Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

experimental-geography.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 155 posts

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#71

Post by mgraczyk »

capkutay wrote: post #16

Obligatory reminder: If you care about housing in the Bay Area, register to vote now. Scott Wiener is a housing and transportation advocate running for State Senate in this election. http://registertovote.ca.gov/ Show up to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor meetings. Participate in public comment. We all talk about how NIMBYs rule SF, it's because they show up in full force at these gatherings.

Scott Wiener seems to be a big part of the problem in terms of increasing the regulatory burden on new development. Have I missed something in his actual record that indicates he is removing restrictions on new housing development?

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#72

Post by r00fus »

sjf wrote: post #22
snewk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i acknowledge that city ordinances can be a huge headache, but consider that trees serve more than just aesthetic purpose. They provide shade, filter particulate matter, and increase air quality for a much larger area than just 'your own property'. This is especially important in the urban core of cities where greenery can be scarce, and mature trees even more so.

If you are worried about the environment there are far more effective approaches we could use, like increasing density to reduce transport emissions.

Yeah, but apparently building out public transport pits you against the petroleum industry (which has held sway in the US over a century).

This isn't an either-or, it's a case where special interests have shot down the more efficient approaches, so we're left with what we have.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#73

Post by harryh »

moultano wrote: post #65
harryh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that new construction doesn't help anyone but wealthy people in SF, today. If you build more luxury housing it lowers the price of luxury housing so that a marginally less rich person can move to that tier. That marginal move reduces the demand on the next lower tier of housing which should reduce the price at that level. And so on, and so on...

Just like hermit crabs when a slightly bigger shell is available. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1dnocPQXDQ#t=1m33s

Ha! Yes!

Love that analogy!

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#74

Post by busthrow »

SF should work on rezoning some hub areas higher density, and build (lots of) unit blocks. For comparison, I live in a suburb that has had the zoning rules changed to allow for transit-oriented development. Houses are being moved out and being replaced by 5 story apartment blocks. I live in one of those, a 3 minute walk from a busway station.

There will probably be 50000 units built in my the city in the near future. However, Brisbane, Australia has twice the population of SF, and a possibly irrational building boom happening though:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/brisbane-to-see-50,000...

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#75

Post by MBlume »

snewk wrote: post #20
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #9

Building straight into the sky is easy. You'd be amazed at how earthquake-proof skyscrapers are with modern technology. You want a challenge? Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property.

i acknowledge that city ordinances can be a huge headache, but consider that trees serve more than just aesthetic purpose. They provide shade, filter particulate matter, and increase air quality for a much larger area than just 'your own property'. This is especially important in the urban core of cities where greenery can be scarce, and mature trees even more so.

Ok, give everyone a tax break determined by the number of trees on their property.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#76

Post by nerfhammer »

vonmoltke wrote: post #67
davidw wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking about outlying areas, the rest of the bay area is amazingly not dense given how expensive housing is.

You can't really compare a single municipality to several that collectively equal it's size. The latter case has a whole lot of more localized and conflicting political interests that serve to hold back the area as a whole.

Note New York City has less of these issues because over the centuries it gained control of its neighboring areas from other counties, something San Francisco never did.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#77

Post by sampo »

nerfhammer wrote: post #76
vonmoltke wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really compare a single municipality to several that collectively equal it's size. The latter case has a whole lot of more localized and conflicting political interests that serve to hold back the area as a whole.

Note New York City has less of these issues because over the centuries it gained control of its neighboring areas from other counties, something San Francisco never did.

But given how fervently anti-development San Francisco itself also is, would it even have helped?

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#78

Post by steffan »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #60
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #9

Building straight into the sky is easy. You'd be amazed at how earthquake-proof skyscrapers are with modern technology. You want a challenge? Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property.

It is worth mentioning that building into the sky is expensive. Easy sure. But expensive. Each floor is more expensive than the one below it. I'm not sure what the premium is though. Anyone know? What's the added cost for an apartment building as you go up? Seattle has a lot of 2+4 construction. Where it's 2 floor concrete and 4 floors wood. I believe the limit used to be 2+2 but they raised it. Cheaper construction…

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. This article talks about housing in Japan depreciating rapidly: http://www.archdaily.com/450212/why-japan-is-crazy-about-hou..., a contrast to the U.S., where to some extent, properties gain in value. (Mostly the land value, but to a certain extent the structures as well).

I think it's reasonable that a 2+4 building built today last 20-30 years, is depreciated, and then torn down for an even more dense structure at that time. Over 30 years, building heights and technologies should be such that a more productive use of the space can be made.

In light of that, it doesn't make sense to spend extra for a “100-year-building.” Not everything needs to be a historic structure. We should recognize that some buildings should be [relatively] transient.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#79

Post by guelo »

capkutay wrote: post #16

Obligatory reminder: If you care about housing in the Bay Area, register to vote now. Scott Wiener is a housing and transportation advocate running for State Senate in this election. http://registertovote.ca.gov/ Show up to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor meetings. Participate in public comment. We all talk about how NIMBYs rule SF, it's because they show up in full force at these gatherings.

Gentrification step 13: vote out the pre-existing population's preferred politicians and install new "free market" policies (since the "free market" works in favor of the people with the money the new policies will benefit the richer new comers).

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#80

Post by forrestthewoods »

steffan wrote: post #78
forrestthewoods wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is worth mentioning that building into the sky is expensive. Easy sure. But expensive. Each floor is more expensive than the one below it. I'm not sure what the premium is though. Anyone know? What's the added cost for an apartment building as you go up? Seattle has a lot of 2+4 construction. Where it's 2 floor concrete and 4 floors wood. I believe the limit used to be 2+2 but they raised it. Cheaper construction…

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. This article talks about housing in Japan depreciating rapidly: http://www.archdaily.com/450212/why-japan-is-crazy-about-hou... , a contrast to the U.S., where to some extent, properties gain in value. (Mostly the land value, but to a certain extent the structures as well). I think it's reasonable that a 2+4 building built today last 20-30 years, is depreciated, and then…

It's a plausible strategy as long as it's part of the plan. If you're in an environment that that makes construction difficult then cheap may not be the best choice.

Seattle still has too many taxes and fees for my liking. I appreciate the desire for below market rate units and and low income housing fees. But it's completely ass backwards. Taxes are disincentives. Don't disincentivize the thing you want more of!

Developers are slapped with extra fees if they want to build above a certain height. Complete opposite of what's correct. There should be a fee for not building high enough!

Le sigh.

Post reply on HN