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

Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

dougmccune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 212 posts

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#181

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Grishnakh wrote: post #68
coenhyde wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the best argument for building more is to keep SF weird. A lot of people are sad SF has changed so radically; become less artsy. These same people argue against building up, in the misguided notion that it will destroy their lovely city. But imo what's destroying SF is not high rises but anyone on a sub $100k salary has to live somewhere else. It's becoming a mono culture. And at the end of the day bitching a…

Well eventually it's going to have a real problem if service workers can't afford to live there. What are they going to do, pay maids and janitors $30/hour to entice them to commute 4 hours a day? There's lots of places where the real estate values are very high, and poorer people are completely priced out of the area. Those places don't have a problem with that, because districts where lower-income people can live a…

>Personally, I think they should probably outlaw rent control (it'd probably have to be done at the state level). That's probably enabling SF to maintain itself this way, by giving lower-income people a place to live nearby. Eliminate rent control and those rents will go through the roof, pricing them all out of the city. Then the landowning residents can suffer without any services.

Ah, the FULL ACCELERATIONISM option. Just beat down the working classes until they revolt!

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#182

Post by eli_gottlieb »

kofejnik wrote: post #174

People keep saying 'SF should allow for more development' as if it's a universal human right to live in SF; while current residents are being mean by not wanting highrises on their block. SF is nice, more people want to live there than there's space, hence, not everyone can afford it. Why would the current owners/residents want to change that? I really don't get it.

If people actually supported preserving existing units/communities exactly as they are, with no change, then they would vote to expand rent-control to 100% of all rented units in the city, thus ensuring that anyone who gets an apartment in San Francisco will be able to stay indefinitely.

But actually, people only care about their cheap housing, not cheap housing for everyone.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#183

Post by School-Cotton »

ghaff wrote: post #178
School-Cotton wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New York. Maybe New York is the only real world-class city in the US. It's not a hard argument to support...

I'm less convinced that world class city inherently means "not owning a car is the norm and isn't really a compromise." That seems to give a lot of weight to what's ultimately your personal preference. But, yes, if that's the definition, only New York (Manhattan in particular) really qualifies in the US. You can get away with it in other US cities but it tends to depend on stage in life, income, specific situation wi…

Can you name many other world-class cities where one needs a car to comfortably survive? I've been to many such as Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris, and London, and most people don't own cars in any of those.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#184

Post by rsync »

tomschlick wrote: post #4

As an outsider, the solution to the SF housing issues seem pretty simple... Vote out the NIMBY politicians and replace them with people who will change zoning laws to allow for more building. I'd assume almost no one likes the current situation unless they are a landlord.

"As an outsider, the solution to the SF housing issues seem pretty simple... Vote out the NIMBY politicians and replace them with people who will change zoning laws to allow for more building."

You are correct - that is the solution.

However, voting for the opposite is also the solution and is an equally valid expression, and result, of democracy.

Sometimes democracy delivers results we dislike.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#185

Post by heartsucker »

kofejnik wrote: post #179
heartsucker wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it reverse. Is it a universal right to have luxurious places to live in a high demand area? Why would people who want to move into or remain in SF on a budget not want to change that? This is why issues like this are complicated. Both sides have some merit. (also, not taking sides since I don't live there any more)

Not very complicated, there are universal human rights, plus whatever is guaranteed in a relevant constitution. Everything else is for those who can afford it. Luxurious place in high demand area is one example. (should we strive to make Ferraris affordable?) Otherwise, can people come live in your apartment? Why do you keep your place and your food and your car to yourself? Certainly a lot of people would want to ch…

Ok, sure. It's not a universal human right, but we can do better than the absolute minimum to give some semblance of equality to people instead of leaving people's lives to the fate of where they were born in the world and how rich their parents were.

If there was universal health care out in the world that said vaccinations and emergency procedures were free for everyone, but if you were born on Feb 1st, you also got a personal trainer and free cosmetic surgery, everyone else would be within reason to complain about such a system. This is effectively what is happening here.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#186

Post by aetherson »

School-Cotton wrote: post #183
ghaff wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm less convinced that world class city inherently means "not owning a car is the norm and isn't really a compromise." That seems to give a lot of weight to what's ultimately your personal preference. But, yes, if that's the definition, only New York (Manhattan in particular) really qualifies in the US. You can get away with it in other US cities but it tends to depend on stage in life, income, specific situation wi…

Can you name many other world-class cities where one needs a car to comfortably survive? I've been to many such as Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris, and London, and most people don't own cars in any of those.

"There are 2.6m cars registered in London. 54 per cent of London households have at least one car." -- http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-ar...

"Tokyo has the lowest number in the nation–0.46 cars per household" -- http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2014/08/18/number-of-cars...

I can't find cars per household for Paris, but cars per adult appears to be around 0.5, (https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01069997/document), so cars per household can't be lower than that.

Hong Kong appears to be truly virtually carless.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#188

Post by dougmccune »

bborud wrote: post #187

This is indeed poetic: sculpture bemoaning gentrification realized through the kind of technology that is celebrated by bearded hipster millionaires that drive up housing prices.

The irony of a rich white male bay-area programmer using a 3D printer and data viz to explore/comment on housing prices in SF does not escape me.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#189

Post by Grishnakh »

Retric wrote: post #140
Grishnakh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well eventually it's going to have a real problem if service workers can't afford to live there. What are they going to do, pay maids and janitors $30/hour to entice them to commute 4 hours a day? There's lots of places where the real estate values are very high, and poorer people are completely priced out of the area. Those places don't have a problem with that, because districts where lower-income people can live a…

The normal result is people end up living a near homeless lifestyle. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084971/Hong-Kongs-c... 200$/month * 20people = 4,000$ per room.

Why wouldn't they just move somewhere else if they're not rich enough to stay there? SF isn't the only city in the Bay Area, after all; it's surrounded by many other cities.

My whole idea is to make it so service workers don't want to live in SF or work there either, causing services to either just not be available, or to cost an absolute fortune, seriously degrading the quality-of-life for SF residents. If you make it so service workers just can't live there (without resorting to illegal overcrowded occupation like you mention here), I think they'd just go elsewhere.

Post reply on HN