Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

291–300 of 380 posts

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

#291
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's somewhat a matter of perspective. Although I'd point out that it's not just rich people who appreciate San Francisco's aesthetic.

Have you met poor people who care about vertical zoning laws in San Francisco or are you just assuming they exist and speaking for them?

Are you suggesting there's no gray area between rich and poor?

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

#292
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).

Density isn't really the problem in San Francisco. The problem is available housing. Relatively speaking San Francisco is far less dense than many other cities. But these other cities don't have housing shortages.

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

#293
post #79
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…

You can buy a house way faster than you can build a new one. According to Rousseauian liberalism, a proper government exists for the good of the people whom it represents, and foreign oligarchs do not represent the people in the cities where they are buying property. It’s bad for democracy.

I hear that Vancouver looks well-built, with lots of huge buildings, but come evening, and a whole lot of the windows in those high-rises remain stubbornly dark.

In other words, I can’t afford to couch-surf until all the foreign capital has been exhausted buying luxury condos. I need housing right now.

Besides restrictions on supply so that it doesn’t match demand, I think the problem here is the whole idea of your house as your major investment. It seemed nice to the earlier generations, who could buy a house with 1 year of earnings and sell it for 10 years of earnings, and they in turn could sell it for 40 years of earnings, but this pyramid scheme eventually has to collapse. When only the bank can own a house, then housing prices have to go down, and the poor people who put all their investment into home equity will be the ones who suffer from losing their money.

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

#294
When I moved to the Bay area from France, I was very surprised by the complete lack of organized government at the regional level. Decisions, planning an budgeting seem to happen either at the San Francisco level, or at the California level. That is a huge gap! The result is that nothing ever seems to get done at the scale of the bay, and SF is left to deal with a problem bigger than one city. The fact that SF seems to get blamed for everything, without any visible cooperation with Palo Alto, Mountain View or Cupertino, is absurd.

Contrast this with France which, for all its flaws, has an intermediate level of government called "region" with actual decision-making power and budgets. The result is an exceptionally good transportation infrastructure and overall decent housing situation in the "greater Paris" region, which has 3x the population density of SF and a much larger population than the bay overall.

If the city of Paris alone were left to deal with the challenges of a fast-growing population hub, then there would be no counter-balance to the natural inter-city politics and they too would have a non-existent transportation network and an embarrassing lack of adequate housing.

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

#295
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…

San Francisco is going to eventually collapse under its own weight. It's already extremely expensive to run a business there but if VC's get tighter with their purses going forward then it's going to be hard to start a new business there when your employee costs are so ridiculously high that you're burning at a 2x rate compared to your competitors in NYC, Boston, Chicago, Austin, Seattle etc (And yes I know some of those are closer than others to SF prices).

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

#296
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"entitlements" as used as a framing for this issue boils down essentially to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

Out of many fallacies, this one is among the top 5 I consider most insidious. By taking advantage of our collective desire for compromise, the un-empathetic, even the sociopathic, can appear reasonable, or at least as reasonable as the side they're vilifying. "No, brah, both sides are wrong! Let's get to that middle ground, which just so happens to allow me to trample upon other human beings!"

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

#297
post #82
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…

That does sound great. Where in Japan?

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

#298

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.

I appreciate you telling us that you can't tell us (as much as everyone will appreciate this equally insightful comment).

lalala12399 is using an idiom in the American English language.

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In my experience, San Francisco is a beautiful city when viewed from a distance, but rather unfriendly and dirty up close.

Really? The view from Sausalito is mistakable for that of a garbage dump.
Post reply on HN