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

51–60 of 111 posts

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

#51

Post by sdenton4 »

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…

“I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.”

An excellent encapsulation of what I call the "fuck you, got mine" mode of American politics.

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

#52

Post by vecinu »

getemback wrote: post #33
vecinu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This one is. It almost seems designed to trick a machine learning classifier into classifying it as a warehouse or something. Point it the existing built environment of Brisbane, CA is not worth preserving. Its car-dependent nature is a menace to the region. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6916572,-122.4087356,3a,90y,...

Your link still points to a house outside of Brisbane proper... how transit efficient is San Francisco outside of downtown? BART doesn't reach most of SF, MUNI is abysmal and buses...well, Brisbane has buses too.

I think your assessment is a bit heavy handed considering how bad public transit is in the area in general.

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

#53

Post by getemback »

vecinu wrote: post #52
getemback wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one is. It almost seems designed to trick a machine learning classifier into classifying it as a warehouse or something. Point it the existing built environment of Brisbane, CA is not worth preserving. Its car-dependent nature is a menace to the region. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6916572,-122.4087356,3a,90y,...

Your link still points to a house outside of Brisbane proper... how transit efficient is San Francisco outside of downtown? BART doesn't reach most of SF, MUNI is abysmal and buses...well, Brisbane has buses too. I think your assessment is a bit heavy handed considering how bad public transit is in the area in general.

You seem to be defining "Brisbane proper" as the area between San Francisco Ave. and Firth Park. But Brisbane is much more extensive. The majority of its land area is taken up by empty land, single-story material handling facilities, and ludicrous sprawl at "The Ridge".

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

#54

Post by greglindahl »

drspacemonkey wrote: post #27
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 think that was part of the point. IE: "if the principal city is built properly" implies the principal city isn't built properly.

Oh, that makes sense. Instead of talking about what we could actually do -- build high-density by an existing and underused transit hub -- let's complain about the way the entire Bay Area is laid out!

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

#55

Post by glibgil »

getemback wrote: post #37
glibgil wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brisbane, California is not a "small town" Brisbane is a small town. It is dense, not sprawling. It has a town square and a handful of shops. It has schools. It is surrounded by empty space on all sides. It is in a canyon of San Bruno Mountain on three sides and surround by bay water and rail yards on the north side. You don't know what you are talking about

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6888189,-122.4091851,410a,35...

That's not the town. That's the industrial park. The town is just south of there. It's made up of houses, not warehouses. Even including the industrial park, Brisbane is small, a town, not sprawling, and is completely detached from SF by water and a couple miles of rail yards. Tunnel Ave is really long and no one drives on it. It is effectively a country road that leads from SF to Brisbane. Go drive it or bike it or walk it some time. Brisbane is a completely separate place from SF

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

#56

Post by getemback »

glibgil wrote: post #55
getemback wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6888189,-122.4091851,410a,35...

That's not the town. That's the industrial park. The town is just south of there. It's made up of houses, not warehouses. Even including the industrial park, Brisbane is small, a town, not sprawling, and is completely detached from SF by water and a couple miles of rail yards. Tunnel Ave is really long and no one drives on it. It is effectively a country road that leads from SF to Brisbane. Go drive it or bike it or…

You obviously have no idea what the boundaries of Brisbane are.

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

#57

Post by [deleted] »

kafkaesq wrote: post #36
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.

A "small town" ... 7 miles from the center of a major global city and metro area ... even closer to a major international airport. Nothing weird about that situation at all. In fact it's the way much of planet is organized. These people are assholes. Nothing of the sort. They're long-term residents looking out for what's best for their community. And it's exactly the kind of completely gratuitous negativity (project…

[deleted]

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

#58

Post by oneshot908 »

sdenton4 wrote: post #51
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…

“I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.” An excellent encapsulation of what I call the "fuck you, got mine" mode of American politics.

If Silicon Valley were serious about solving its housing crisis (which it's not), there are solutions. Because while you're concern trolling that Brisbane doesn't feel any sort of civic duty to create some sort of Gibsonian tech ghetto with their valuable (but really smelly) land, the valley could solve this problem on its own by relaxing zoning laws (which they won't).

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/02/heres-what-it-would-l...

Now imagine an alternate reality where the BART had circled the bay and then extended northward, southward, and eastward instead of getting @#$%blocked in 1961 by San Mateo county. But since we can't have nice things like that, Brisbane IMO owes SF and the bay area nothing and they should squeeze out the last drop of profit from this situation.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/05/history-of-bart-to-the...

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

#59

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#60

Post by chaostheory »

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 may have worded it poorly, but here's the context:

> Still, some Brisbane residents say they don’t trust regulators will get it right, because what’s known about the toxicity of chemicals can change over time. Even though they won’t live in the Baylands, opponents believe they have a responsibility to shield those who might.

I don't agree with them but that's still a valid concern

Post reply on HN