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

#311

Post by rsync » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 1:45 AM 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…

"Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bathrooms. Outlaw Zoning entirely."

It's called Houston. You should go there and experience it. My personal favorite was the convenience store-cum-liquor mart being run out of a residential front porch.

I'm not judging. I am merely pointing out that what you describe has been done in the United States and that you should go there and check it out.

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

#312

Post by anarazel » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 1:47 AM UTC

disbelief wrote: post #292

anarazel wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I didn't bring density up - I was just responding to the Berlin vs. SF comparison on density. But I do think that available building space can ease a lot of the discussions. Having to tear down low density (and possibly quality) housing, build in somebody's backyard, cover up small specks of green, et al. allows for far much more backlash/nimby than if there's copious unused/undeveloped land.

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

#313

Post by blackbagboys » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 1:52 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #239

fizx wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

DC's architecture is converging on 12-14 stories steel and glass and it looks great while allowing a lot of density.

Speak for yourself. Considerations of urban policy and planning aside, I think the massive identical condo blocks popping up everywhere, and especially the developments in Navy Yard, are awful to look at and unpleasant to live around.

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

#314

Post by maxsilver » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 2:10 AM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #205

skewart wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it works better in practice. Consider other markets where supply is not artificially constrained. There are no laws specifying how many cars can be manufactured, or how they can be priced. Manufacturers are able to make cars at a wide range of price points. And the used car market let's people buy at incredibly low prices. Or consider soap. We "let the market decide who is worthy" of soap, and yet there is no…

Apples and oranges. The new car market dealership model actually obfuscates the price so much that prices can vary wildly by thousands of dollars for the same model and package options. It is a very consumer unfriendly process. You could even make a claim that regulation is partially to blame for this. The used car market is full of scams, and has the used-car salesmen ever been seen as a trustworthy individual? The…

> The new car market dealership model actually obfuscates the price so much that prices can vary wildly by thousands of dollars for the same model and package options. It is a very consumer unfriendly process.

This is even more true for housing, where prices vary wildly by tens of thousands (or occasionally hundreds of thousands) of dollars for very similar quality/space/location housing.

A used car can usually purchased in a single day. A used house can take anywhere from 3-6+ weeks to purchase (from initial offer to actual possession).

And housing purchases are so unwieldy that both parties must hire their own agents and insurances (at a cost of thousands of dollars, each) to represent each of them through the entire transaction.

Purchasing processes don't get any more unfriendly than that.

> The used car market is full of scams, and has the used-car salesmen ever been seen as a trustworthy individual?

This is even more true for housing, where scams are so common that they're just automatically factored into housing costs by default as "maintenance".

It's even more insane because "multiple things quickly failing" is expected even for brand new housing. To the extreme that brand new cars typically carry a 36 months "everything" warranty, but new houses usually only carry 11-12 months of similar guarantee, despite costing 10-20x more.

---

If anything, I wish the housing market was more like buying a car. Because despite all car-buying's flaws, it's at least possible for me to get something I'm fairly content with, at a price I can reasonably afford.

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

#315

Post by RodericDay » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 2:12 AM 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?

London has figured it out? Last time I read about rent in London it was a politically explosive topic.

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

#316

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 2:14 AM UTC

bufordsharkley wrote: post #308

shykes wrote: post #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…

I think this is a big reason why Los Angeles does (when compared to the Bay Area) an adequate job at delivering public transit-- unified governance over the entire city allows for this, as opposed to the power than any mid-peninsula city has to stop the advance of subway lines.

[deleted]

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

#317

Post by greggman » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 2:15 AM UTC

cylinder wrote: post #259

rconti wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nobody has left suburban living. Young people have just delayed marriage due to financial instability and career preferences, and thus delayed childbirth. Older folks have sensibly sought to downsize when empty nesting. The hyper dense mega city model is a failure for quality of life. Instead, a dense CBD with trains distributing the population to the suburbs, with medium then low density, with shopping zones on walk…

Failure by who's definition? I live in Tokyo, the largest city on the planet. It's a "Hyper Dense Mega City" and it's an amazing fun city with a high quality of live AFAICT. There are certain things about Japanese work culture that suck for some but that has nothing to do with the city itself and everything to do with traditional culture.

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

#318

Post by aninhumer » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 2:42 AM UTC

brbsix wrote: post #280

Houshalter wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You'd expect property owners to be entitled to build on their titled property, yet somehow this has turned into a pejorative. It reminds me of people arguing for higher taxes accusing others of being selfish. Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned and yet completely selfless that you feel you have a right to it. Down and down we go into opposite land.

> Yes, it's completely selfish that someone would like to keep the money they've earned

Well yeah. The very concept of ownership is inherently selfish. It means you want there to be a particular set of resources you get to use, and no one else. It's pretty much the definition of selfishness.

Not that I think this is a bad thing, but if you're trying to argue with this particular rhetorical framing, you're going to lose hard.

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

#319

Post by thegayngler » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 2:48 AM UTC

I guess I think they should keep things as they are and let the prices keep going up. Sure people will be displaced. Ohhh well. The free market can sort this out. Companies have to go set up shop somewhere else to get their needs met and likely for cheaper. Prices will come down in San Francisco and some other city who is more willing to accommodate the tech industry will arise. I think Austin Texas or Portland or LA or Atlanta would be happy to accommodate the tech industry.

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

#320

Post by nihonde » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 2:56 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #128

nihonde wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Im in japan too and there are very clear zoning rules per area. There are very clear bedtowns with no industries or commerces but its probably not near where you live. There is very little freedom to build new things that is why you get extremely expensive apartments and rents. This prevents people to live on their own unless they are married and get enough income for that. And its the first time i hear someone say t…

Yes, I can understand your views. I guess it's possible to disagree about this. I've seen how bad things are in America in terms of affordable housing, so the options in Japan seem quite nice by comparison.

As for bedroom communities without commerce, I would attribute that to: (1) an excellent public transportation infrastructure, and (2) an overall migration of livelihoods to Tokyo/Osaka-scale urban centers. My experience (in Nagoya) is that there are offices and light industry mixed with residential in every direction until you reach 里山. In fact, many people that I know operate businesses out of their homes, including light manufacturing, restaurants, etc.——something you cannot do in most American cities.

And finally, I can certainly understand your view on the "disposable" nature of housing here, but I still think it makes good sense. This is earthquake and typhoon country, so the codes change with advances in technology. The industrial nature of the housing business here drives the cost way down. In America, residential construction projects are notoriously difficult, over-budget, and late. Compared the efficiency of scale of a company like Sekisui, American contractors are an unfunny joke. I have seen homes built in Japan with a crew of no more than three or four men, plus a few traffic guards, in just a few weeks. And they work quietly and keep the area clean. I can build a new house in my city in Japan for around US$150,000——something that is completely impossible in most American cities. (The price of land here in another matter, of course. It's very expensive.)

I will never understand why Americans pour money into old houses. Even 伊勢神宮 is rebuilt every twenty years, and it's more than two thousand years old!