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

341–350 of 407 posts

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#341

Post by yesimahuman »

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…

I like it, too, and built a valley-style VC-backed startup here. Really, the only people who can understand why Midwesterners like it here are Midwesterners, and in that category even it's people with family/homeowners/etc.

I used to take it personally when people would look down on any other non-SF locales, especially the Midwest. Now I realize that they just don't know what they're talking about, and that's okay, they don't need to. I've already used the advantages of our location to compete on hiring with talent that does get it, and I'm happy to keep doing that!

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#342

Post by raldi »

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

You could cut housing prices in half by building 111,000 new units. You could do that by converting 6% of the city's single-family homes into six-story apartment buildings, leaving the other 94% untouched, and not building a single structure taller than that.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#343

Post by dragonwriter »

yesimahuman wrote: post #341
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…

I like it, too, and built a valley-style VC-backed startup here. Really, the only people who can understand why Midwesterners like it here are Midwesterners, and in that category even it's people with family/homeowners/etc. I used to take it personally when people would look down on any other non-SF locales, especially the Midwest. Now I realize that they just don't know what they're talking about, and that's okay, t…

I think it's more likely that many of the people know what they are talking about (plenty of the people I've seen talk down about the Midwest are in the group you say understand it -- people who were homeowners and/or has families in the Midwest) and just don't share your preferences.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that not everyone wants the same thing, so that any disagreement offer preferences must be grounded in someone's ignorance?

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#344

Post by vonmoltke »

eloisant wrote: post #302
morgante wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you're a developer, like many here, you can work remotely. Of course you will have less opportunities that if you're willing to move to Bay Area or NYC, but that's a choice to make. Do you prefer to prioritize on your career completely or are you will to compromise on that for a better living environment for you and your family? Nobody said it's a obvious choice to live in a smaller city, but it's important to kno…

> If you're a web developer, like many here, you can work remotely.

FTFY, unless there is a trove of non-web remote jobs I have been missing.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#345

Post by HillaryBriss »

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.

I guess you use "xenophobic" more broadly than I do.

For example, if a large influx of patriotic, Budweiser-drinking gun-owners from Texas occurred in Berkeley and a long-time Berkeley resident complained about it because they didn't want a "culture of watery-beer, flag-waving gun ownership" to expand in their neighborhood, I would not call that xenophobic. But it seems like you would.

Or, maybe you wouldn't. Can you clarify this a bit more?

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#346

Post by yonran »

abalone wrote: post #298
yonran wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confused; the 48hills article is referring to a different bill[1] (affordable housing bonus) than the Governor’s budget trailer bill that Sam Altman is referring to[2]. The Governor’s bill requires that localities deterministically and expediently approve projects near transit that provide some low-income housing and comply with local zoning laws. But speaking of the affordable housing bonus, Tim Redmond’s sp…

I guess, thanks, but it looks like exactly the same problem: It sets affordability requirements as low as 5%. See: 65913.3(b)(4)

The Governor’s budget trailer bill says that if a developer sets aside a certain fraction of the units for inclusionary housing and the proposal complies with the local zoning code, then the locality must approve it deterministically and quickly. This does not prevent a local government from setting a higher inclusionary requirement in their zoning code; it would remain 12% in San Francisco (or higher if Proposition C of June 2016 passes). The inclusionary fraction in the bill is just the threshold at which the other provisions begin to apply.

By the way, the Legislative Analyst’s Office has released an endorsement[1] of the bill which provides background, justification, and proposed improvements.

[1]: http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/3470

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#347

Post by TheCoelacanth »

abalone wrote: post #117
[deleted] wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

A 2% chance today, right? Increasing the supply of affordable housing should improve those odds. What's at stake here is how much affordable housing the city for negotiate for with developers. Critics argue this state bill undercuts the city's negotiating position.

Doesn't the bill only apply to developments with at least 10% onsite affordable housing? Is the city really going to negotiate a higher amount than that?

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#348

Post by superuser2 »

ascetone wrote: post #317
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…

Starting salaries for new graduates in SF are north of $100k. Those "six figures plus" are certainly on the table.

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#349

Post by morgante »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #345
morgante wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I guess you use "xenophobic" more broadly than I do. For example, if a large influx of patriotic, Budweiser-drinking gun-owners from Texas occurred in Berkeley and a long-time Berkeley resident complained about it because they didn't want a "culture of watery-beer, flag-waving gun ownership" to expand in their neighborhood, I would not call that xenophobic. But it seems like you would. Or, maybe you wouldn't. Can you…

Yes, I would consider it xenophobic. From my viewpoint, it's hard to see how any attitude which discriminates against people not like you isn't prejudices and backwards.

An example closer to home for me is that Vermonters constantly complain of "flatlanders" from NYC are moving in and ruining the culture. I consider this attitude xenophobic and ignorant of the fact that culture is never static.

Why should the national border make a difference? Why is it not xenophobic if Californians oppose Texans moving to town, but xenophobic when Texans oppose Mexicans moving a few miles north?

Re: Housing in the Bay Area

#350

Post by WildUtah »

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…

Muir Woods (the setting for the ape's home in the latest Planet of the Apes)

A Planet of The Apes remake? That's the first anchor you reach for?

Muir Woods is the planet Endor!

Post reply on HN