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

Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 112 posts

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#41

Post by ebog »

nstom wrote: post #19
jerkstate wrote: post #7

Startup idea: convert traditional multilevel parking lots in urban centers to RV parks. Run power, water, and sewage to each space. Build a shared gym/kitchen to charge access to. Even install car elevators to really pack ‘em in! You could also lobby for enforcement and fines to go up in your local area to increase your customer base! Not dystopian at all!

That's actually been tried in the 70s, but for various reasons it never really took off: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/mobile-home-skyscrape...

It looks like the main problems were problems with HVAC (which wouldn't be a problem in California and probably could be more easily solved with modern building materials) and the ugliness of it. Everybody in the Bay Area would surely hate a version of the Skyrise Terrace in their city but it could be a good idea if someone could buy a large parking structure and retrofit it for mobile home utilities.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#42

Post by falcolas »

ebog wrote: post #33
falcolas wrote: post #29

A lot of sentiment here around "housing is the root of all these problems", but isn't it also the problem of these companies creating offices in communities that can't support them? Given there are a lot of places that offices could be built that could support the employees, I think some of this responsibility lies with the companies who consciously keep their offices in locations that may cause their employees (not…

Would you rather people, jobs, and an economic powerhouse of an industry move away or just build more housing? It's not like the software industry is a monolith, it's a collection of people and companies who have decided the network effect of moving to a high cost place with a lot of engineering talent is better than the alternatives. It's hard to move that inertia somewhere else. Then there's the serious question of…

If the city can't (or won't) support the company, yes, the company should move. The city can make decisions from there, instead of assuming that the companies will be there regardless of the city's actions.

There's a lot of cities throughout the US (even a few within easy driving distance of SF) who would love to house Google.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#43

Post by blotter_paper »

jerkstate wrote: post #11
nwsm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you just invented apartments, which would need residential zoning, which is already the problem.

No, I’m disrupting zoning laws. Paradigm shift!

Twist: rather than rent out the spaces, just post the parked RVs on Airbnb! Can we divide an RV into a duplex? As long as it still has wheels, how big can an RV get before it's legally an apartment building?

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#44

Post by falcolas »

esoterica wrote: post #32
falcolas wrote: post #29

A lot of sentiment here around "housing is the root of all these problems", but isn't it also the problem of these companies creating offices in communities that can't support them? Given there are a lot of places that offices could be built that could support the employees, I think some of this responsibility lies with the companies who consciously keep their offices in locations that may cause their employees (not…

Companies put their offices in expensive cities because that’s where most of the people who work for them want to live. If Google decided to move their HQ to rural Kansas tomorrow, most of the company would quit overnight.

> If Google decided to move their HQ to rural Kansas tomorrow, most of the company would quit overnight.

Which is merely a different form of "I got mine, F' you" from some employees (especially the C level employees) to other employees.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#45

Post by erentz »

chasingthewind wrote: post #39
conanbatt wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Henry George has better land value models. I truly believe california has it all wrong talking about housing: people asking for more construction don't understand what is going on when they campaign for that, and people that complaing about boards also dont understand it. California does not need housing reform, it needs tax reform.

I became interested in Georgist tax models a few years ago but at one point I came across something that didn't seem to be Georgist exactly but perhaps a later modification that seemed terrifying. The idea was that you were responsible to tell the tax authority what the taxable value of your land was. The catch was that anyone could come and (forcibly?) purchase the land at that price. It struck me as an incredibly d…

Radical Markets chapter 1 [1]. It was a really interesting idea, I wanted to see more discussion on it, I don’t think it’s entirely without problems. Maybe cabals could form for example.

[1] http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s11222.pdf

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#46

Post by conanbatt »

falcolas wrote: post #29

A lot of sentiment here around "housing is the root of all these problems", but isn't it also the problem of these companies creating offices in communities that can't support them? Given there are a lot of places that offices could be built that could support the employees, I think some of this responsibility lies with the companies who consciously keep their offices in locations that may cause their employees (not…

The root of all problems is the tax system in california.

It bleeds out foreigners and renters to pay high incomes to retirees that dont pay income taxes or property taxes.

Everyone is absolutely wrong focusing on housing: it is a symptom, not the disease.

If san francisco eliminated the regressive sales tax and put it on say, garbage collection, it would shift away 2 billion dollars from all workers, including low income to the very enriched landlord class. Iterate that on business taxes, which are about 25% more of its budget if i remember, and then businesses will grow and wages will go up: and landlords holding the bags will be the first to change zoning codes on the plummeting value of their properties.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#47

Post by nwah1 »

conanbatt wrote: post #27
peter_d_sherman wrote: post #12

"Every increase in the real wealth of the society, every increase in the quantity of useful labour employed within it, tends indirectly to raise the real rent of land." -Adam Smith, "The Wealth Of Nations" Book I, XI. Of the Rent of Land, Conclusion https://www.bartleby.com/10/111.html

Henry George has better land value models. I truly believe california has it all wrong talking about housing: people asking for more construction don't understand what is going on when they campaign for that, and people that complaing about boards also dont understand it. California does not need housing reform, it needs tax reform.

George's view of land directly was inspired by Adam Smith. And by David Ricardo, who was primarily inspired by Adam Smith.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#48

Post by docker_up »

To all those that say "build more housing" will solve all our problems, I don't think they've actually been looking at the housing markets.

All of the new housing in the Bay Area is at a premium price. All of it. There are tens of thousands of condos slated to be built in SF. They are all top of the end condos. They haven't and they won't dent the prices. Building more homes will just let more rich people move to the Bay Area and it will sustain prices.

Supply will increase at a much, much lower rate than demand when it comes to housing. Unless you literally create ghost cities like in China, you won't get the effect that you want.

The only way to curb prices is to reduce demand. Force Facebook, Google and Amazon to build outside of the Bay Area. I guarantee that will be the quickest way to curb demand and to throttle house prices. Have Google build in Kansas City instead of San Jose. Have Facebook build in Detroit. There's enough money to sustain an entire ecosystem and it will help increase house prices in other areas and dampen demand here.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#49

Post by erentz »

chelmzy wrote: post #8

I understand the people that have been living there since before the boom. But what about the security guard and other such people that moved there knowing they would need to live in a van? There's 100s of cities to choose from so its not necessary to put yourself through that.

Moving away from your home where all your friends and family and network are is actually an incredibly difficult thing to do. These things are very valuable to a lot of people.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#50

Post by mochomocha »

rhacker wrote: post #31
mochomocha wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No space? Yet I'm driving on 280 every morning and all I see are green fields. Yet 75% of San Francisco land has zoning rules that prevent buildings of more than 2 stories. What you really meant is: no space for you, I got mine

If you filled every damn square inch of that space with 5 story apartments, your commute would go from 3 hours to 45 days.

Right, the "oh we need better infrastructure first" chicken and egg problem. Of course infrastructure projects don't happen either. It took 20 years to rebuild half of the Bay Bridge. The shiny SF TransBay terminal was barely opened last year and got closed right away. SF has been debating for 10 years whether or not to turn a car lane into bus only on Geary Blvd... Because NIMBY also opposes transportation projects of course. Meanwhile major metro cities in the world build automated subway lines, highways without potholes etc. While Caltrain looks straight out of the 1950's.

While Cali boomers are milking the next generation instead of investing in it, the world keeps moving. If you compare it to a major chinese or european city, Bay Area looks like it hasn't changed in the last 50 years.

Too much local democracy is bad because people optimize for their own selfish interest (like not having to cut some trees in the backyard of some Atherton mansion so that millions of people can go to work more efficiently). For some things, you need a strong government to do what's good for the greater good.

Post reply on HN