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

Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 261 posts

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#221

Post by kbenson »

rovolo wrote: post #218
kbenson wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely the only difference is you won't meet the people at work, but you probably wouldn't date them anyway would you. Traditionally, work has been a very common place to meet future spouses. I believe the rate has dropped in recent decades, but I would be surprised if it was so low as to be inconsequential, especially when considering something as important as many people view this.

According to 'Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary' (2010) http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122412448050 , around 10% of (hetero) couples met at work as of 2010, down from a peak of 20% in 1990. It is the fourth most common method behind friends, bars, and online. Just the graph: https://cdn.technologyreview.com/i/images/internet-dating.pn...

I figured it was probably sub 20%. 10% is still quite high, in my eyes.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#222

Post by methodover »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #212
methodover wrote: post #211

Better transit and a unified representative government is a great idea. It's also never going to happen. Or if it will, it's decades away. I've become convinced that if we want real change, it needs to be done by technology. Lyft for example could solve the transit problem if they figure out how to lower the cost of a ride, perhaps with automated drivers. Then you wouldn't need to build too much more infrastructure -…

AirBnB arguably has the potential to help with housing. Some would argue it also winds up hurting it though.

The best idea I've heard is a system that helps people pool their money together to buy expensive single family homes, then split the lot into multiple homes or into a condo.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#223

Post by [deleted] »

rovolo wrote: post #218
kbenson wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely the only difference is you won't meet the people at work, but you probably wouldn't date them anyway would you. Traditionally, work has been a very common place to meet future spouses. I believe the rate has dropped in recent decades, but I would be surprised if it was so low as to be inconsequential, especially when considering something as important as many people view this.

According to 'Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary' (2010) http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122412448050 , around 10% of (hetero) couples met at work as of 2010, down from a peak of 20% in 1990. It is the fourth most common method behind friends, bars, and online. Just the graph: https://cdn.technologyreview.com/i/images/internet-dating.pn...

[deleted]

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#224

Post by ryuker16 »

alkonaut wrote: post #149
usaar333 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Google created a new HQ in Kansas City, with it's fiber links, and low cost of living, and added really great benefits like free day care, etc, then won't software engineers move there, especially those that are ready to start a family? I bet you they would. I definitely would. Maybe some, but I'd be really surprised if you get substantial numbers of your top people to move - which effectively blocks the overall…

Aren't there attractive places in California where tech companies could set up offices to accommodate those who want to leave the valley, while still making sure everyone is still just a few hours drive away if they should be required in a meeting at main HQ?

None of them are cheap...just cheaper

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#225

Post by taheca »

alkonaut wrote: post #147
taheca wrote: post #105

Those of us who grew up in less desirable environments (where they have real winter) are perfectly content with living out farther, and commuting in on the BART. I personally live out by the Delta surrounded by fresh air, fresh fruit, and nice people (we have a strong community and frequently see people we know out and about, it's great). My commute into SF is about 90 min one way, and it is the easiest, least stress…

I hope you work during your commute so you don't have to be away from family for 3 + 8 (Or more) hours. That means basically working the whole day all week, seeing your family only on weekends. I can't imagine what kind of comp someone would want for that (effectively permanent 55 hour weeks).

Easy to make a statement like this.

My wife has never worked because she did not have a career established when we decided to have kids. Allowing her to stay home is one of my proudest accomplishments (and it has done wonders for our kids).

I am home every night to spend a few hours with my kids, and I read to them every night before bed.

I spend all day on the weekends with them.

Sure I would love a shorter commute, as I said, I am in a non technical, and not in as high demand profession as many on here.

This is what a regular person goes through Hackernews. Keep that in consideration the next time you feel like complaining.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#226

Post by tathougies »

santaclaus wrote: post #4

> In the Bay Area, you’re unlikely to have easy access to San Francisco at all if you’re not in San Francisco proper. Eh? It is pretty easy to get to San Francisco from Oakland or Berkeley. Hell, its easier to get to fidi or soma from Oakland than from parts of San Francisco. Edit: For the downvoters, I’m genuinely curious how BART from Oakland to San Fran is considerd hard? I was simply contesting the point that the…

Yeah, I live in Marin, and it's a 30 minute ferry ride to work or a 40-50 minute bus ride, which literally takes me door to door (oh, and it has comfy seats and free wi-fi!)

When I tell people where I live, they think I'm crazy for living in the middle of nowhere.

But, it's honestly great. On the weekend, I have the option of a 10 minute drive to an ancient redwood grove, a 20 minute drive to a national seashore, a 30 minute drive to Napa, a 10 minute walk to empty land and mountains, or a 15 minute drive into San Francisco. Or, I have the option to take the ferry into the city, drink as much as I want, and then take the bus back home.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#227

Post by acchow »

cmontella wrote: post #26

I used to live in the dead center of the city, in the Ashbury Heights neighborhood. It took me literally 1 hour to get to work, down town taking muni (fastest time recorded is 40 minutes without any delays and essentially running the "last mile"). This was the longest commute of my life, and I lived 3 miles from work. It would take me just a little more time to walk there. Biking was faster, but more dangerous -- I g…

> I used to live in the dead center of the city, in the Ashbury Heights neighborhood. It took me literally 1 hour to get to work, down town taking muni

Was a great deal of that time spent walking? Because taking the N from Cole Valley to downtown normally takes 15 minutes.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#228

Post by compiler-guy »

tedivm wrote: post #180
compiler-guy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is a difference. The difference is that Golden Gate Park is near the author's home, and Brisbane isn't. High rise condos around Golden Gate park wouldn't affect the usability of Golden Gate Park all that much. It would barely affect the beauty. Yes, Brisbane ought to build more housing, but what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. And if we want Brisbane to give up its autonomy so that we can…

There is a huge difference between "lets build our denser high rises in these areas so as to protect our park" versus "lets not build any residential properties in our city at all", and trying to act as if they are the same is horribly disingenuous.

That’s not the trade off the article proposed, and you will note that the author responded directly with an opinion much different than yours.

The bottom line is that both cities have things they value and they don’t want someone else to tell them what to do. If we are to solve the problem, everyone will have to make sacrifices. Everyone’s neighborhood will need to change. Including golden gate park.

Incidentally, “disingenuous” implies active deception. There nothing like that here. I don’t live in Brisbane or San Fran, and I support Beale every housing initiative I have been exposed to.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#229

Post by sogen »

greedo wrote: post #102
sogen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bus arrives on time: Yes But it's so crowded and stinky, it's not worth it. That's my educated guess about why so many people use car sharing services Also, why do they keep doing so many new buildings? Those buildings are going to need people, and people need transportation, and a house...

Nobody uses buses anymore. They're too crowded. (apologies to Y.B.)

ahh, nice :)

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#230

Post by sogen »

ghaff wrote: post #100
gok wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think those are probably the cable cars? Those are indeed completely absurd, but eh, it's a roller coaster for tourists.

They're very cute. Utterly impractical as public transportation. But cute :-)

:D
Post reply on HN