In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build • Hacker News Board

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#101

Post by ktRolster » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

revelation wrote: post #94

ktRolster wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Also, there are serious environmental impacts that need to be considered every time you build a…

What does that mean, "without being placed in a school district"? Is the next school 20+ miles away?

It might be 20+ miles away, or your kids might go to different schools: http://abc7news.com/education/developer-suing-fremont-unifie...

The school district has designated this new area as unassigned, meaning the children will have a seat somewhere, but no guarantee of a close neighborhood school.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#102

Post by hodwik2 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #79

pj_mukh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a liberal, I agree. One problem, foreign money. It is mentioned in passing in the article but Vancouver (even with more sensible building laws) is still getting screwed because foreign money keeps pouring in.

This is a common intuitive argument, but the question that follows is why? Why must all housing be used? Could we not simply build more? Instead of looking at foreign purchases of homes as taking away an opportunity, it should be viewed as a stimulus program. The real problem seems to be that city planners are restricting new construction (to keep up home values, and allow them to 'shape' the city), and thus forcing…

The irony being that Vancouver real estate is only a great investment vehicle because they've had such strict building regulations, with the view corridors law.

Other cities are not such a sure investment, a spike in supply could destroy your capital overnight.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#103

Post by tommoor » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

dawhizkid wrote: post #90

Anyone else in SF notice rents have either stabilized or gone down a bit?

They have indeed, decent 1 bed in downtown is ~2800 now instead of 3000+ a year ago

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#104

Post by pj_mukh » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #79

pj_mukh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a liberal, I agree. One problem, foreign money. It is mentioned in passing in the article but Vancouver (even with more sensible building laws) is still getting screwed because foreign money keeps pouring in.

This is a common intuitive argument, but the question that follows is why? Why must all housing be used? Could we not simply build more? Instead of looking at foreign purchases of homes as taking away an opportunity, it should be viewed as a stimulus program. The real problem seems to be that city planners are restricting new construction (to keep up home values, and allow them to 'shape' the city), and thus forcing…

How would they "collaborate" if the supply was higher? I think the point of the activist was that the demand is far too high (almost double what would be caused by normal incoming techies).

My worry is that this investment is "flight-y" (they are not actually residents) if we double up supply and this investment leaves, SF becomes a Detroit that looks like Manhattan?

P.S: Obviously, increasing supply to meet actual renters'/new residents' demand is a no-brainer.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#105

Post by ktRolster » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

skewart wrote: post #91

joe_the_user wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYTimes had an article on an absolutely unregulated city in India. Sewage bumped in vacant lots is a problem. Safety outside developed areas is a problem. Still, removing parking requirements might be a good thing if creates incentive for public transit. Removing single family home mandates seems like it would be great for avoiding sprawl. But as you say, just these two. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/as…

You're making a massive leap from legalizing more different kinds of development in the US to a totally unregulated city in India. It's basically a strawman fallacy. The article clearly talks about a lack of many basic government authority and services way beyond zoning codes, like electricity and criminal justice. I think the lack of reliable power and sweage treatment might have a lot more to do with it being chaot…

If you think builders won't screw home-purchasers every chance they get, then you don't know many home builders.

There's a reason we have housing inspections at so many steps in the building process.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#106

Post by schwarrrtz » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

pj_mukh wrote: post #17

hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

As a liberal, I agree. One problem, foreign money. It is mentioned in passing in the article but Vancouver (even with more sensible building laws) is still getting screwed because foreign money keeps pouring in.

Yup. One possible solution we're considering in Vancouver is some kind of residency requirement - for example, if you don't live in your property (or rent it out) for more than x% of the year, you get penalized on your property taxes or something.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#107

Post by raldi » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

tomjacobs wrote: post #97

12,000 people moved to San Francisco in 2014. How many new units of housing were built? Almost 4,000! What housing crisis? https://medium.com/@TomPJacobs/what-housing-crisis-3c0568a5d...

Actually, 64,000 people moved to San Francisco in 2014.

7,000 moved into the 4,000 new housing units that were built.

5,000 crowded in with existing residents.

52,000 displaced 52,000 existing residents.

Source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/exposing-special-interests-room-ba...

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#108

Post by paulsutter » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

Bad zoning is really bad, but zoning is useful.

What you need is mixed offices and housing with street level retail. Coffee shops, restaurants, places to go. You also want underground transportation because parking wastes space, cars interfere with pedestrians, and stoplights are a pathetic drag on movement.

Self-driving electric cars could have high utilization for underground tunnels. Like a subway, with stations in dense areas and on/off ramps to highways. Self driving cars can keep to closer tolerances (narrower tunnels, shorter following distance) and electric cars mean simpler ventilation (no carbon monoxide).

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#109

Post by hodwik2 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

tamana wrote: post #66

hodwik2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please explain why the foreign investment is a problem? Every time I've heard this discussed, it's mostly been people saying "The CHINESE are buying up houses" with a racist glint in their eyes. I don't get the impression these people would be as worried if the foreign investors were of French or Irish parentage. If I've misunderstood the issue, people correct me.

We could test your idea if there were any French or Irish investors. Or even American investors.

There are, but they're harder to count.

In most studies the Chinese investors are counted by their foreign names. There is no public data on nationality of real estate owners.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#110

Post by protomyth » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

ktRolster wrote: post #37

hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Also, there are serious environmental impacts that need to be considered every time you build a…

> That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school.

Perhaps abolishing the whole idea of school districts and assigning kids to schools via address as opposed to parental decision. The whole pay for schools via property tax and local levies has a pretty big negative impact on students from low income neighborhoods. Its classism baked into the system. Backpack tuitions would right a lot of wrongs in the education of our children.