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

Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 206 posts

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#111

Post by hx87 »

codemac wrote: post #72
johan_larson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoning laws. And existing owners who staunchly oppose increasing density by building larger buildings. A lot of people who bought their single-family homes years or decades ago now live in appealing low-density neighborhoods with home values that are sky-rocketing. They don't want their neighborhoods to change into concrete canyons, and the ever-rising values of their homes fund their retirements very nicely. They th…

The people who bought their houses 30+ years ago I really feel for. The change the area is experiencing is brutal, and imagine if everyone just kept asking you why you don't sell and move away from the very place you built? It's futile for them to fight things, and honestly it ruins a lot of people's lives that they do. However I completely understand why they would push back on density, most people don't have to dea…

> most people don't have to deal with growth at these types of numbers over their lifetime.

I used to live in Houston, and my parents still live there, and the growth (in construction, not price) they'd dealt with (and enjoyed) puts anywhere in the SF Bay Area to shame.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#112

Post by shostack »

zippergz wrote: post #105
shostack wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For more recent buyers I'll bet the market value piece is pretty high on the list. If you bought in the last couple of years while things have been increasing, you want to see that trend increase. If suddenly prices drop because there's a ton more dense housing (which also impacts the other desirability factors of the neighborhood), you could easily be underwater on your $1M+ mortgage. Given the amount of money at st…

I’ve owned several houses. The more recently I bought, the LESS I care about the value of the house. It’s just numbers on paper. Money isn’t at stake until I’m trying to sell, which I’m certainly not looking to to do if I just recently bought.

Depends on where you are in life financially, the market you're in, and whether this is your first purchase.

If you bought recently, you probably had some sense that the market was a bit out of whack, but may have decided it was the right decision for other reasons. That doesn't make most people any less concerned about the future value of their house, particularly if they know they are not buying into their "Forever Home" and will one day need to sell and move elsewhere.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#113

Post by xenadu02 »

Very few people bother to vote in non-presidential elections. I keep hammering this point to anyone I meet in the startup scene here in SF. If just 1% of you reading this right now (who live in SF) bothered to vote on a pro-housing basis, we'd immediately turn into a huge voting bloc that could not be ignored. You should shame your coworkers and remind people in slack channels too. A few thousand NIMBYs currently control SF housing policy. Filling out an online form is all it takes to change that.

It's also really easy: register online and they mail the ballot to you. It's called "Permanent vote by mail". It takes almost no effort whatsoever.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/vote-mail...

You don't need a California drivers license. You don't need to have lived here for a year. You just have to have the intention to make California your current home (eg not a tourist).

For the lazy, SF Yes In My Backyard puts out voting slates of pro-housing politicians and propositions. Just reference that, draw the lines on the ballot, and drop it in the mail. You don't even have to buy a stamp.

http://www.sfyimby.org

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#114

Post by Johnny555 »

ryfm wrote: post #110
hx87 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a call for thick walls (including/especially party walls, floors and ceilings) and triple-pane windows, not restrictions on density. Unfortunately, due to the real estate industry's fixation on square footage and granite countertops to the exclusion of any other measure of quality, that's not likely to happen in most places.

it might be hard due to HOA/condo rules; and if you rent the place than good luck trying to change anything there. and given the way condos built in the US/canada it's just impossible, i was pretty surprised when i saw a six floors condo built with wooden frame, something like that: https://imgur.com/usO1i9r

The most effective soundproofing is designed in at construction time, it's difficult to impossible to add it in later, unless you're willing to build an entire noise-isolated shell within your walls.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#115

Post by arebop »

zippergz wrote: post #105
shostack wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For more recent buyers I'll bet the market value piece is pretty high on the list. If you bought in the last couple of years while things have been increasing, you want to see that trend increase. If suddenly prices drop because there's a ton more dense housing (which also impacts the other desirability factors of the neighborhood), you could easily be underwater on your $1M+ mortgage. Given the amount of money at st…

I’ve owned several houses. The more recently I bought, the LESS I care about the value of the house. It’s just numbers on paper. Money isn’t at stake until I’m trying to sell, which I’m certainly not looking to to do if I just recently bought.

It seems you are an unusual case [http://www.pewresearch.org/2009/02/19/oneinfive-homeowners-f...].

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#116

Post by ryfm »

Johnny555 wrote: post #109
ryfm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

townhouse is almost a house in that regard, now try a highrise where you can't choose quality construction. once when i rented appartments on the sixth floor i had to call the police to stop an argument happening on the 4th floor in the middle of the night. and i'm not even talking about some kids showing off theirs 'sporty' bikes/cars at 2am.

When I lived in a high-rise, I chose one that had quality construction with decent soundproofing between units. I rarely hear neighbors in any direction (above, below or to either side). Unless you're a prisoner (or someone else is paying for your housing because you can't afford it), you can always choose quality of construction -- it may not be where you want to live, or might be more than you want to pay, but it's…

I yet to see in the US/Canada something built differently from this https://imgur.com/usO1i9r

and if we're talking about a real highrise then good luck trying to change a door or window frames there to soundproof ones.

Anyways i'm not trying to convince anyone, but after more than 30 years spent in different types of appartments i'm pretty happy in my own house.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#117

Post by TulliusCicero »

pyre wrote: post #101
TulliusCicero wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source on that? AFAIK eminent domain for private development is rare, the vast, vast majority of the time developers just offer enough money to convince people to sell.

Not so rare that it doesn't have a Supreme Court case[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

It's my understanding that the Supreme Court case is so notable precisely because eminent domain for private development is so rare.

Re: Silicon Valley's housing crisis, in one sentence

#120

Post by mwfunk »

Johnny555 wrote: post #15
baron816 wrote: post #9

Why are people so adamantly opposed to density? Well, I know the reason is to prop up the value of their homes, but if you think about places like New York, London, and Paris, that argument doesn't exactly hold. Those cities are incredibly dense and expensive, but people love living there enough to pay the high prices. People who can live anywhere choose to live there. I'm willing to bet that SV could triple its popu…

I think it's because they are so attached to their cars, and more density brings more traffic. Especially when starting with a low-density neighborhood that's poorly served by transit and everyone that lives there is tied to their car. Places like NYC, London, and Paris have great public transit systems, it's easy to live there without a car, but much harder to do that in spread out Silicon Valley, even if you live n…

That's surely one aspect in this case, as accommodating traffic is an important part of city planning. However, there's way more resistance to building high-density housing in San Francisco, which has an even worse housing crisis than the South Bay but all of the public transit infrastructure required for a car-free life. NIMBYism and dogmatic recreational activists can be powerful forces everywhere. :(
Post reply on HN