Live data from Hacker News

Housing in the Bay Area

blog.samaltman.com

131–140 of 407 posts

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#131
post #10

Cannot believe I'm posting here but relevant: I have a room in my house in the Sunset opening next month. $900. It's month-to-month rent. Looking to house a founder/hacker/designer/etc currently struggling with SF rent (or someone who wants to move to SF but didn't think they could afford to live in SF) My email is in my bio.

Ask HN: Who is renting? (May 2016)

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#132

This is one of the top factors preventing me from moving back to the Bay Area. It's good to know there's at least SOME serious attempt at a solution (even if folks around here are mostly pessimistic.) It still surprises me that an industry that's all about connecting the world through the internet and allowing anyone to work with anyone else on anything says "yeah but you need to work in this small area of the countr…

VCs can make millions from owning houses.

They can make billions from funding startups.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#133
post #68

I'm in favor of how "building in the Bay Area is approved by discretion", I call it having some power over what gets built. "Democracy" y'know? I'm from SF. I grew up here. I'm also a computer nerd. To me, the tech "industry" has been ruining the city I love since the Dot-Com boom. To me, they are an invading army culturally speaking. In a very real sense my home is being destroyed. The saddest part is, this city kin…

> San Francisco is the largist metropolitan area with the most wilderness/open space around it in the world. It's high on the list, but it's not the one with the most: Vienna 51% Singapore 47% Sydney 46% Hong Kong 40% 70% is the total green space 40% is protected Rio De Janeiro 40% London 38.40% Almost 40%! Stockholm 30% Johannesburg-Gauteng 24% New York City 19.7 % or 14% Park Score/World Culture Report San Francisc…

Where on earth did they get Singapore's 47% from? Here's a land-use map: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-C3jx_8qnyo0/UQvXDH4ksdI/AAAAAAAABL...

The light green bits are barely a quarter, and a good chunk of that is agricultural (mostly greenhouses), not "wilderness/open space".

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#134

I'm in favor of how "building in the Bay Area is approved by discretion", I call it having some power over what gets built. "Democracy" y'know? I'm from SF. I grew up here. I'm also a computer nerd. To me, the tech "industry" has been ruining the city I love since the Dot-Com boom. To me, they are an invading army culturally speaking. In a very real sense my home is being destroyed. The saddest part is, this city kin…

>The saddest part is, this city kinda sucks. It's not even a good place to locate a business.

San Francisco is the second-densest city in the country, and is one of only a few cities (and the only city in the West) that had a large urban core designed in the pre-car era, which means that its infrastructure is already designed to accomodate dense urban development moreso than any other American city west of Chicago.

Contrary to popular belief, making money in the Bay Area isn't that difficult or unlikely. I think the comparison to a gold rush is more of a meme than a representation of what's actually occurring (>95% of new arrivals are not entrepreneurs).

The good news is that tens of thousands of people from impoverished countries have been able to move here, become US citizens, and live a first-world life they might not have had access to otherwise. The sad part is, they're not cool -- or "weird" -- enough, so they have to live 90 minutes away.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#135
post #13

I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't. First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property. Politicans very well knows that making this group unhappy will end their careers. The second group is often in minority outside large cities. This is why its very hard to pass laws that woul…

This is a big argument going on in Austin too. Housing prices are going through the roof, yet home owners don't want multi family units in their neighborhood. I can't say I blame them, either. It's nice having some quiet - four families in the lot next door means 4x more noise, cars, dogs, parties, etc. Difference here is that you can live insanely cheap in the suburbs, so most end up doing that, but with no reasonab…

"Just move to the suburbs" is a solution that sounds fine, but it's really not. Wealthier folks feel entitled to central living because a market economy distributes scarce goods to the wealthiest. But the middle class is perfectly capable of outbidding the rich for housing: they do it by buying cheaper homes on less land. Four middle class families in a fourplex spend more on housing than most Central Austin families, but those are illegal to build. Every single family homeowner got a leg up in the housing market because it was illegal for the middle class to bid against them.

Our affordability crisis is a charade. It was manufactured by selfish people looking out for their own interests without caring about the consequences. They have segregated our cities by income, and pushed people away from jobs and communities that would've improved their lives. Our cities must be desegregated. This injustice must end.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#136
post #81
post #13

I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't. First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property. Politicans very well knows that making this group unhappy will end their careers. The second group is often in minority outside large cities. This is why its very hard to pass laws that woul…

Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide. Who do you think was pushing for proposition I (an 18 month development moratorium in the mission) to pass? It wasn't homeowners, that's for sure. It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced. Why did 60%…

> It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced.

This is such a bizarre idea.

How exactly do renters get displaced by adding more housing?

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#137

I'm in favor of how "building in the Bay Area is approved by discretion", I call it having some power over what gets built. "Democracy" y'know? I'm from SF. I grew up here. I'm also a computer nerd. To me, the tech "industry" has been ruining the city I love since the Dot-Com boom. To me, they are an invading army culturally speaking. In a very real sense my home is being destroyed. The saddest part is, this city kin…

> I'm in favor of how "building in the Bay Area is approved by discretion", I call it having some power over what gets built. "Democracy" y'know?

That's what zoning laws are for, which the proposed legislation doesn't affect. The kind of thing Governor Brown wants to get rid of is Nosy Neighbor Syndrome being able to block or stall reasonable development that follows code.

I grew up in the bay area, and it sickens me how many people here are more interested in making sure homes have a front lawn than making sure homes can be affordable to people outside the upper class.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#138

I'm in favor of how "building in the Bay Area is approved by discretion", I call it having some power over what gets built. "Democracy" y'know? I'm from SF. I grew up here. I'm also a computer nerd. To me, the tech "industry" has been ruining the city I love since the Dot-Com boom. To me, they are an invading army culturally speaking. In a very real sense my home is being destroyed. The saddest part is, this city kin…

Funny isn't it, how some people only have one idea, which is, whenever there's a problem, the culprit is always "too much local oversight." "Too much interference in the free market." Let the forces of supply & demand straighten everything out as they always do, right?

Except how did it get this way in the first place? How did SF come to be? How did it become as it is now and get to have the problems it has now? Supply & demand, baby. The free market. Oh sure, the community having the audacity to block certain developments might've slowed it a little -- like shoveling seawater against an oncoming tide. And now the city that's overcrowded because of free market forces, will have all its problems solved by even freer markets? Good luck with that. I'm not saying a centrally-planned city would work out any better, but don't be surprised if this initiative produces more than a few unintended consequences.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#139
post #81
post #13

I highly doubt this bill would pass without severe modifications. The problem is that we have two groups in population: One who own houses and other who don't. First group don't want new houses and dilute value of their property. Politicans very well knows that making this group unhappy will end their careers. The second group is often in minority outside large cities. This is why its very hard to pass laws that woul…

Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide. Who do you think was pushing for proposition I (an 18 month development moratorium in the mission) to pass? It wasn't homeowners, that's for sure. It was renters living in the Mission who were (not incorrectly) terrified that new development means they will get evicted and displaced. Why did 60%…

> Around 65% of the population in SF are renters. If it were simply homeowners vs renters, renters would win in a landslide.

Yes, but many renters are covered by rent control, and thus immune to increasing market rents.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#140

This is one of the top factors preventing me from moving back to the Bay Area. It's good to know there's at least SOME serious attempt at a solution (even if folks around here are mostly pessimistic.) It still surprises me that an industry that's all about connecting the world through the internet and allowing anyone to work with anyone else on anything says "yeah but you need to work in this small area of the countr…

Somehow the city with the highest average salary/cost of living usually goes unmentioned... Seattle has two huge tech companies, a lot of mid sized tech companies, and a growing startup scene... and it's not that far away from the bay.

On top of the weather, which is a big deal to a lot of people, the problem is exactly in what you said: there are two huge tech companies. And that's it.

Basically, if you move to Seattle, you are pretty much restricted to working for Microsoft or Amazon and that's it. Period. Nothing else.

It's a huge career limiting move, make sure you're okay with it.

Post reply on HN