Berlin Google Campus occupied • Hacker News Board

Re: Berlin Google Campus occupied

#121

Post by TulliusCicero » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #105

TulliusCicero wrote: post #14

> New tech companies are driving the rents up in the area higher and higher. The endpoint of this process can be seen in San Francisco, which once must have been a halfway livable city. This is more the fault of NIMBYs and supply&demand-denialists who work hard to prevent new housing from going up. Yes, tech companies brought the demand because of good jobs, but last I checked, we wanted companies to offer high payin…

One of my favorite spots in Berlin is the Monsterkabinett. It's an underground dungeon full of giant animatronic creatures who dance and sing along with the industrial style music of their creators. It's also a fantastic example of what's possible when you don't have to worry about rent. The space is part of an old squat, still filled with artists who now get a steady flow of tourists to sell to. And some of the arti…

> You can call it NIMBYism, but for Kreuzberg it's really more about fighting gentrification and displacement, and preserving a city at the edge of society. There's a fundamental difference between fighting development in the mission and presidio...

SF tried "fighting" gentrification by blocking development, and it just made the problem twice as bad. Look at the results: do they look good to you? Why would you want to copy such an abysmal failure?

NIMBYs are the cause of much displacement, especially of the poor. In some cases this is because of ignorance, in other cases it's greed. Either way, it's not acceptable.

Re: Berlin Google Campus occupied

#122

Post by TulliusCicero » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

spuz wrote: post #113

TulliusCicero wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this, average 1br rent in Vancouver is only $1500/month, which seems pretty reasonable to me for a major city, especially one that's seen as very desirable like Vancouver: https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-vancouver-bc-rent... If we could get SF down to 1500/month I'd be ecstatic, that's less than half the current price.

Is that USD or CAD? Also, according to that site, there has been a 32% drop in prices since last year. I wonder what the reason for that is?

That is strange. I could see that being currency value changes, except the 2br price has been relatively stable.

Re: Berlin Google Campus occupied

#123

Post by summerlight » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 4:28 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #115

mc32 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure about the sitch in Berlin, but here in the SF Bsy Area they do try to push for policies and development, they are seldom successful. They get lots of pushback.

I'm wondering how hard they try relative to their other lobbying efforts. You don't see major news stories about tech execs appealing for more housing for their workers. Usually it's about building a new HQ, such as Jobs in Cupertino or Dorsey for the Market St. office.

Google have tried almost 10 years to provide housing for their workers in Mountain View. AFAIK, the city has consistently rejected its plan until a new pro-development mayor gets elected, presumably due to the current significant presence of Googlers. Now they have an approval for 9,100 units of housing in North Bayshore, but I guess it will take another 10 years for the actual planning and development.

Re: Berlin Google Campus occupied

#124

Post by Apocryphon » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

deminature wrote: post #96

titzer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is more the fault of NIMBYs and supply&demand-denialists I don't think you quite grasp the effects of a massive influx of hundreds to thousands of new individuals making $150k-250k. It increases rent across the board, which impacts all the people in an area. Sure, it might create a few new jobs for baristas and shopkeepers, a few bartenders and waitresses. But ultimately it just leads to gentrification and pri…

Where are large tech companies supposed to put their offices? If they're in areas where the workers want to live and can reasonably commute to, they're accused of gentrification. If they're in areas where they're not upsetting the existing housing situation, they can't attract any talent to fill positions. These companies can't win.

Embrace remote work and try harder to attract talent in secondary cities. They've got the money and the influence to make that happen, see Amazon's HQ2 bid.

Re: Berlin Google Campus occupied

#125

Post by TulliusCicero » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

tarboreus wrote: post #32

TulliusCicero wrote: post #11

Huh, we're building a campus in Berlin? Neat! I work in the Munich office, but Berlin seems nice too.

Glad you came away from this story with your broad perspective intact.

Was there something particularly convincing there that should've swayed me?

Re: Berlin Google Campus occupied

#126

Post by carapace » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #14

> New tech companies are driving the rents up in the area higher and higher. The endpoint of this process can be seen in San Francisco, which once must have been a halfway livable city. This is more the fault of NIMBYs and supply&demand-denialists who work hard to prevent new housing from going up. Yes, tech companies brought the demand because of good jobs, but last I checked, we wanted companies to offer high payin…

No, the data do not back that up: https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/05/27/rents-in-san-francisc...

In order for new construction to materially affect rent rate we would have to build more housing faster than it has ever been done before, for decades to come.

Leaving aside the question of whether it is desirable to convert SF into another Manhattan, we could actually do it: there are modern methods to build entire new apartment buildings in forty days, etc. We could, in theory, convert the Richmond and Sunset districts from mostly single-family homes to three- and four-story apartment buildings, and do it quickly enough that rates rise slowly. Not fall, or stay static, just not rise as quickly as they are now.

But still, how do the people not earning $100,000 or more afford to live there?

Just building the buildings would require a sizable portion of the entire California construction industry. Where does that army live?

How do all these people get into and out of the SF peninsula? You're talking about eventually two or three million people just in SF, South SF, and Daly City.

How long before those teeming millions forget how much we value nature and start eyeing the Marin Headlands, or all that beautiful land south of Pacifica? San Francisco is the largest city with the most wild land around it in the world.

Anyhow my point is, enough with the "Damn NIMBYs!" rhetoric already. This is a big ol problem that will take decades to sort out and the ocean will rise before that can happen, so please stop insulting your neighbors for liking their neighborhood, eh? One way or another it's not going to last, so why not let them enjoy it. You work in tech, right? You can afford to move up/inland early, beat the rush, no? You've got just enough time to stay and let your kids deal with it for you. Forgive me if that sounds harsh, I'm keeping it real: We have bigger problems than folks not liking new housing. San Francisco is at sea level.

Re: Berlin Google Campus occupied

#127

Post by sdenton4 » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #121

sdenton4 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my favorite spots in Berlin is the Monsterkabinett. It's an underground dungeon full of giant animatronic creatures who dance and sing along with the industrial style music of their creators. It's also a fantastic example of what's possible when you don't have to worry about rent. The space is part of an old squat, still filled with artists who now get a steady flow of tourists to sell to. And some of the arti…

> You can call it NIMBYism, but for Kreuzberg it's really more about fighting gentrification and displacement, and preserving a city at the edge of society. There's a fundamental difference between fighting development in the mission and presidio... SF tried "fighting" gentrification by blocking development, and it just made the problem twice as bad. Look at the results: do they look good to you? Why would you want t…

"We must burn the village to save it." New housing tends to be higher rent; if you want to increase affordable housing stock, mowing down older, lower-rent buildings isn't the way to do it. (Especially in Berlin, where housing is often already far higher density than you see anywhere in the bay area.)

Re: Berlin Google Campus occupied

#128

Post by hobofan » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #90

bogomipz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this part of the Beta House complex?

No, it’s here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Umspannwerk+Kreuzberg+GmbH... The Betahaus is here, maybe 5 minutes by bike https://www.google.com/maps/place/Betahouse,+Prinzessinnenst...

That's the old betahaus location. They recently moved.

Re: Berlin Google Campus occupied

#129

Post by TulliusCicero » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

usrusr wrote: post #30

TulliusCicero wrote: post #14

> New tech companies are driving the rents up in the area higher and higher. The endpoint of this process can be seen in San Francisco, which once must have been a halfway livable city. This is more the fault of NIMBYs and supply&demand-denialists who work hard to prevent new housing from going up. Yes, tech companies brought the demand because of good jobs, but last I checked, we wanted companies to offer high payin…

Lack of highrise developments is what makes those areas attractive in the first place. Berlin has plenty highrise residential, yet Google and the like are decidedly avoiding those areas. Converting more of the cityscape into the kind of area where neither Google nor the protestors would want to be would make the situation worse, not better. Also, it's quite possible that you widely underestimate the existing density,…

If people want it to be illegal for Google and similar companies to move in there or redevelop it, that's possible. I'm not sure that's such a good idea, but it can be done. Getting mad at Google for doing something that's a good idea for their business, is entirely within the law, and is generally ethical behavior (unless you think opening new offices or redeveloping urban areas is generally unethical somehow) is silly.

Like, the government has the power to change how something is zoned, do they not? And the government is elected by the people. And it's not like anyone thinks that no new buildings should ever go up in cities, so the clear solution here is for people to vote/apply political pressure to protect this particular area. That's the government's job.

Re: Berlin Google Campus occupied

#130

Post by carapace » Fri, Sep 07, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #116

Apocryphon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies have a basic duty to run themselves ethically and obey laws and regulations. Externalities exist. Companies cannot pretend they operate independently of the communities they're based in. They also can't shut their ears. Even if local zoning laws are at fault, these companies which spend lavishly on lobbyists at the national and provincial level, don't seem to be agitating for local change to improve housi…

> Externalities exist. Companies cannot pretend they operate independently of the communities they're based in. True enough, higher wages cause prices of goods and services to rise. But again, the externality in this case is a result of workers having more money: exactly what everyone in the country, right and left, wants to see. That's why getting upset at them for that is silly. It's like getting upset at green ene…

I think you're a good person, and arguing in good faith, but I wish you could hear how you sound to "the other side", meaning the folks who just got themselves arrested for their silly stunt.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, I'm just trying to point out how the same words can sound wonderful or insidious, friendly or patronizing, depending on the listener.