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

#321

Post by bhickey » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 3:07 AM UTC

simoncion wrote: post #225

bhickey wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Prop 13 in place, cities and towns can't adjust taxes to cover their budgets. It behooves a Bay Area municipality to seek out commercial investment and drive away residential.

> It behooves a Bay Area municipality to seek out commercial investment and drive away residential. AIUI, (and I might not understand correctly) that's not quite right. If you make significant improvements [0] to a piece of land the value of just those improvements are assessed and added to the assessed value of that land. So -IIRC- if the owner of a two-story multi-family dwelling demolishes the building and builds…

What you've said is true, but misses the point. Office buildings don't require schools in the same way houses do. Look at the development in Palo Alto over the last ten years. It's largely commercial and this isn't an accident.

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

#322

Post by intrasight » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 3:20 AM UTC

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the residences of a city saying "this city is done". I'm not saying that I agree with SF being "done". It's not all that different from arguing with a manager asking when some complex IT system is going to be "done". My answer is always the same - it will never be done until you pull the plug on it. But back to cities like SF. Who other than the people who live there should be able to say it's done in terms of new development? I certainly don't want to give a vote to anyone who benefits from development (unless they live in the city, and in that case their vote should count no more or less than anybody else).

There is plenty of good greenfield and brownfield space in the USA. Developers and people that want cheaper housing have places to go. There are so many great medium and large sized cities. There are places that may very well be the next SF. If I were a young adult, I'd be collaborating with other like-minded young adults to do some urban homesteading. But do your homework. And decide if what you are trying to do is get in on the ground floor of the "next happening thing" or just find a place that you like just the way it is. Rarely if ever can you have both. Go to local planning meetings to verify that others mostly share you point of view. And later when other claim NIMBYism, call them out on it and say "we came here because we like the way it is and want to keep it that way". That is neither elitist nor racist. The consensus may change - that is democracy. If the place you are changes into something you don't like then just go look for a new place. Change can be a good thing. It clears away the cobwebs and detritus of being in one place too long.

Clearly this "5th-generation San Franciscan" thing carries no weight. One's dead ancestors don't get to vote.

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

#323

Post by hodwik » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 3:22 AM UTC

Tiksi wrote: post #139

cesarb wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would prevent a hazardous factory from being built next to residences, but wouldn't prevent residences being built nearby after the factory is already there. For that, you'd need restrictions on the residences and/or the land.

Maybe a hybrid solution would work? Have a zone tied to the factory, no residential buildings within a certain radius of the factory, but if the factory shuts down or moves, the zone goes with it.

That's a really cool idea.

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

#324

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 3:47 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #222

ng12 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Ad…

And that's great, I wouldn't argue with any of the choices you've made for yourself. For you, the social benefits of urban life are apparently worth the costs, and that's fine. You and your friends probably aren't the ones who are doing most of the complaining. But if it's that important to someone that they live in that particular city, to the exclusion of all other possibilities available on the planet, then they s…

[deleted]

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

#325

Post by gozur88 » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 4:51 AM UTC

bhickey wrote: post #221

skewart wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. > or making your schools overcrowded To which I say, build more schools! With more housing and people comes a bigger tax base and more money to fund infrastructure improvements. I don't know a single pro-construction person who doesn't also vigorously support improving urban infrastructure.

With Prop 13 in place, cities and towns can't adjust taxes to cover their budgets. It behooves a Bay Area municipality to seek out commercial investment and drive away residential.

While prop 13 limits the rate cites can charge for property taxes, if your average tract home is selling for a million bucks %1 is still plenty of money for city services.

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

#326

Post by Apocryphon » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 4:55 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #229

narrator wrote: post #123

Serious question: why does everyone have to live in San Francisco? There are lots and lots of cheaper places to live and work, but it seems there is something that only San Francisco can do that everywhere else can't. Why aren't city planners working on creating that special "whateveritis" in their city as fast as possible? I don't want any pat answers like "the people are there" or "the jobs are there" because that'…

Cities are, much as CPUs or memory, networking systems. With provision of resources and removal of waste, as well as selection of components (here largely self -selection of residents), you end up with a nexus of high productivity. For all its faults (and the SF-OAK-SJ Bay Area has many), the place is incredibly vibrant, has a density of venture support unlike any elsewhere (even NYC plays second-fiddle), and, assumi…

The reign is not over. That is indisputable. But just as all bubbles must pop, so do all reigns must end.

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

#327

Post by geomark » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 5:03 AM UTC

greggman wrote: post #317

cylinder wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

After seeing how a number of Japanese acquaintances live, I've concluded the lack of personal space is a kind of paucity that makes them very poor. Barely room for a couple with one child to keep the tiniest amount of personal belongings. A pet, a small garden, bicycles for the family, any number of personal possessions I consider normal are out of the question. People living in other capital cities experience similar, although not as extreme, paucity of personal space. I don't understand how so many people feel this is a high quality of life.

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

#328

Post by ktRolster » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 5:06 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #196

mjevans wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like an area that was previously unzoned between cities. There are different options for how to hook up water, power, data, etc; however due to the way that school districts work the kids will only be covered by one such domain. Within that domain, this new source of housing has not been factored in to the balance of how to divide resources. (Think of classroom seats as hyperthreads and teachers as processo…

That's what I thought. It is in fact a major flaw of the entire USA public school concept that "kids will only be covered by one such domain", but you can't blame developers for that. School districts partition the state, and they do so in every state. Therefore this objection amounts to "the school district in which this development is located didn't prepare for new students while it was being built", and that objec…

  > but you can't blame developers for that.

You can, when the developers lobbied to not pay taxes/fees that would have been used to add capacity to schools.

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

#329

Post by skewart » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 5:22 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #222

ng12 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Ad…

And that's great, I wouldn't argue with any of the choices you've made for yourself. For you, the social benefits of urban life are apparently worth the costs, and that's fine. You and your friends probably aren't the ones who are doing most of the complaining. But if it's that important to someone that they live in that particular city, to the exclusion of all other possibilities available on the planet, then they s…

> they shouldn't complain when it turns out that real estate and transportation are limited resources that somebody has to pay for.

I whole-heartedly disagree. It's much better to try to change things and improve the world instead of throwing your hands up and accepting the status quo as immutable fact. The truth is that real estate in SF is limited largely by anti-growth laws. People have to pay exohorbinantly high prices for it only because of these laws (for the most part). I think we should try to change those laws and make the region a better place for everyone to live. I don't want to give up and let SF become a haven for the rich (plus the handful of affordable housing lottery winners).

Of course, if it turns out that we can't make the Bay Area into the welcoming, inclusive, fun, and livable place I would love to see it be then, yeah, I'll move somewhere else. Life's too short.

Also, I cometely agree with how surprising it is that cities have surged in popularity for well-paid, technically smart workers. And yet, I really like living in a city for all the reasons the grandparent comment mentioned. Maybe VR will change that value proposition though :-)

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

#330

Post by saryant » Sun, Apr 17, 2016, 5:26 AM UTC

rsync wrote: post #311

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 sh…

Houston's a fascinating city. I lived there for a few years between leaving the Bay Area and winding up in Colorado. It's a vibrant and energetic place with a never-ending influx of new immigrant cultures from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Very, very few American cities have embraced pluralism to quite the same extent (and no, I don't include SF on that list).