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

271–280 of 407 posts

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#271

Post by stevewilhelm »

fintler wrote: post #68
carapace wrote: post #65

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…

This ranking only counts San Francisco city/county. I think the OP was referring to the San Francisco Bay Area [1]. It is comprised of nine Bay Area counties and has quite a bit of open space, as well as federal, state, county, and city parks.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#272

Post by neilsharma »

calbear81 wrote: post #224
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…

The cost of living is definitely infinitely higher than living in the midwest but you certainly can find fields and forests (and actual mountains!) in the SF area. For example, the minute you cross the Golden Gate bridge, you are in Marin County, a county with a rich agricultural history, amazing natural places like Muir Woods (the setting for the ape's home in the latest Planet of the Apes), and 85.5% of it's land p…

^ this is true. I was born and raised in south bay area and went to school in Berkeley. The Bay Area is an ecological treasure trove.

But over the years I've seen the hills dotted with houses, untouched swamp land (great for the local wildlife) turned into generic commercial offices, and roads developed deeper into the outskirts. Noise and air pollution is getting worse. Parking and congestion is a nightmare anywhere there are new offices or apartments in old neighborhoods (SF/PA/MV). Public transportation takes hours to get you anywhere (though I'm optimistic about Bart expansions).

I haven't heard anyone in favor of housing development talk about these problems, problems that are bound to get worse if more units are built unless equally aggressive solutions are implemented.

Like others here have said, the Bay Area pressures career-oriented individuals to move here. Although I love the diversity of backgrounds, it is clear that the vast majority of my friends who moved here haven't developed the affinity or interest in non-career-related aspects of the culture/geography. They are not emotionally invested in everything else the bay area has to offer (I theorize that this is because their families and their childhood memories are elsewhere).

I'm not saying new housing shouldn't be built (affording housing for lower-income families/individuals need to be built ASAP). I can't afford rent here either and commit social suicide by choosing to live with my parents despite being in my mid 20s (fortunate enough to have this option). But I can't in good conscience support development in the Bay Area until it comes bundled with discussions on environmental protection, transportation expansion, tax changes (who is going to pay for the extra firefighters/police offers needed if population increases), infrastructure projects (pumping water into the bay, electricity, etc). As of right now, it is so singly-focused on lowering rent that these other issues don't seem to matter in comparison.

I appreciate sama's attempt to get us to call our representatives. As an active voter and lifelong bay area resident, I will do so too.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#273

Post by a_small_island »

carapace wrote: post #65

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…

>"This is a town for freaks and weirdos"

Because you say so? Because that's how you were taught when you grew up? I don't live in SF but that seems like a flimsy case to be made.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#274

Post by threatofrain »

abalone wrote: post #267
threatofrain wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the tech community is deflecting criticism. As a minority voting group, what are they supposed to do about the problem? The limited supply is not their fault. The refusal to bid in the market would be a meaningless self-sacrifice. The lack of healthy leverage and organization by workers in other industries have nothing to do with tech workers, who, again, are a minority power in politics.

Your premise that the tech community is not a major player in local politics because of their relatively small body count does not hold water. Money plays a large influence in local politics. Ron Conway is a perfect example of this: he dines with the mayor and provides major funding to local campaigns and initiatives, which usually win.

So you're saying that tech has been a major political player with respect to housing laws? If anything, restrictions on housing supply hurt tech companies who wish to import workers to their area. Restrictions on housing supply hurts everyone who isn't a landowner.

If you're saying that a few tech elites are players in politics, fine, but that has nothing to do with the rest of the world who aren't elites. It's almost not worth mentioning that elites everywhere are players in politics. The rest of the tech world are not creating organized vehicles to channel money or votes (unlike teachers or firemen, who do organize). They're just people participating in the housing market. And whatever tech elites are doing, they don't look like they're winning the battle to up supply on housing so they can import more employees.

What's the reason that money from employees of one industry are displacing workers from another industry? Because workers in that other industry lack the leverage to demand more wages that keep up with other industries, because housing supply is limited, and because population is growing.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#275

Post by aliston »

mikeyouse wrote: post #246
calbear81 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support development but I'm kind of okay with not too much in Marin because there's no viable and fast public transit from there to SF so adding a bunch of people there doesn't make as much sense (I could also be rationalizing a bias towards keeping Marin green and "country" since I want to eventually settle down there..) I really support development along established rail corridors along CalTrain and BART lines. T…

Of course theres no BART in Marin due to racist local NIMBYs so there's a bit of a paradox involved.

This is not historically accurate. Marin voted in favor of BART, but after San Mateo country bailed, the costs were shifted North. It was the increased costs that prevented BART from going across the Golden Gate.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#276

Post by Xcelerate »

davidw wrote: post #227
abalone wrote: post #96

This is a contentious issue and in case you are not from SF and wondering why Y Combinator is taking a stand on it, it has to do with the politics of the tech boom. The plain truth is that the housing crisis is a combination of too much sudden demand fueled by the tech boom and too little supply. The tech community likes to deflect criticism of their sudden influx of relatively high-income workers and say "don't blam…

I don't live in SF, but having spent most of the past 15 years in Europe, which is dense: it's almost completely a supply problem. SF is not really very dense at all for a place with such a high demand for housing. Random place in SF: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7718267,-122.4388549,3a,75y,... Near where I lived in Padova, which is way smaller than SF, and way, way less well off: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3…

> Random place in SF: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7718267,-122.4388549,3a,75y,...

What is that really narrow, darkly painted building? Is that a house? Whatever it is, it sure looks peculiar (but I like it!)

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#277

Post by Xcelerate »

jeffdavis wrote: post #232

I've wondered for a while weather housing exclusivity can improve economies in some respects. Do the high housing costs create a strong selection bias to bring in only the most determined to take part in the SV culture? Obviously, lower housing costs would cause a higher absolute density of people. But maybe the presence of people with other unrelated interests would somehow dampen the tech economy, even if the absol…

Yeah, I've also wondered this. SF is easily the best place on earth for technology, but the price to access it is steep. My friends poke fun at me for wanting to move to an area where you pay $3,000 a month to live in a box. "Isn't Atlanta almost as good? You can get a whole house for that price!"

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#278

Post by mtviewdave »

honkhonkpants wrote: post #40

When I look at this bill I have to wonder if it will really help. Outside of the city of San Francisco itself, almost nothing is being built, because the construction costs are too high. Not the permitting and planning costs, but the actual guys-with-hammers-and-saws costs. For example in Oakland there are number of properties that are fully entitled to build and have been sitting that way for years. So how does Brow…

A list of private development projects in Mountain View, with a number of them (residential and commercial) currently under construction:

http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeproj...

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#279

Post by BurningFrog »

jacalata wrote: post #266
BurningFrog wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the new building next door is filled with 'luxury' $5000/mo rents, which might drive the rent up in their building. This is such a stupid myth. On par with "vaccinations cause autism" or Bigfoot. Science has studied how price depends on supply and demand very thoroughly. Increased supply always leads to lower prices.

Ok....there is clearly more housing in San Francisco today than there was 50 years ago. Why does housing in San Francisco cost more today than it did 50 years ago?

Because price depends on supply and demand.

Supply has gone up, but demand has gone up even more.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#280

Post by jacalata »

BurningFrog wrote: post #279
jacalata wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok....there is clearly more housing in San Francisco today than there was 50 years ago. Why does housing in San Francisco cost more today than it did 50 years ago?

Because price depends on supply and demand. Supply has gone up, but demand has gone up even more.

Congratulations on recognising that your glib generalization above was wrong! Now see if you can imagine any way in which development of a neighbourhood can ever increase demand. An idea to get you started: there exist people who would like to live in a nice apartment but who would not be interested in an old rooming house. There exist people who only want to live somewhere that already has residents at their (higher) income level. There exist services that are only offered in areas that have people with x disposable income. And there exist people that will only move somewhere that said services exist.
Post reply on HN