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

Housing in the Bay Area

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 407 posts

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#161

Post by HillaryBriss »

paulddraper wrote: post #146
HillaryBriss wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xenophobia is defined (by one source) as "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries." Maybe comparing this commenter to "a lot of people who don't want brown people" is ham fisted and inaccurate. The commenter seems more interested in the culture, the freakiness or weirdness, of the people who come in, and not so much which country they came from. I do not see where the commenter mentioned…

It's a fine line.

I'll bite:

Is it ever ok for a person to argue against policies that increase population in the city where they reside?

If so, what are some ethical reasons for resisting and/or advocating against population growth in a city?

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#162

Post by vctheory »

BurningFrog wrote: post #132
s3r3nity wrote: post #38

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.

By increasing the most substantial cost that startups face, VCs end up owning larger portions of each startup.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#164

Post by fishtoaster »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #144
fishtoaster wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This town won't be for the freaks and weirdos for long: they're being priced out. You can rage against the techies all you want, but unless we can build more housing, the techies will be the only ones who can afford to live here. It seems bizarre to me that those most fervently opposed to the influx of tech in SF are doing the most to harm the existing residents. If you make it hard to build in San Francisco, there w…

SF used to be beautiful. With tons more development, it will just look like Hong Kong/Singapore/Chicago/Manhattan, etc. and that beauty will be lost

That's a common sentiment, and I think there are a few points against it:

1. SF could double it's current housing density tomorrow and still have less than half of manhatten's density. That's not a serious concern.

2. Even if it were, we're faced with a tough choice: preserve SF's low-density housing, or preserve it's people. Which is better: a city with 20% taller buildings, or a city where the only the rich can afford to live, secure in their $10m victorians and $5k/mo NEMA towers?

3. Many would argue that SF's uniqueness is its population, its freespirited attitude, and its rich history of art and culture. The buildings themselves are only a small part of that. Losing them would be a bummer, but far worse than losing the real soul of the city.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#165

Post by morgante »

jevinskie wrote: post #160

There is so much pressure, career-wise, to move to either the Bay Area, the West Coast in general, or a major urban hub. I honestly like living in a semi-rural part of the Midwest. I like seeing fields and forests while driving to work. If I want to get out to some wilderness, I can do so in 15-30 minutes. I travel in a car that, I feel, offers me freedom. To boot, I have a nice, reserved spot in the garage below my…

> My cost of living is very cheap. My commute is 15 minutes. I live close to my family. Why should I want to leave?

You shouldn't. If you have a good job in such a location and are happy with the opportunities available, enjoy!

The problem is that markets naturally congregate in distinct locations so anyone who is looking to advance their career needs to make their way to a hub.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#166

Post by justincormack »

apsec112 wrote: post #95
birken wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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." New development as the cause of displacement is just outright misinformation. There has been very little development in the Mission: https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-mak... There is an extremely strong negative correlation between development and housing p…

People presumably think it is. As a visitor there now a lot of SF looks quite low density low rise, but a lot of the buildings are very pretty and the low rise wooden houses are part of the charm. Not sure how much less dense than Tokyo it is but maybe 4x? As a Brit I love the history, but there are probably parts that could be rebuilt. But there is a high risk that they won't be built as high density, the fact that the proposal includes affordable is because the builders will infill high end mostly. You need to allow rebuild of low density at eg 10x at scale to get a fall in prices. Builders don't want that.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#167

Post by 1945 »

Can we scale the schools, transportation, etc. to support this legislature? If so, I'm all for it. But the way things stand currently, it's already pushed to the limits.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#168

Post by blazespin »

BurningFrog wrote: post #132
s3r3nity wrote: post #38

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.

The keyword is "can". What's the expected value of investing in a startup versus real estate?

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#170

Post by meddlepal »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #114
nostrebored wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It rains too much, like 14 months per year is just rain. And the Seattle freeze...ya, people in Seattle don't like to talk to other people, it is like Northern Europe. /s We've always made up crazy lies just to keep the Californians away, but ultimately it isn't working. Seattle is a nice place to live/work, and has plenty of jobs for techies.

As a Bostonian none of this rain or cold stuff bothers me. Visiting Seattle for the first time next month for DockerCon and I'm super excited!
Post reply on HN