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

#181

Post by brianwawok » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

swagv1 wrote: post #165

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…

But this is old news. The vilified industry is different, but they were saying many of the same things in the 1990s. Then as now, not everyone is entitled to a nice two-bedroom San Francisco flat for $2000/month. Tokyo has figured that out. Moscow has figured that out. London has figured that out. Why are San Franciscans so slow to catch on?

The people already owning in SF have a different and arguably better life than the current people in Tokyo or Moscow. Classic argument where people on the inside would prefer to keep it exclusive.

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

#182

Post by willholloway » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:27 PM UTC

With the secular urbanization trend created by the consolidation of jobs in the city for work, contrarians that can work remotely have an incredible opportunity for easy living.

I've given up on living in major metro areas and the rat race it entails.

I tried it in a few different cities, and it was fun in my 20's. But now at 31, I want to semi-retire, do some remote consulting and work on my ideas.

There are a lot of places that let you do this, Southeastern Connecticut is one. You don't need much money at all, and it's very doable for competent developers.

Get a good deal on a multi-family house, let the tenant(s) pay all your housing costs.

Find some remote work. Find someone with a sailboat that needs to sell quick, get a deal. Spend the summer on the water. Keep a small nut, stay free.

Take Amtrak to NYC, or Boston, get hotel rooms for short trips or find someone that will cut a deal for a room mate that only wants to come in a few weekends a month for all your city excitement needs.

Make some friends in Providence and take the short drive on 95 to play disk golf with them or go to concerts.

You can rent a million+ waterfront home for the fall, winter and spring for I had always wanted to take a startup all the way to a big exit for the FU money I thought I needed to be free. It turns out you don't even really needs millions to live life on your own terms if you do it in the right place.

If you do it right you can spend 1.5-2x Thailand/Vietnam digital nomad costs in quiet, scenic, pockets of the Northeast Megalopolis.

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

#183

Post by infosample » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:28 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #130

lukasm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 loca…

I'm not sure citation is needed to prove the origin and consequences of segregation. Black people could not live in white neighborhoods, black people could not go to school with white people until 1960.

Whether classist, racist, or coincidence, the results are obvious.

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

#184

Post by ktRolster » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:28 PM UTC

swiley wrote: post #112

joe_the_user wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with children move into places without schools because they're short-sighted or because other priorities are higher for them. Some portion of people with children may not care at all about them. That's one reason why there's public education, to prevent parent's lack of concern being something that cause a child to have nearly no future. Of course, such considerations seem to be already going away, so sure we'…

Homeschooling is underrated honestly.

It's a lot of work though. You're not going to do it with both parents working.

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

#185

Post by skewart » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #173

skewart wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Paris has a height limit. It only applies within the city proper, though. So, at the end of the Champs-Élysées, there is now La Defense, just outside the city limit and full of skyscrapers. La Defense is now referred to as the financial center of Paris, much to the annoyance of Parisians.

Sure. The point is that Paris is about three times as dense as SF and it still is widely considered a "beautiful" city.

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

#186

Post by Animats » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:32 PM UTC

SF just needs to get 60,000 people to move out to get back to 2000.

One possibility is to take over Colma, the city of cemeteries. Living population 1,792, area 1.9 square miles. South San Francisco could take more apartments. South San Francisco has an abandoned railyard, a demolished ballpark, and a large dump.

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

#187

Post by someguydave » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:33 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…

Totally agreed. In fact, it turns out that all the ecological, economic, and cultural arguments raised against removing zoning are thinly veiled rent-seeking.

Incumbent property owners benefit immensely when you must seek government permission to build on your land (to what standard: different conversation).

In then end, they are gonna shoot themselves in the foot as the big tech companies become rational and move away from san francisco toward more reasonable growing cities like Denver.

Here's a study that demonstrates the control existing homeowners have over zoning policy: http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/

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

#188

Post by anarazel » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

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…

Berlin? Denser than San Francisco? Huh? I just moved from the former to the latter, and I'm pretty sure that that's not the case, and Wikipedia backs me up (~4,000/km2 vs 7,124/km2).

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

#189

Post by cderwin » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

mountaineer22 wrote: post #9

cpitman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't this be covered by property taxes and the additional income tax of the new residents?

Not all states have income tax, and why should all existing real property owners subsidize the new developer's impact on the existing shared infrastructure?

Because the impact is not that of the developer; it's not the developer's kids that will be going to the local school, it's not the developer who will be using the local infrastructure to commute to work everyday. It's the homeowner. The cost of the homeowner's burden on the public infrastructure should rest firmly on the homeowner's shoulders, not on the person who happened to build and sell a home to him.

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

#190

Post by nvader » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #108

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 i…

I really like this idea of a subterranean highway that houses a self-driving fleet of electric cars. It seems like it would let commuters bring their own certified cars to use the system, while passengers who simply want a ride between dedicated stops could take an electric bus, perhaps.