←back to thread

I wrote a book called “Crap Towns”. It seemed funny at the time

(samj.substack.com)
395 points url | 7 comments | 26 Apr 25 00:30 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
jdietrich ◴[26 Apr 25 03:50 UTC] No.43800782[source]▶
Twenty years ago, I think there was still a sense that we were collectively laughing with each other about the dullness of small towns. We all had the same shops - Woolworths, Dixons, Our Price, BHS. We all had a leisure centre that looked like everyone else's leisure centre. Some towns were better off than others, some towns had parts that you were better off avoiding after dark, but the majority of towns belonged to the same broad spectrum of bland mediocrity.

Today, I think it's clear who would be being laughed at by whom. The fates of places have so radically diverged that we no longer have a sense of collective identity. All of the places listed in Crap Towns are now unrecognisable, for better or worse. Those familiar shops are now gone; in some places they have been replaced by artisan bakeries and pop-up boutiques, while in others they have been replaced by charity shops or nothing at all. Half the leisure centres have shut and we all know which half.

The upper middle class might have become more humourless and puritanical, but I think that's a subconscious self-defence mechanism, a manifestation of noblesse oblige without real obligation. The working class are too angry to laugh and certainly aren't willing to be laughed at. We all know that we're teetering on the brink of a populist wave, but no-one in a position of power seems willing or able to do anything about it.

replies(15): >>43800919 #>>43800937 #>>43800971 #>>43801102 #>>43801155 #>>43801453 #>>43801591 #>>43801875 #>>43802160 #>>43804316 #>>43804445 #>>43805995 #>>43806112 #>>43806115 #>>43806135 #
JimDabell ◴[26 Apr 25 05:23 UTC] No.43801155[source]▶
This is what I was going to say. Back then, a book like this would have been perceived as the UK making fun of itself. Now it’s perceived as being cruel to those less fortunate.

I think it’s worth putting into context that the economy was doing great in the era this book was first published and huge progress was being made with things like homelessness, inequality, and poverty. It felt like the country had turned a corner from the lows of the 80s.

Since then, we’ve had the global financial crisis, local councils being bankrupted, and a huge rise in homelessness and inequality. The rich have more and the poor have less.

If you published that book today, the contents might be the same, but the story it tells would be quite different.

replies(3): >>43801414 #>>43801607 #>>43802226 #
jl6 ◴[26 Apr 25 06:35 UTC] No.43801414[source]▶
The Gini coefficient of the UK is about the same now as it was then:

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed/

What has actually changed? A whole bunch of other economic malaise, but also perceptions, amplified to your personal taste by social media.

replies(11): >>43801475 #>>43801476 #>>43801725 #>>43801766 #>>43801788 #>>43801915 #>>43802098 #>>43802516 #>>43802568 #>>43805141 #>>43805759 #
gnfargbl ◴[26 Apr 25 09:23 UTC] No.43802098{3}[source]▶
What has actually changed is that thirty years ago, the ratio between house prices and average earnings was about 4. By twenty years ago it had doubled and, most importantly, it has been at that level ever since with no real sign of dropping [1].

This is a structural change. We now have at least one, and perhaps two, generations of people who can't really alter their economic situation through hard work. That's the classic recipe for populism to thrive.

[1] https://www.schroders.com/en-gb/uk/individual/insights/what-...

replies(2): >>43802442 #>>43804517 #
ndsipa_pomu ◴[26 Apr 25 10:42 UTC] No.43802442{4}[source]▶
And as with so many modern issues, the housing problem was largely created by Thatcher - her Right to Buy policy.
replies(2): >>43802678 #>>43802769 #
1. barry-cotter ◴[26 Apr 25 11:48 UTC] No.43802769{5}[source]▶
Right to Buy does not explain why the same trend is visible all over the Anglosphere, from Dublin, Ireland, to Wellington, New Zealand, to Sydney, Australia, to Vancouver, Canada.

The people don’t want housing built near them and the politicians listened. Lower supply than demand for decades leads to steadily rising prices. If you want to see the alternative look to Tokyo, Austin or Seattle. Build so much housing that the returns on investment are low and people can afford housing.

replies(6): >>43802827 #>>43803184 #>>43803934 #>>43805541 #>>43809939 #>>43810239 #
2. fire_lake ◴[26 Apr 25 11:59 UTC] No.43802827[source]▶
The problem is potential residents don’t get a say - only the incumbents. The only solution is national level housing policy.
3. thechao ◴[26 Apr 25 12:56 UTC] No.43803184[source]▶
Austin? I thought my house was outrageously overpriced in 2014 when I bought it — compared to every other major city in Texas it was 2x/ft. It's tripled in "value" since then; new builds are quadruple. The rest of Texas is only up ~50% in the same period.
4. robinsonb5 ◴[26 Apr 25 14:28 UTC] No.43803934[source]▶
To me the biggest problem is the buy-to-let market, which means anything affordable is snapped up in seconds by people with money to invest, rather than people who just want a home to live in.

I think it's mainly a symptom of the unusualy low interest rates over the last 20 years: people have invested in residential property not because they particularly want to be landlords, but because it's perceived as the easiest way to get a better return on your money than a savings account that pays near zero interest.

I know of more than one person who's now looking to sell their rental property because they found out the hard way that "landlord" is actually a job title, not just the name of their savings account, that properties need to be maintained and that letting agents will find a way to swallow the vast majority of any profits.

I also know more than one person living in rented accommodation with appalling maintenance lapses. One had a shoddy roof repair last year which left the gutter missing. When the next rainstorm caused water to cascade down the outside wall and flow in above the back door, the letting agent had the nerve to shrug and say "old properties do that".

Another had a rotten wooden lintel above a street door scraped out, filled with expanding foam and painted over.

5. specialist ◴[26 Apr 25 17:35 UTC] No.43805541[source]▶
I vaguely recall a criticism of neoliberalism related to the emphasis on home ownership. Something about policy, homes being the primary vehicle for building wealth (vs say pensions), etc. And, ultimately, begetting NIMBYism.

I'm just repeating stuff I've heard. A lot of it feels like unintended consequences.

The NIMBYism part seems pretty clear.

If others have ideas, sources, rebuttals, please share.

6. mikhailfranco ◴[27 Apr 25 06:49 UTC] No.43809939[source]▶
Apart from the local housing supply/demand and NIMBYism there are 3 financial factors:

- artificially low interest rates (since 1990, and esp. since 2007)

- exemption from capital gains tax for primary residence, which is the main reason why property is used as a pension scheme

- mortgage interest tax relief which makes debt tax efficient; phased out in the UK, but still available in the US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mortgage_interest_deducti...

7. disgruntledphd2 ◴[27 Apr 25 07:55 UTC] No.43810239[source]▶
Ireland is never a good example of these trends being global. We're right next to the UK and basically copy their policies on a few years lag.

I think that it's important to note that the UK, Ireland and California have similarly destructive planning processes which end up ensuring that only property with high margins gets built.