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

#121

Post by hodwik » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

skewart wrote: post #116

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…

> Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. This. Outlawing dense, urban growth does real harm to people's lives, and to the environment. It's one of the clearest examples of xenophobia and greed coallescing to extract wealth and concentrate it in the hands of the privileged few. Just because it's, say, a crowd of mostly Bernie Sanders supporters pushing to…

>"and to the environment"

That's a great point, and one that has been largely missed here.

I used to live in a city with aggressive green-space initiatives. (85% of the city had to be green space.) Locals would tell me that it was "good for the environment".

I'm sorry, but no. Green space initiatives force sprawl. They're bad for the environment, full stop.

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

#122

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:50 PM UTC

mountaineer22 wrote: post #23

hodwik2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The students escaping the ghetto will still be getting a measurably better education on the strained suburban school than they will at the ghetto school they're currently stuck in.

Does "escaping" imply segregating one's child from the "ghetto school"?

All parents who love their children would "segregate" them from awful schools if they could. The whole point of thread originator was that geographical restrictions are more unfair to the poor than they are to anyone else.

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

#123

Post by narrator » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

Serious question: why does everyone have to live in San Francisco? There are lots and lots of cheaper places to live and work, but it seems there is something that only San Francisco can do that everywhere else can't. Why aren't city planners working on creating that special "whateveritis" in their city as fast as possible?

I don't want any pat answers like "the people are there" or "the jobs are there" because that's basically a tautology saying "everybody is there because everybody is there".

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

#124

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

tamana wrote: post #67

mc32 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not because the buyers are Chinese it's mostly due to the volume of purchases affecting the market so directly. They could be "Newfies" if you had as many driving up prices so dramatically, you'd get an outcry. It happens in the US in Portland you'll occasionally see signs about No Californians. It doesn't help that many of those are not "regular" Chinese but people with money and connected, the Chinese .1%ers,…

They aren't buying houses becuase they might need to live in them. They could rent anywhere easily. They are buying them as investments.

In many cases the younger generation changes citizenship. The whole family could leverage that in a pinch.

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

#125

Post by Tiksi » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:56 PM UTC

shoegumfoot wrote: post #72

extrapickles wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much the only zoning needed is low noise and high noise (airport, late night music venues, etc). All the other things that tag along with zoning are not needed. The only reason for noise zoning is to prevent people from moving next to an existing high noise activity and pushing it out. Zoning laws effectively turn into a tax on new comers to an area as things like "protected views", height restrictions just ad…

Zoning isn't needed just for low and high noise. You also have to consider factors like industrial safety. For example, fertilizer[1] and pesticide[2] plants must be built a certain distance away from populated areas. There are, of course, many other industrial processes that also require a safety perimeter, but those are two that come immediately to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_exp…

While I haven't though enough on the issue to have much of an opinion on abolishing zoning completely, zoning seems like the wrong way of dealing with hazardous companies like that regardless. There is already an extensive permitting process and a mountain of regulation that you'd have to go through to open one of these companies, so why not enforce the safety perimeter through that?

It makes more sense to me to place the restrictions on the company/factory than the land itself, and building permits are already used by municipalities to negotiate location, etc.

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

#126

Post by Klinky » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:56 PM UTC

skewart wrote: post #116

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…

> Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. This. Outlawing dense, urban growth does real harm to people's lives, and to the environment. It's one of the clearest examples of xenophobia and greed coallescing to extract wealth and concentrate it in the hands of the privileged few. Just because it's, say, a crowd of mostly Bernie Sanders supporters pushing to…

Simply saying "let the market decide who is worthy of housing" is also classicist and racist. Unless you explicitly define the market has to cater to "X income brackets", "Y racial demographics", and "Z% needs to be for personal housing, not commercial or industrial usage", you're basically saying "whoever has the most money". How is this better and more inclusive to the poor and minorities?

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

#127

Post by hodwik » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

nihonde wrote: post #82

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…

Japan (which is not a perfect analogue) handles several of these issues nicely, IMO. I live in a city of a few million people. Nearly every building is multi-tenant. Even homes are designed with two- or three-generation residents in mind. Large, functional apartment complexes are the norm. Many people live in so-called one-room apartments because they're affordable and available. I'm not familiar with zoning rules he…

In Japan in most places the height limit for wooden structure is 4 stories (higher than most of the US), they have fewer restrictions on building spacing, and fewer restrictions on how much sq. feet per person is required.

That makes it possible to have much denser towns.

They're one step closer to the ideal.

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

#128

Post by ekianjo » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

nihonde wrote: post #82

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…

Japan (which is not a perfect analogue) handles several of these issues nicely, IMO. I live in a city of a few million people. Nearly every building is multi-tenant. Even homes are designed with two- or three-generation residents in mind. Large, functional apartment complexes are the norm. Many people live in so-called one-room apartments because they're affordable and available. I'm not familiar with zoning rules he…

Im in japan too and there are very clear zoning rules per area. There are very clear bedtowns with no industries or commerces but its probably not near where you live. There is very little freedom to build new things that is why you get extremely expensive apartments and rents. This prevents people to live on their own unless they are married and get enough income for that.

And its the first time i hear someone say that 30 years limit for buildings is a good thing. In practice they use shitty and cheap materials, have no isolation so its too hot in summer and cold in winter and it looks like shit. They dont build anything to last and its not a good aspect since its wasteful.

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

#129

Post by city41 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #123

Serious question: why does everyone have to live in San Francisco? There are lots and lots of cheaper places to live and work, but it seems there is something that only San Francisco can do that everywhere else can't. Why aren't city planners working on creating that special "whateveritis" in their city as fast as possible? I don't want any pat answers like "the people are there" or "the jobs are there" because that'…

But everyone is here because everyone is here. The cycle likely started with National Semiconductor and grew from there.

For me, I'm including Silicon Valley in "here". I live in San Jose and it's unbelievably crowded down here too.

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

#130

Post by tzs » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 6:01 PM UTC

lukasm wrote: post #111

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…

"school district" - this is exactly what OP is suggesting. Another obstacle with classist and racist origin. It really blows my mind why some countries have such incredibly stupid laws. Can you image a law when you can buy only in one shop if you are from a certain district? That would suck tremendously. No competition.

Do you have a citation for the claim that school districts have classist and racist origin?

As far as I can tell school districts arose at a time when it was completely impractical for children, other than those whose parents were wealthy enough to send them away to boarding school, to attend a school that was not local, and at a time when it was generally believed that local government should be responsible for local services (sanitation, roads, water, schools, etc). I don't see how at that time they could have been used for racist and classist purposes, so doubt that their origin was such.