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

261–270 of 547 posts

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

#261

Post by mewfree »

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…

It's actually quite common in Paris: http://www.annmah.net/2014/04/08/life-paris-houseboat/

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

#262

Post by PopeDotNinja »

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…

> The problem with housing there has one simple cause: NIMBYism.

I'm not a fan of the idea of living & working for a corporate overlord in a company town, but I suppose one option to break the back of entrenched NIMBYism is to own all the backyards. Buy up all the things, flatten them, and go vertical.

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

#263

Post by dwild »

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…

> If it were possible to build 20,000 houses in the next 20 years, it would absolutely happen without Google's help.

I only took a quick glance at the article, but seems like Google help may do quite a bit.

> First, over the next 10 years, we’ll repurpose at least $750 million of Google’s land, most of which is currently zoned for office or commercial space, as residential housing. This will enable us to support the development of at least 15,000 new homes

They are going to repurpose their own lands, which means there will be more space to build housing. They make it possible.

I don't know where are theses $750 millions of land, but that's still more space.

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

#264

Post by manigandham »

dymk wrote: post #18
manigandham wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it not easy? The internet is global just like the products these companies create. There's not much, if any, reason they need to be so consolidated in a single region or city.

Face-to-face communication has not been supplanted with online tools yet, and face-to-face communication is very important to this job.

My point was only about extreme consolidation. They can have multiple smaller offices in various cities. It doesn't need to be thousands of people all working from home.

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

#265

Post by gok »

> we’ll repurpose at least $750 million of Google’s land, most of which is currently zoned for office or commercial space, as residential housing

Generally it's not up to the owner of property how it should be re-zoned...

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

#266

Post by caymanjim »

novok wrote: post #209
caymanjim wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't need to move. They just need to expand elsewhere. Amazon is opening HQ2 because Seattle is "full", and there are lots of smart people elsewhere that they could employ. All the FAANGs should spread out more.

Very NIMBY of you. They just have to be not in my back yard and go away somewhere else. "No more immigrants in mountain view!" As far as expand elsewhere goes, google has many staff in many countries and cities all over the world.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you'll scroll to the top of the comments on this page, you'll see where I stated the case that NIMBYism is the problem with housing there, and specifically that Mountain View's resistance to denser housing is part of it. I also think that Google and other large companies can expand elsewhere to alleviate some of the housing pressure, as Amazon has already started doing. Google has offices everywhere, but they are tiny compared to HQ.

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

#267

Post by et-al »

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…

This actually did happen in SF with the Maritol "Icebreaker" ship by Creon Levit and Brewster Kahle:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/startups-aboard-...

I don't know what's happened to it after 2014, though.

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

#268

Post by ijpoijpoihpiuoh »

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.

Some people don't have the luxury of living in bespoke housing, and legitimately do want a roof over their head for the minimum price possible. Some others are not architecture aficionados, and would prefer to save, even if they could afford "nicer."

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

#269

Post by dver »

rndmize wrote: post #194

As usual when big tech talks housing, "Bay Area" actually means "Peninsula and west SJ". The other two-thirds of the Bay, bedroom communities and cheaper areas - who cares about those? Perhaps there's something about say, the tri-valley area that makes it unacceptable for office buildings that I don't know? Dublin has doubled in population in the last 20 years. That sounds like an area that is pro-growth, where a com…

San Ramon as well. GE digital and SAP are big in Bishop Ranch. Of course there is the Chevron HQ.

Many of my neighbors are FANG employed, equally as mystified as to why none of those haven't opened a satellite office here.

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

#270

Post by achenatx »

trhway wrote: post #212
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…

>The problem with housing there has one simple cause: NIMBYism. when people don't want to give away (for free or below market price) their share of GOOG nobody calls that NIMBYism. When people don't want to give away their share in a city (drastically increasing density/population does in many ways take away from existing residents without any just compensation) - that is suddenly becomes NIMBYism. The issue can prac…

That is because in the case of a goog share you arent telling someone else what they can do with their share.

No one is telling a SFH owner that they have to do anything. Instead, SFH are being allowed to have more options for what to do with their property.

In fact giving more options for property actually increases the value of that property.

Post reply on HN