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

241–250 of 380 posts

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

#241

Post by rconti »

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…

Well, the 90s were probably the peak of suburban living, before people decided the hours of commuting per day and countless gallons of gasoline burned were not really worth it. So people moved to where the jobs are. (considering that most people still cannot fully work remotely).

Also, as you point out, living in urban areas is a luxury good; as wealth increases (for a large enough segment of the population, at least), they're choosing to use that wealth to live somewhere a bit more exciting than a field in Kansas. I agree they shouldn't complain that it costs more than a house in flyover country, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't complain about a city making it unnecessarily difficult to add housing stock. Those who already live there are, of course, more entitled than anyone to complain about their lack of options when they get kicked out of their rent-controlled unit.

Funny anecdote about "north coast of Alaska." My dad visited the oilfields up there a few times as part of his job. In the early 90s I got a phone call from him on a satellite phone as he watched a midnight pickup softball game after the summer solstice. The delay in the phone connection was really entertaining and fascinating for me as a young-ish kid. I shudder to think how expensive that call was at the time, per minute.

20 years later, I rode up there on my motorcycle. I unclipped my iPhone 3GS from my handlebars, had a 5 bar 3G signal, and called my dad, effectively for free. It wasn't even roaming, because I was in the US! I didn't have to know how it worked, and in fact I still don't. It certainly wasn't a laggy satellite connection. Amazing how times change.

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

#242

Post by brianmcconnell »

Twenty year SF resident here, and property owner. I am consistently amazed at how selfish a lot of people here are. They'll talk about how pro-housing they are, until someone bulldozes a teardown home on their street and _gasp_ builds infill development.

I am one of the last single family homes on my street, and as much as I would like it to remain a quaint little street, it needs denser development, so I've never complained about the condos going up. My property rights end at my property line (simple concept but one that confounds weak minds who can't be bothered to read the fine print when they bought their place).

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

#243

Post by rconti »

anarazel wrote: post #203
rconti wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks -- Cannot find my original source but perhaps it was a difference in how they measured land area.

Berlin used to have a lot more inhabitants, about 1 million more around around 1940 than now. Not all of the living areas from back then still exist, but it means there are some reserves. In addition to that, while there's obviously some pressure against just moving outward, it's in the middle of flat, mostly unused, land. Not comparable to SF's space constrained situation. (Oh, and I do miss Berlin)

I visited once, and loved it.

Of course, my expectation was that it was more dense than SF, so when I found a source that confirmed it, I was all too willing to trust it. But in retrospect (based on your protest on the matter), the housing itself was quite dense in many areas, but there were many parks and large spaces of open areas between the housing blocks.

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

#244

Post by guard-of-terra »

siculars wrote: post #179

The solution is terminally simple: _All_ new development must include 10% to 20% of units to low income people. Everywhere. SF. NYC. LA. etc. The end.

How would those low income people be determined? Lottery? First come first serve?

I think that this solution in actually employed in Russia, and it kind of works in half-assed way, but does not produce any miracles.

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

#245

Post by wwweston »

BurningFrog wrote: post #145
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.

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.

For a few years, I've been challenging people when this discussion comes up to give examples of situations where increasing housing supply resulted in falling prices. As far as I can tell, without a fundamental demand drop, this rarely if ever happens.

And you've hit on one of the reasons: the investors who want in want into a market where real estate commands the prices it does.

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

#246

Post by meddlepal »

makomk wrote: post #159
hodwik wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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.

Suppose there were no green space initiatives. Then the only green space you could be sure of having would be your own garden. How would this discourage sprawl?

You can pick a spot between two extremes...

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

#247

Post by kafkaesq »

brianmcconnell wrote: post #242

Twenty year SF resident here, and property owner. I am consistently amazed at how selfish a lot of people here are. They'll talk about how pro-housing they are, until someone bulldozes a teardown home on their street and _gasp_ builds infill development. I am one of the last single family homes on my street, and as much as I would like it to remain a quaint little street, it needs denser development, so I've never co…

My property rights end at my property line (simple concept but one that confounds weak minds who can't be bothered to read the fine print when they bought their place).

Zoning is a bit more complex than that. And isn't simply about "property rights."

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

#248

Post by kafkaesq »

rayiner wrote: post #232
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.…

Also, San Francisco is already ugly. It's not like you'd be razing historically important beaux arts buildings to build more.

Many would disagree.

But if you think it's ugly, that's fine -- you don't need to visit or live there.

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

#249

Post by NotSammyHagar »

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…

It sounds appealing to have no building limits. How about if I want to start fraking on my land near your land? Cities in Texas like Dallas don't like this, so they passed laws saying you can't have hydraulic fracturing on the land in the city, because it causes small earthquakes and could cause pollution. Guess what happened, the state legislature passed a new law saying cities couldn't pass laws against frakking.

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

#250

Post by throwaway2048 »

hodwik2 wrote: post #109
tamana wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because local governments do everything they can to avoid collecting specific data in vancouver.
Post reply on HN