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

90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 302 posts

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#281

Post by jsweojtj »

abritinthebay wrote: post #122
aphextron wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>. I have also been seeing a general rise of articles mentioning how many people are leaving, how insane the commutes are becoming, and general unpleasantness of living there if you aren't in the top 10%. But if you are in the top 10%, life is amazing here. It's an absolute paradise. Every single time I'm sitting in traffic hating my life, I try to do a pro/con on getting the hell out of here. Every single time I jus…

And missing in the (usually propaganda) discussion of the "leaving in droves" is that CA and the Bay have a net increase in population. So while many are leaving it's not like they aren't being replaced!

That's not true for California at least, http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

Nor for SF itself, "San Francisco had a 2017 net domestic migration of -2,332." according to https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A...

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#282

Post by [deleted] »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #38

Part of me is still trying to understand why the housing shortage in the Bay Area is so severe. I understand NIMBYism from the homeowner's perspective, but there are a lot of renters in the SF Bay. SF is 63% renters, and should be able to outnumber NIMBY homeowners easily to have a lot more dense housing built. Alameda County is in 2nd place at 47% renters [1], so only a small percentage of homeowners need convincing…

[deleted]

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#283

Post by hesdeadjim »

jarjoura wrote: post #160
hesdeadjim wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they tried Colorado they’d change their mind quick. I always thought I’d end up in the valley, but after ten years here and seeing how bad the Bay Area has gotten, there isn’t enough money to convince me to make the switch.

True, Colorado has some gorgeous backdrops, but then again, you'd also have to be into 1/2 a year of intense snowy winters.

Actually we really don't get that much snow. In Boulder January and February are cold and snow can stick around for a week or two. But no joke, it can be sunny and 60 a day after a snowstorm.

Now go up into the mountains instead of the foothills, yea, you're gonna get that winter you're talking about.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#284

Post by rhacker »

reaperducer wrote: post #110
rhacker wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once there are unlimited remote jobs, the theory is they can live next door to the restaurant and construction site again. At least over the long term. In the meantime - that is playing out in smaller towns where remote employees are living.

>the theory is they can live next door to the restaurant and construction site Yes, because construction sites remain under construction for 10-20 years. /s Not everyone wants to find a new home every month.

Actually many construction workers I've met on the road have RVs so yes they do ;) Not the kind of construction you're thinking of though - pipeline construction.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#285

Post by rmk »

GFischer wrote: post #149
rmk wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the main problem is that creating textual output is a small part of the process of creating value for the customer (which is ultimately what most businesses do). This is a host of processes that go way beyond text manipulation, and they require collaboration. This is best done by getting in the same room (still!) and is not likely to change (unless of course someone develops some work collaboration application…

Fortunately not every company is that close-minded. I work in a remote office, and I collaborate every day with my team in Dallas (and most company members are distributed mostly all through the U.S. but also Canada, the UK and India). There's a LOT of collaboration tools, we use Slack (well, we were forced on Microsoft Teams now), Jira, Skype, e-mail, WhatsApp... I still appreciate meeting in person, they flew me on…

I would not really call that close-minded. It's established practice that has worked very well when building many, many non-trivial, innovative, technologically complex things.

There have been ginormous cost overruns, not to mention real technological problems and delays getting to market when collaboration has not been close. For example, the Airbus A380 (and to a larger extent the Boeing 787) were both massively delayed and over budget because far-flung suppliers of various major components faced big issues coming together on many details. A counterexample (mentioned in a book by the 'father of the 747', Joe Sutter) is how the 747 program was endangered in a big way when the Boeing company considered moving production (of the 747) to Walnut Creek, CA.

Similar problems happen on a routine basis in many software shops; only routine, well-scoped work has been successfully carried out by offshore teams.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#287

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

chrischen wrote: post #26
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #5

I realise new buildings are carbon intensive, but does anyone have the knowledge to do a back-of-the-envelope comparison of carbon emissions if these super-commuters were to move in to high-density housing that enabled them to walk or cycle to their jobs.

New buildings sequester carbon, especially if it doesn’t use recylced wood. Additionally high density housing and cities are vastly more energy efficient than sprawling suburbs based on at least one simple factor: cars.

In what sense do large high density housing projects sequester carbon? They’re typically made from a lot of steel and concrete, both of which are carbon intensive.

No one will be building high density housing from recycled timber any time soon.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#288

Post by muzz »

jsweojtj wrote: post #281
abritinthebay wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And missing in the (usually propaganda) discussion of the "leaving in droves" is that CA and the Bay have a net increase in population. So while many are leaving it's not like they aren't being replaced!

That's not true for California at least, http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265 Nor for SF itself, "San Francisco had a 2017 net domestic migration of -2,332." according to https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Bay-A...

That's only the domestic component. People are coming to SF from other countries, resulting a net population increase.

http://www.sfweekly.com/news/san-francisco-hits-new-all-time...

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#289

Post by chrischen »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #287
chrischen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New buildings sequester carbon, especially if it doesn’t use recylced wood. Additionally high density housing and cities are vastly more energy efficient than sprawling suburbs based on at least one simple factor: cars.

In what sense do large high density housing projects sequester carbon? They’re typically made from a lot of steel and concrete, both of which are carbon intensive. No one will be building high density housing from recycled timber any time soon.

Totally possible: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscrapers-timber-...

Large housing projects require less material and construction than low density housing. Why? Because low density housing is essentially doing a relatively giant housing project per person, spread over way more physical distance. People have to live somewhere, so if high density housing isn't made then they have to live in energy and resource wasting low-density housing.

That being said, living in high density will always be more energy efficient as less energy is wasted on locomotion for people, less energy is needed to service garbage pickup/disposal, less electricity is needed for heating/cooling, less material to construct a habitable unit, less energy is wasted transporting people to their work, less energy is wasted getting food to people (one grocery store to serve a whole high density area rather than a large distributed network of grocery stores), less energy wasted on food delivery (delivery driver can just go to one building versus driving the car around the suburbs)... and the list goes on.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#290

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

chrischen wrote: post #289
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense do large high density housing projects sequester carbon? They’re typically made from a lot of steel and concrete, both of which are carbon intensive. No one will be building high density housing from recycled timber any time soon.

Totally possible: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscrapers-timber-... Large housing projects require less material and construction than low density housing. Why? Because low density housing is essentially doing a relatively giant housing project per person, spread over way more physical distance. People have to live somewhere, so if high density housing isn't made then they have to live in energy and res…

Yes I realise this, it’s just that you said:

New buildings sequester carbon

Carbon sequestration is usually meant to mean carbon emissions are locked up in something, typically CO2 pumped in to a stable geological formation.

Whereas my point is that new buildings are carbon emissions insensive.

Post reply on HN