Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 380 posts

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

#141

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

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…

Vacant houses tend to be vandalized, infested by pests, and otherwise fall into disrepair (e.g. there's no one there to notice a plumbing leak). This is less of an issue for individual vacant units in multi-tenant buildings.

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

#142

Post by rconti »

tamana wrote: post #95
lalala12399 wrote: post #22

I can't tell you how many people I know making very good money in tech and finance living in rent-controlled units paying ridiculously low rents in SF.

How? They must be illegal since those aren't longtime residents.

Why, and does it matter? I have no idea how rent control works. Clearly it's a silly, broken idea, because, I, too, know people of people who have moved into rent-controlled units and benefited from it. Whether it's legal or not, well, who cares. It happens, and it points out why rent control is stupid.

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

#143

Post by rconti »

joe_the_user wrote: post #61
salimmadjd wrote: post #50

SV is becoming a real estate business instead of tech. When you have 50% or more of salaries spent on rent or mortgage then so much of the revenue generated is just lost into real estate instead of innovation growth, investment and R&D. I don't understand why FB, Apple, Google, etc. do not lobby hard the local cities and push to build 100,000 new units. It'll bring the rent or house prices down and it will allow many…

Facebook has attempted to build more housing and sometimes succeeded. Even a billion dollar company apparently has less influence than many people owning million dollar homes and living and voting in the city. It will eventually be up to groups like BARF to sue cities that let business build while refusing to provide housing for the employees of said businesses. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27717752/faceboo…

Anton Menlo will be opening shortly just 2 miles from FBHQ.

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

#144

Post by saeranv »

nickff wrote: post #63
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 you say assumes that people want to purchase anything a developer builds, anywhere, at any price. In reality, market forces encourage developers to build nice homes in good areas well served by various amenities (which are publicly and privately available). The problem is that development is so tightly restricted in most areas, that new residents have few options. In short, you are blaming the market for the res…

I agree with the sentiment of vastly deregulating urban zoning conditions. However there are a couple of places where the market forces will lead to poor long-term community development. For example, outside of urban areas the market tends to incentivize suburban sprawl. In Toronto, you can see this in the GTA region like Markham or Brampton: vast tracts of cookie-cutter residential neighborhoods, without any consideration for integration with mixed use. Zoning does compound this, with density limitations, and parking requirements. However, the developers are perfectly happy with the high return on investment they can get building cheap single-family houses.

I also abhor zoning and what it does to cities. But look at Japanese cities to see what good, minimal zoning can achieve, without prohibitive height limits, nonexclusive zoning etc.

More on Japanese zoning: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

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

#145

Post by BurningFrog »

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.

But the reason foreign money is pouring in to SF real estate rather than a zillion alternatives is that it's a good investment.

And the reason for that is precisely the very restrictive policies designed to maximize real estate value.

So if you legalize housing construction, the foreign money problem will disappear as well.

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

#146

Post by Tempest1981 »

mrep wrote: post #62
salimmadjd wrote: post #50

SV is becoming a real estate business instead of tech. When you have 50% or more of salaries spent on rent or mortgage then so much of the revenue generated is just lost into real estate instead of innovation growth, investment and R&D. I don't understand why FB, Apple, Google, etc. do not lobby hard the local cities and push to build 100,000 new units. It'll bring the rent or house prices down and it will allow many…

They've tried before and it hardly ever works. I remember reading an article a few years ago about google trying to build 1000+ housing units in mountain view and the town shut them down as they didn't want the town to become controlled by Googlers. Edit: @joe_the_user posted a link about facebook trying to

Mountain View has over 70 developments planned -- check this out: http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?... (39 page PDF, but has some pictures.)

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

#147

Post by BurningFrog »

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'…

They don't. There are over 7 billion people not trying to move to SF.

About 100.000 new housing units would probably fix the current crisis.

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

#148

Post by BurningFrog »

salimmadjd wrote: post #50

SV is becoming a real estate business instead of tech. When you have 50% or more of salaries spent on rent or mortgage then so much of the revenue generated is just lost into real estate instead of innovation growth, investment and R&D. I don't understand why FB, Apple, Google, etc. do not lobby hard the local cities and push to build 100,000 new units. It'll bring the rent or house prices down and it will allow many…

They do lobby as hard as they can.

The result shows that you actually can not buy legislation that easy.

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

#149

Post by imaginenore »

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…

> remove all limits

Really? Like let builders cut down all trees in Central Park, NY, and build some more skyscrapers?

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

#150

Post by skewart »

rconti wrote: post #140

The Times selected as an "NYTimes Pick" a comment from someone in Berlin who absolutely makes my blood boil. (S)he starts off by stating privilege as a 5th-generation San Franciscan (obviously, the kind who DESERVE to live in the city), and who fled in the tech boom of the 90s. The usual rant about whitewashing and yuppies and artists being pushed out ensues. Of course they don't want more housing built, because then…

Yeah, the comment section on that article is pretty sad. The number of people whose argument against building more housing is a fear that it will make the city "ugly" is astounding. It's mind-numbingly selfish and greedy to think that a family should barely be able to make ends meet, and children should spend less time with their long-commuting parents, just so that SF can meet your personal aesthetic sensibilities. Look, I love architecture and design, and I love beautiful cities, and I would love to remake all of North America according to my personal taste. But I'm not so entitled as to think that my occaisional aesthetic pleasure is more important than someone else's basic livelihood. Also, not to mention, the whole argument that density has to be ugly and "unliveable" is utterly ridiculous and false - there are lots of dense cities that are widely considered beautiful - Paris and Barcelona come to mind.

/rant

As the article says, it's easy to get worked up about this stuff. I suspect the "but it will be ugly" commenters are actually well-intentioned.

Post reply on HN