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

211–220 of 380 posts

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

#211

Post by Houshalter »

freyr wrote: post #207
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.…

On the one hand, you have established residents pushing back against expansion, construction, and denser housing -- perhaps to preserve what they value in their community, or perhaps out of personal interest and to drive up their property values. On the other, you have a massive influx of tech workers who have convinced themselves that they must live in this small, overpriced city for their basic livelihood, and that…

Man "entitlement" is such a weird word, and such a weird way to frame the issue. There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone. And being told they're not allowed to because rich people like the aesthetic. There's poor people being priced out of their own city because of this. Who's entitled?

And this is hardly the first time a US city has experienced growth.

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

#212

Post by jessaustin »

BurningFrog wrote: post #137
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…

There are a zillion other things separating India from California. Compare SF to unzoned Houston instead.

I guess we're lucky that "Somalia" wasn't invoked for the nine hundredth time.

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

#213

Post by raldi »

timr wrote: post #209
raldi wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That article says that 64k people were born or moved here, and that 63k moved out or died, for a net population gain of 1k. No, it really doesn't. Could you quote the part of the article that leads you to that conclusion? Here's the quote from the article that leads me to a different conclusion (that population growth was ten times higher): "In order to make room for the 52,000 people who come here each year that a…

I was wrong about the 1k net -- that's the article's quote from Aaron Peskin, which I read as their summary. But your original comment ("64,000 in 2014") is still way off: “This official census data [the American Community Survey] shows a one-year in-migration of 63,991 people, with an out-migration of 62,757 residents — a net population increase of 1,234.” That's the article's quote from Peskin. The article contends…

> Peskin's numbers look low, but your original claim ("64,000 in 2014") is wrong by a factor of >500%.

You misread my comment. I never claimed a net gain of 64,000 people. I said that 64,000 people moved in in 2014, 52,000 moved out, for a net gain of 12,000 people. This is exactly in line with your census numbers.

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

#214

Post by fizx »

skewart wrote: post #185
Animats wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Paris's characteristic "beautiful" architecture is six stories tall stone, SF's is three stories tall wood. Unfortunately SF was started on a major fault, and probably without nearby quarries (which would be insane to use in an earthquake zone anyways).

So now we're stuck in a dichotomy between 4+ stories steel and glass, and the "original" SF Edwardian architecture, which doesn't scale as well as Paris's stone.

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

#215

Post by pfarnsworth »

drumdance wrote: post #208
pfarnsworth wrote: post #206

The problem is that the Bay Area has too much money. Period, end of story. You can't fix things by going unregulated. Douglas Rushkoff talks about how Internet companies these days are extractive, and Facebook is the prime example of this. (I'm not demonizing Facebook in any way, I respect the hell out of them.) The nature of how they make money is that they have users from around the world, and all their money essen…

So do you feel like Saudia Arabia is extracting money from the West? And while we worry about being dependent on foreign energy sources, should they be worried about foreign money sources? Google and Facebook succeed in part because they attract the best engineers. Those people aren't going to move to the midwest or wherever just because it's "better" for the economy. It's called trade.

Look at the inordinate amount of wealth built up in Saudi Arabia along with its massive income inequality and then you tell me.

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

#216

Post by ng12 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #201
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.…

There are two things that continually surprise me about life in the modern, Internet-enabled age... two things that I would never have dreamed would happen, if you'd asked the 1996 version of me what American life would be like in 2016. One is our increasing indulgence in irrationality, to the extent that we almost celebrate it. I would never have guessed that hard-right social conservatism would still be a dominant…

The problem with your analysis is that it undervalues the benefits of living and working in a major city, especially as a young person. I don't really want to remote -- I want to get out, interact with people, take a coffee break and people watch, grab drinks with coworkers. I want to meet people my age doing interesting things. I want to go out drinking/clubbing/whatever without worrying about driving home after.

Admittedly part of the problem is I, like most of my generation, grew up in the suburbs. Once I turned 18 I couldn't wait to get out.

I could work remote and move back to my hometown or Missouri or Thailand -- but why would I? I'd be sacrificing much of my current life to do so. Of course my opinion would probably change if I had kids, but for now I live in a city for a reason.

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

#217

Post by gorkemyurt »

Article doesn't mention that none of the developers are trying to raze down beautiful Victorian houses to build skyscrapers. Most of SF, West of Van Ness avenue, remains untouched, even the super ugly single family houses in Richmond and Sunset. All the development is happening in Eastern Neighborhoods; SOMA, Mission Bay and Central Waterfront.

A very small percentage of the construction overall that's happening in the Mission district and Potrero hill is creating all this anti development noise. Even in these neighborhoods developers just want to build housing in underutilized land..

like this laundromat: http://sf.curbed.com/2014/5/23/10095908/38-housing-units-pro...

or a graffiti lined warehouse: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/201...

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

#218

Post by Houshalter »

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…

The lack of school district is the most hilarious objection. If you live in a rural area, then the government is required to send a bus miles out of it's way to get your kids to school.

Yet people living in one of the most populated cities in the US apparently live too far away from schools and shouldn't be allowed to build.

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

#219

Post by beachstartup »

willholloway wrote: post #182

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 o…

i know of people doing this in vermont and oregon.
Post reply on HN