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

A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 111 posts

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#21

Post by vecinu »

getemback wrote: post #10
cylinder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "small town" ... 7 miles from the center of a major global city and metro area ... even closer to a major international airport. These people are assholes.

There's nothing wrong with small villages 7 miles from a major city or even a capital city, if the principal city is built properly. If you walk 7 miles from the center of Zurich, Switzerland you'll probably find yourself in the middle of a vineyard or pasture.

Brisbane is 6.5 miles from downtown SF (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+downtown+san+...)

The entire peninsula is tiny, it's not fair to compare it to Zurich.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#23

Post by jorams »

dalfonso wrote: post #2

>> “We’re a small town,” City Councilman W. Clarke Conway said at a meeting on the project last fall, “and we’re a small town by choice.” >> Last year, Brisbane hired a consultant who found that the city would net $1 million a year in tax revenue by approving the Baylands. But if the city instead approved a project with lots more commercial space, a larger hotel and no housing, Brisbane would gain $9 million annually…

> if a city could make as much money off housing as they could retail

The article points out concerns about the size of the expansion relative to the current city, which makes sense, but why is tax income a concern for a city? Surely it doesn't exist to make as much money as possible?

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#24

Post by vecinu »

getemback wrote: post #18
greglindahl wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your statement appears to have nothing to do with the area that Brisbane, CA is located in.

I was just objecting to the idea that a small town was inappropriate in this context. With a suitable urban form there's no reason why you couldn't take the entire population of Brisbane and put them all on 640 acres, with 80% open space. But Brisbane, California is not a "small town" it's a disgusting example of exurban sprawl. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brisbane,+CA/@37.679201,-1...

If you look at your link, you will see the address is (142 Elderberry Ln, Brisbane, CA 94005).

Looking at the map (https://goo.gl/maps/7kvttaK8z7F2), it's not even in Brisbane proper, so I think you're wrong about your assessment.

I have been to Brisbane, the number of large McMansions is very tiny.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#25

Post by rajeshp1986 »

getemback wrote: post #4
dalfonso wrote: post #2

>> “We’re a small town,” City Councilman W. Clarke Conway said at a meeting on the project last fall, “and we’re a small town by choice.” >> Last year, Brisbane hired a consultant who found that the city would net $1 million a year in tax revenue by approving the Baylands. But if the city instead approved a project with lots more commercial space, a larger hotel and no housing, Brisbane would gain $9 million annually…

Those numbers don't make a lot of sense. Wouldn't 4400 homes generate something in the vicinity of 50 million dollars in annual property taxes?

I don't know who is the genius who crunches such kind of numbers. Even though 4400 homes will only get $1 million in direct property taxes. There will be huge indirect economic boost that will happen because of the so many people that will stay. There will be new opportunities for the locals for employments & businesses. There will be lot of restaurants, shopping center etc that will cater to these residents. That will be more than building commercial properties and getting $9 million in property revenues.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#26

Post by greglindahl »

getemback wrote: post #18
greglindahl wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your statement appears to have nothing to do with the area that Brisbane, CA is located in.

I was just objecting to the idea that a small town was inappropriate in this context. With a suitable urban form there's no reason why you couldn't take the entire population of Brisbane and put them all on 640 acres, with 80% open space. But Brisbane, California is not a "small town" it's a disgusting example of exurban sprawl. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brisbane,+CA/@37.679201,-1...

Oh, you're raising a non-sequitor. Got it.

That's not what we call an 'exurb', either.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#27

Post by drspacemonkey »

greglindahl wrote: post #15
getemback wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with small villages 7 miles from a major city or even a capital city, if the principal city is built properly. If you walk 7 miles from the center of Zurich, Switzerland you'll probably find yourself in the middle of a vineyard or pasture.

Your statement appears to have nothing to do with the area that Brisbane, CA is located in.

I think that was part of the point. IE: "if the principal city is built properly" implies the principal city isn't built properly.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#28

Post by bdamm »

getemback wrote: post #3

This has been going around, but even this plan to build 4400 dwellings is still total nonsense, because the plan also includes office space for 15000 people. 15000 jobs requires much more than 4400 dwellings, so this plan will just make things worse. I recommend comparing and contrasting with this plan for Coyote Valley, to see what real urbanism looks like. http://www.greenbelt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Coyote-…

That is an outstanding plan.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#29

Post by jimbobob »

mylons wrote: post #17
dalfonso wrote: post #2

>> “We’re a small town,” City Councilman W. Clarke Conway said at a meeting on the project last fall, “and we’re a small town by choice.” >> Last year, Brisbane hired a consultant who found that the city would net $1 million a year in tax revenue by approving the Baylands. But if the city instead approved a project with lots more commercial space, a larger hotel and no housing, Brisbane would gain $9 million annually…

the quote from Michele Solomon of Brisbane is disgusting.

She's not even trying to hide her selfishness. What a lack of empathy.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#30

Post by getemback »

HoppedUpMenace wrote: post #20

May not be a popular opinion but I'd have to say that I value the idea of having space between me and my neighbors, so I'm definitely not in favor of maxing out the land for homes to the point where the houses might as well be attached and labeled condos or apartments. I can understand where the people are coming from in wanting to maintain what they've invested into. I'd hate to see a sudden boom in population and s…

With respect to your and our values, the people of the state have mandated that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced below 1990 levels by year 2020, and state law requires every city to adopt a climate action plan to that effect. Brisbane's adopted plan recognizes that transportation is the majority of the city's greenhouse gas emissions, and acknowledges that "Lack of affordability in urban core housing causes people to live far away from where they work", but does not propose fixing this problem. The only solution their climate action plan proposes is to install public electric car chargers!
Post reply on HN