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

$1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 547 posts

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#221

Post by TulliusCicero »

scarface74 wrote: post #216
TulliusCicero wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's much more to movies than just where they were physically shot. Guess where Warner Bros is HQ'd, Sony Pictures, Walt Disney Studios, Universal Studios, etc. What you've linked to is the equivalent of arguing that the bay area and Seattle aren't that big for cloud computing because hey, there aren't that many big datacenters there.

Seeing that the post you responded to said “A lot of blockbuster movies and popular TV shows are being shot in other places because other places are cheaper and they offer better incentives.” The citation I linked to was right in line with my argument. And, I know for a fact that you can not only get into “cloud computing” without going anywhere near Seattle, AWS hires SAs, TAMs, etc in many major cities and most of…

> The citation I linked to was right in line with my argument.

No. The wider argument we were having was about whether Hollywood is the center of the world for American movies. It definitely is, showing where movies are physically shot doesn't change that.

> And, I know for a fact that you can not only get into “cloud computing” without going anywhere near Seattle, AWS hires SAs, TAMs, etc in many major cities and most of the third party Amazon Partners aren’t anywhere near Seattle....

Of course you can, just like there's plenty of finance outside of NYC. That doesn't change the fact that NYC is the main finance hub for America.

I don't even know what your point is here. "Hub" doesn't mean "contains literally everything related to [industry]".

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#222

Post by PascLeRasc »

kens wrote: post #195
rconti wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the absolute explosion of skyscrapers/mid-rise condo buildings in San Jose, Redwood City.. Hell, even San Carlos and Menlo Park have quite a few higher density units going in. I'm glad there's more density, and it's near transit, for the most part. Of course, it will still increase traffic, but by going with density and near transit, it'll reduce the impact vs building more single family homes.

An interesting article on why the mid-rise apartment style is so popular now: "Why America's New Apartment Buildings All Look the Same": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-ameri... The quick summary is that the 2000 Building Code allowed inexpensive construction of 5-floor wood buildings over a concrete base. This "5 over 1" construction gives "near-high-rise densities at a wood-frame price", so i…

There's something about that style of construction that feels like "Amazon Basics", like what you get when you don't care about craftmanship or longevity and just want the least expensive option. Those 5-story apartment buildings just have such a soulless cheap feeling to them, like they're made to have the illusion of being taller than they are. I really don't understand why they're so popular.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#223

Post by Balgair »

quelsolaar wrote: post #26

Here is a buisnes idea Ive been thinking about lately for SF, Hong Kong, NY and other expensive places. Buy a smaller cruise ships and rent a pier to dock it. I found a newly renovated ship with 72 cabins for 5.8 million. With the average rent in SF that ship has paid for itself in 2 years (yes there will be additional costs, but back of a napkin, its a good start). Then buy more ships and stack them. Renovate/remode…

You mean The Raft, but moored in the South Bay?

https://sites.google.com/a/trinity.edu/snow-crash-fall-2016/...

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#224

Post by ac29 »

tartuffe78 wrote: post #88
caymanjim wrote: post #75

It's great that Google wants to increase housing, but is this really going to work? The housing shortage in the Bay Area is not a money problem. If it were possible to build 20,000 houses in the next 20 years, it would absolutely happen without Google's help. The problem with housing there has one simple cause: NIMBYism. SF doesn't want to allow taller buildings and denser housing complexes. It's vastly worse in the…

FTA: "In Mountain View, we’ve already worked with the city to change zoning in the North Bayshore area to free up land for housing, and we’re currently in productive conversations with Sunnyvale and San Jose."

It should be noted these are the three cities that come to mind where Google has bought multiple billions of dollars worth of real estate just in the last 5-10 years.

When you spend that kind of money, in additional to otherwise having a large economic presence in a city, the Government tends to listen. Moreso than to individual developers.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#225

Post by jefftk »

yep_thats_right wrote: post #220

As someone who lives in a single-family home, I'm totally for public transit, having fewer cars on the streets, more walkability, etc. But until cities solve the issues of smell and noise, I'm not interested in living in a dense area. Keep it clean and quiet. Invest in urban forestry. Then it starts to look appealing.

I live in Somerville MA, which is has about 18k people per square mile, compared to the ~2-6k I see in the South Bay. It gets that density through many two and three family houses placed closely together, and it's not smelly or noisy. Here's a representative street view example: https://goo.gl/maps/ggwHETDomuRUQAB89

You can be much denser than the Bay Area while still having trees and feeling "residential".

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#226

Post by pertymcpert »

option wrote: post #85

A much better solution would be: 1) open more large centers in other states. having a single supercenter with good jobs in one place only is bad for that place and country as a whole 2) encourage and promote remote work

No it's not a better solution, it can help but the you have a ghost town that is the Bay Area it makes sense to make it denser and more like European cities.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#227

Post by asdff »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #222
kens wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting article on why the mid-rise apartment style is so popular now: "Why America's New Apartment Buildings All Look the Same": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-ameri... The quick summary is that the 2000 Building Code allowed inexpensive construction of 5-floor wood buildings over a concrete base. This "5 over 1" construction gives "near-high-rise densities at a wood-frame price", so i…

There's something about that style of construction that feels like "Amazon Basics", like what you get when you don't care about craftmanship or longevity and just want the least expensive option. Those 5-story apartment buildings just have such a soulless cheap feeling to them, like they're made to have the illusion of being taller than they are. I really don't understand why they're so popular.

They are cheap to build and you can ask for enormous rents, like whatever the top of the market might be you can ask for that, because chances are you are the only apartment in town with fresh smelling paint, new carpet, faux granite, and bundled internet.

That's about the only perk of these places. Sometimes they have nice things like a pool, but with how cheap the buildings are, you are going to hear your neighbors above, to the sides, and below you all day. Toured a place like this and noped the fuck out when I heard some dog bark in another unit and it sounded like he was yapping from the bedroom.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#228

Post by option »

pertymcpert wrote: post #226
option wrote: post #85

A much better solution would be: 1) open more large centers in other states. having a single supercenter with good jobs in one place only is bad for that place and country as a whole 2) encourage and promote remote work

No it's not a better solution, it can help but the you have a ghost town that is the Bay Area it makes sense to make it denser and more like European cities.

Bay Area is not a ghost town, it is already overcrowded

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#229

Post by 40acres »

I think Big Tech has enough clout to make a dent in the housing woes of large coastal cities. The cost of moving away from California is too high for Google, using it's political capital to advocate for housing is a great way to force change. NIMBYs are gonna NIMBY, but if half these NIMBYs work for companies that are lobbying for rezoning of land they own and providing grants.. who wins out?
Post reply on HN