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

311–320 of 407 posts

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#311

Post by abalone »

surfmike wrote: post #299
abalone wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apples to oranges. SF has always been more of a boomtown. Neither of the cities you mention have experienced the sudden, massive surge in demand that SF has in recent memory. When you have sudden surges in demand you can't just pin it on supply. You have to think about macroeconomic objectives for the city (i.e. preserving low and mid income housing) as well as how to plan for the long term, like when the boom turns…

When was the last time SF had too much housing? Obviously prices have gone down at times in the past but it's hard to argue there's ever been an oversupply....

Nobody claimed there's an oversupply of housing. The question is how much affordable vs. market-rate housing the city should negotiate for.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#312

Post by abalone »

Xcelerate wrote: post #284
abalone wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually a really nice house. I've been in it.

That's awesome! What is the interior like? Is it two rooms stacked on top of each other, or does the house go further back? EDIT: I actually just noticed the street view image cuts off part of the house, making it seem tinier than it actually is. Originally, I thought it was a "micro-house" or something.

Pics :-) http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/151-Broderick-St-San-Franc...

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#313

Post by uola »

morgante wrote: post #188
HillaryBriss wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of xenophobes and racists who actually do insist that they're concerned about race itself. Anyway, it seems that what you want to establish is not that xenophobes and racists "insist it's about culture", but that anyone who "insists it's about culture" is a xenophobe or racist.

> Anyway, it seems that what you want to establish is not that xenophobes and racists "insist it's about culture", but that anyone who "insists it's about culture" is a xenophobe or racist. Yes, I do think that everyone who insists that culture is a valid reason for opposing the ability of people to migrate into their area is an xenophobe.

As an outsider I have a hard time seeing how the people living in and the people wanting to live in the bay area are of different cultures for any meaningful sense of the world. This is largely a political issue over priorities and not a fear of the unknown.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#314

Post by IndianAstronaut »

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…

>To me, they are an invading army culturally speaking. In a very real sense my home is being destroyed.

California has a long history of newcomers coming in and destroying the local culture. LA 4 generations ago had roughly the same population as Sunnyvale.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#315

Post by abalone »

afarrell wrote: post #305
abalone wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> restrictions on housing supply hurt tech companies who wish to import workers That may be true, but a city needs more than just tech workers to function. The goal is balanced growth. > Restrictions on housing supply hurts everyone who isn't a landowner. Objectively false. Affordable housing requirements help lower income people. > whatever tech elites are doing, they don't look like they're winning the battle to up…

> want more affordable housing Then they should support as-of-right construction. Mandating affordable housing doesn't actually increase its availability if a developer's plans to build affordable housing keep getting shot down.

Nor would building merely 5% affordable make much of a dent, probably, which is what this bill allows as-of-right.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#316

Post by Jgrubb »

danjayh wrote: post #259
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…

With you all the way. I have 11 acres, horses, a goat, cats, a dog, and I live 15 minutes from downtown and 17 minutes from work. This is in a mid-sized midwest city (Grand Rapids, MI). While I realize that I could achieve a substantial pay raise on one of the coasts, a similarly sized plot there would cost millions. I paid under 200k 5 years ago with a 1500sf house on it, and it's still probably only worth the mid 2…

I know I found a Rails shop there in a search years ago, but generally speaking is there a tech career scene in GR? If so, are there any trends as far as the tech that companies are using that you can tell? I've got 3 acres with dogs and chickens here in NJ, but we have no family for a 10 hour radius and my wife's family is in Livingston county (don't want to be too close).

Thanks in advance.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#317

Post by ascetone »

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…

Seconded. Quality of life is second to none.

Pros: * I live the heart of downtown in a major Canadian city * Rent is $1025/mo, plus $100 for underground heated parkin. (Hey it's Canada) * Work is across the street (it's not abused) * Wilderness is only 15-20 minutes away * Montreal/Boston are only 12 hours away

Cons: * I'm a "devops lead" and making $70k/yr

I've come to the realization it'll take six figures plus to get me to move away.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#318

Post by vasilipupkin »

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

I'm not arguing against development. I'm just saying that the iconic look and feel of SF will be lost. Maybe that's inevitable, but it saddens many people

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#319

Post by vasilipupkin »

morgante wrote: post #180
vasilipupkin wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When is the point of peak beauty? 1900? 1850? Also, Hong Kong is a rather beautiful city.

Singapore looks like a giant shopping mall. It's nice in its own right, sure but I don't think I want every city in the world to look like it

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#320

Post by vasilipupkin »

fishtoaster wrote: post #164
vasilipupkin wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aff…

I'm not disagreeing with anything that you said. I'm just lamenting the fact that SF will look just like every other skyscraper style skyline. You won't even know where you are
Post reply on HN