real estate.
Personally I would suggest looking at the people who actually wouldn't mind getting out of those cities but currently can't for various social and economic reasons. Ironically, those are not the tech workers who could at least theoretically work remotely.
[+] [-] jakozaur|11 years ago|reply
Several areas in the world suffer from the problem, but there are cities where housing prices rise way slower than the others.
[+] [-] mclemme|11 years ago|reply
Was lucky enough to have the company I was recruited for help me by having their name on the rental agreement, covering any expenses the owner might have if I thrashed the place, didn't pay rent, etc. Ended up finding a place for 13.000SEK/month on the outskirts of Stockholm, at the very last subway stop.
For most of the employees starting at the same time as me, most of their rental agreements were only valid for a year or so (and the owner could kick renters out pretty much at any time), forcing people to go and find other apartments, which is not easy when the employer no longer offers support with the contract.
One colleague of mine found that his response rate was extremely low on his bot that automatically applied for an apartment, which matched his criteria, as soon as it came up online. He suspected his non Swedish sounding name was a factor, so he changed the name in the message to something Swedish-y ("Sven Karlsson" or smth. like that) and instantly the response rate rose dramatically. As a foreigner, not having anyting on your Swedish credit report doesn't help either.
[+] [-] lingoberry|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] firloop|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malandrew|11 years ago|reply
I'd be more useful if cities made it a policy that the amount of housing subsidy you receive is proportional to the year you moved to the city. That would achieve the same goal as rent control (i.e. affordable housing), but alleviates the mutex on many structures that could be torn down to make way for structures that permit great density.
Affordable housing programs are fine. Tying up the underlying asset indefinitely is counterproductive.
[+] [-] tegeek|11 years ago|reply
The rental queue works like first-comes first serve basis. And the first-come means whoever registered first on the rental queue site. The main queue is maintained by Stockholm State. There is no way for anyone to pay more money and get ahead in queue.
Apart from that, there are always new buildings which have no queue but rent is more (40 or 50% more than usual. Anyone who is willing to pay that amount can get an apartment within 2 months time frame.
Then there is a 3rd black market. A lot of people sublet there for shorter and some for longer terms.
Having said that all, I've thought about this problem but couldn't come to the prefect solution. When state controls the rents & the process renting, it gives guarantee to low-income families that they can also live in nice neighborhoods.
[+] [-] callesgg|11 years ago|reply
This is due to the fact that the Swedish home rental market is controlled by laws and regulation.
To get an apartment in Stockholm get a loan buy the apartment pay your loan interest + electrical bills and such.
It is in the end cheaper than renting and has other benefits aswell, and some disadvantages to... There is loads of factors.
[+] [-] lingoberry|11 years ago|reply
The flip side is, once you've bought a place, it can be really really cheap to live in with the current interest rates. We pay less than $1000 for a two bedroom in central Stockholm for instance, all included (interest, fees, electricity, water, heating, tv, broadband). This also means absolute prices are insanely high, and will probably continue to rise since there's still room for it to grow.
[+] [-] dublinclontarf|11 years ago|reply
Not a rebuttal or anything, but I thought you might enjoy it.
[+] [-] mclemme|11 years ago|reply
And I'm guessing it's not easy to get a loan (I haven't tried so might be wrong).
[+] [-] dashboardfront|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mclemme|11 years ago|reply
It's been a while since I've studied, so my information might be outdated, but feel free to send me an email if I can help in any way. I live in Copenhagen.
[+] [-] seivan|11 years ago|reply
It's in central Södermalm. I genuinely despise it, but many people (including my partner) like it so I'd suggest looking it up first.
41 square meters. 1.5 rooms. Fully renovated bathroom (Nov 2013)
Favourite perks
2 Seconds to Lidl 7-22
10 seconds to Systembolaget (liquor store) 9-19 (weekdays)
15 seconds to ICA (has a tapas bar with nice wines) 7-23
20 seconds to Apoteket (Pharmacy) 8-22
20 seconds to Medborgarplatsen subway
[+] [-] undantag|11 years ago|reply
https://www.facebook.com/events/352962604886482/
[+] [-] bitwize|11 years ago|reply
You're gonna have to learn to talk that Variety speak!
[+] [-] likeclockwork|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|11 years ago|reply
Rent controls and policies made for a negative populational growth only make things worse
[+] [-] lingoberry|11 years ago|reply