Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suspect you don't realize per capita income takes the entire population into account - babies, children, retired - every single person.
Over 1/3 of the entire state has household income above $100K.
Yeah, I do realize that... but you probably also realize that Hawaii has the highest number of persons per household (next to Utah) in the country so we are both fudging a bit to prove a point. This would actually be the useful data set. It shows median hourly wage. Hawaii - May 2013 OES State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
Either way, I told OpenD I'd stop jacking the thread so I will stop...
Another style I quite like is the way that Japan does it. Basically, you might have a lot of singe-family homes, but they are quite condensed together, with a ton of amenities nearby as well - i.e. 7-11 on the corner, a few tiny little restaurants taking up little space not far away as well either, on and on.
Yes, I agree. There's a planning concept some call "urban villages," and some call urban oasises" in which high-density housing is low to mid-rise mixed use throughout, providing plenty of walking opportunity to small shops and parks scattered throughout. Then at key intersections, spaced a little more than comfortable walking distance, larger shops and offices. Finally, at major intersections the largest buildings and stores, but in small clusters, rather than in sprawling malls.
The reason that low to mid-rise housing... say, maybe 5 stories, but certainly less than 10 stories... is important is that any taller than that the housing becomes depersonalized, because people can't personally relate to the scale of it, and it's hard to foster a sense of community.
Small shops and cafes and park spaces throughout does foster community, opportunities to socialize with others, and a sense of belonging and wellbeing.
Quote:
Oahu suffers from a lot of that typical American zoning all over the place, with residential here, and business there, with way too much empty space throughout. I mean, it works on the Mainland with unlimited land, but in Oahu, it needs to densify and become more convenient/walkable being there is near perfect climate, and limited space.
"American style" also forces driving everywhere for everything. I think it should be clear by now we need to roll that paradigm back.
High density, but not high-rise housing allows for good public transit options. What makes public transit work is convenience... it needs to be close, frequent, affordable, and reliable.
So what is clearly needed in the state is some real long range planning, and reevaluation of the ways current zoning laws have crippled meaningful development that could serve the real needs of the people who live here.
Here's a rundown on the six least affordable states for renters, and what a worker would need to earn per hour to afford a two-bedroom:
Hawaii: $31.54 per hour
D.C. $28.25 per hour
California: $26.04 per hour
Maryland: $24.94 per hour
New Jersey: $24.94 per hour
New York: $24.87 per hour
Still want to argue that Hawaii isnt the most expensive for housing or least affordable?
Personally i don't see a solution because really people are paying for location not value. We could have enough housing for everyone and still be the least affordable.
Wrong hawaii is more expensive. The average annual income of a worker in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metropolitan area is $62,680, with an average hourly wage of $30.13 per hour according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Hawaii average is $29,305 and Hr $17.75.
Plus the cost of food, utilities and taxes are higher in Hawaii.
Take my advice. Stop already please ok. Quit trying to steal from others and earn your own rep and credibility.
Wrong hawaii is more expensive. The average annual income of a worker in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metropolitan area is $62,680, with an average hourly wage of $30.13 per hour according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Hawaii average is $29,305 and Hr $17.75.
Another education lesson. Even you can't believe the average "worker" makes $29,305 in Hawaii.
Median household income in Honolulu County is $72,764 per Census.
San Francisco County has an almost identical median household income of $75,604 according the US Census. Yet, housing and rent is far more expensive in SF than Honolulu.
Yes, I agree. There's a planning concept some call "urban villages," and some call urban oasises" in which high-density housing is low to mid-rise mixed use throughout, providing plenty of walking opportunity to small shops and parks scattered throughout. Then at key intersections, spaced a little more than comfortable walking distance, larger shops and offices. Finally, at major intersections the largest buildings and stores, but in small clusters, rather than in sprawling malls.
The reason that low to mid-rise housing... say, maybe 5 stories, but certainly less than 10 stories... is important is that any taller than that the housing becomes depersonalized, because people can't personally relate to the scale of it, and it's hard to foster a sense of community.
Small shops and cafes and park spaces throughout does foster community, opportunities to socialize with others, and a sense of belonging and wellbeing.
"American style" also forces driving everywhere for everything. I think it should be clear by now we need to roll that paradigm back.
High density, but not high-rise housing allows for good public transit options. What makes public transit work is convenience... it needs to be close, frequent, affordable, and reliable.
So what is clearly needed in the state is some real long range planning, and reevaluation of the ways current zoning laws have crippled meaningful development that could serve the real needs of the people who live here.
I read the article, I guess my general response to you is that you are making quality of life arguments... and although I don't disagree with any of your statements about increased density, mixed-use developments, decreasing vehicle dependence etc... I don't see how that is going to bring rents down. It would certainly cut down on transportation costs (and time) for those who can live in walkable communities with access to public transit, employment centers, parks, beaches, restaurants etc... but people will be willing to pay more for that unit because their ancillary costs are lower.
The highest rent cities in the country are all either medium/high density with good job markets and great public transportation (NYC, DC, SF, CHI, BOS, SEA) or places in desirable locales due to weather and location (SD, LA, MIA, HNL) ... making a high demand area more livable is not going to bring the rents down if anything it will make those areas more desirable and drive demand (and cost) up in the long run unless you are able to either contractually control rents or limit immigration to the metro. New units would be built, people would fill them, then new people would want to move there. It doesn't just stop all of the sudden.
If you do somehow designate affordable units, how do you decide who gets those "affordable" units? How do you keep them affordable when market forces would allow them to be rented for more? If you limit them to current residents is that fair to the 200,000 or so native Hawaiians that are currently in other states (http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/econom.../01/014113.pdf) that have already moved away but would return if they could afford to live there? And is it fair to the millions of other Americans that send their federal tax dollars to support Hawaii each year and feel that they have as much right as anyone to move to a different state?
I want to be clear, I don't disagree with smart development or the need for more units... I am just skeptical that it will drive prices down in the long run. And I think the people that wrote the article imply that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Ching’s optimism in Civil Beat’s offices included a caveat. “The expectation, and the reality check, is that housing costs will never be cheap again,” he said. Not even, he added, on the North Shore.
Populations aren't static and as the supply changes so does the demand. There are tons of people that live in Ewa and work in town that are thinking "man, if I could afford a place in town I would get the hell out of here and lose this terrible commute". There are tons of former residents that have left and would return if the economics of living there changed. There are tons of people sitting in cold climate states right now, watching "Hawaii Life" on HGTV, thinking "man, if it wasn't so expensive to live out there I would just pack up and move to Hawaii". Hell, my wife and I might move back if it were more affordable (and public schools improved). She and our child are native Hawaiian (among other things), it seems like they (and the tens of thousands of other Native Hawaiians on the "mainland") should have the option of affordable housing in Hawaii if anyone should...
How would you address those concerns I raised? What do you think of similar concerns that WaikikiBoy raised earlier in the thread that seemingly went unnoticed or at least didn't get responded to?
Wrong hawaii is more expensive. The average annual income of a worker in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metropolitan area is $62,680, with an average hourly wage of $30.13 per hour according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Hawaii average is $29,305 and Hr $17.75.
Plus the cost of food, utilities and taxes are higher in Hawaii.
Take my advice. Stop already please ok. Quit trying to steal from others and earn your own rep and credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whtviper1
Another education lesson. Even you can't believe the average "worker" makes $29,305 in Hawaii.
Median household income in Honolulu County is $72,764 per Census.
San Francisco County has an almost identical median household income of $75,604 according the US Census. Yet, housing and rent is far more expensive in SF than Honolulu.
$29,305 is per capita income in Hawaii - which has nothing to do with people who work.
I get it, you guys are both arguing a specific point and cherrypicking datasets to prove that point. We all do it... but can we agree that they are both really expensive rental markets where wages and COL just don't add up for a lot of people?
Honolulu and San Francisco both have the issue of people being priced out so is it really a good contrast or is it just the same problem in a different high demand area?
Median household size is much smaller in SF. Honolulu is 2.96 people per household SF is 2.31 so more people living in a house will impact household income and median household income does not necessarily compare apples to apples. It may mean 3 incomes vs 2 in a lot of cases.
So lower wages plus larger household sizes in Honolulu probably do end up leading to roughly the same household income as SF. It just takes more people working per household to get there. Can we agree on that and move on?
It just takes more people working per household to get there.
If that were the case - Honolulu is a bargain compared to somewhere like San Francisco.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
