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

311–320 of 547 posts

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

#311

Post by epistasis »

rsync wrote: post #296
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 people living there don't want that, though, so the laws prohibit it." ... which is the definition of democracy.

Democracy for whomst?

If it's just for long-term landowners, that's a form of democracy, but we tend to not view it very favorably these days.

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

#312

Post by shados »

aiisjustanif wrote: post #273
shados wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and that requires changing peoples' minds Yup, and that is straightforward, if time and money consuming. Changing zoning isn't enough: making an area denser without appropriate matching infrastructure investment isn't going to go well. If you want the next Tokyo or Paris (or even something significantly smaller), you need Tokyo or Paris' infra. Then the next problem is that people can't stand each other. People don…

Interesting, I haven't had this issue really in a dense US city, even near enough to an airport to also hear every plane. Neighbors aren't bad, guess it just depends on the city.

It will depend on what you're used to, but AFAIK, virtually every city in the US has a noise complain/non-emergency police number/311/whatever where these type of complains are some of the most reported issues.

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

#313

Post by shados »

jefftk wrote: post #295
shados wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and it's not smelly or noisy Yes, yes it is. Somerville mades me go to NYC when I want a quiet vacation. The absolute noise and other issue is much lower, but the city is designed and built so poorly it can't handle it. When houses are built in cardboard with no space between the walls and the sidewalk, and someone walks home drunk, you'll get woken up something quick.

> The absolute noise and other issue is much lower, the city is designed and built so poorly it can't handle it My experience of Somerville has been very different from yours: I've never been woken up by noise coming in from the street, and I've lived in two very typical wood-frame houses (first a triple-decker in East Somerville, now a two-family near Davis). But it's also worth separating "what should you build a h…

I mean, just the noise from the events in Davis Square can be heard from half a mile away, so most decibel meters would flag that as "pretty loud".

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

#314

Post by smsm42 »

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.

Depends on definition of "possible". There is space, physically. But getting all the paperwork, lining up the money, placating all the NIMBYs and the special interests and politicians may be non-trivial. For Google it may be easier than for other developers, and Google may be more motivated to do it, since galloping housing prices means more salary expenses from Google.

> The people living there don't want that, though, so the laws prohibit it.

In San Jose, there are many multi-tenant developments. Prices are still crazy (compared to any other place outside Silicon Valley).

And there's also a question of infrastructure. Did you ever drive on 101, 85, 87 or 280 in traffic hours? Did you ever drive on adjacent connecting streets? Now imagine there's 3x or 5x people living in the same space. You'd have to start you commute previous day to get to the office by the morning.

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

#315

Post by colpabar »

thrownaway954 wrote: post #308
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…

Have you visited South Florida lately? It sucks here now cause of the amount of people that keep moving into this area. The traffic is horrible, the stores are crowded and people's attitude in general is becoming increasing hostile. The world doesn't need to be denser, we need some elbow room, we need SPACE. Thanos was right.

Why didn't he just create more resources though

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

#316

Post by shados »

omegaworks wrote: post #293
shados wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The order of: announce train station, wait a bit, start building project and change zoning (with that "wait a bit" gap being critical) makes things work a lot better. Property value skyrockets for a while, and people who arent happy with it can sell and go live somewhere else with the money if they don't like it. The worse situations is when a zoning change happens and goes into effects quickly and construction proje…

>Property value skyrockets for a while, and people who arent happy with it can sell and go live somewhere else with the money if they don't like it. This attitude is exactly why people are uncomfortable with processes like this. It ignores existing inequities of property ownership that have impacted wealth distribution. If where you decide to build the station is like most of the bay, the people living in these homes…

When talking about NIMBYs who block these initiatives, what everyone tells me is that they're rich affluent white majorities, so my post was very much about how to handle those. No one ever talks about ethnic to minorities pushing back and being NIMBYs.

But yes, if you're trying to dump a subway station in the middle an area as you describe, your point is totally correct.

My thought is why I wouldn't want a skyscrapper popping in my backyard: because I can't easily get the hell out once the news drop.

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

#318

Post by drugme »

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

It's definitely simple-sounding, as a single cause -- but unfortunately that doesn't make it so.

Any sober analysis of the current housing crisis points to a convergence of multiple, and in some cases highly nuanced factors -- ranging from shifting crime rates and the collapse of urban industrial base; to shifts in government policy (including the near-abandonment of federal support for new public housing initiatives); and a whole bunch of others. And yes there's something known as "zoning" which plays a part also.

But the idea that NIMBYism is the sole important factor - or even the most important factor - just doesn't hold water.

If you're skeptical of this, just ask yourself: "What causes NIMBYism?"

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

#320

Post by nwalker85 »

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…

These things are everywhere in Austin. Thanks for that article, really interesting.
Post reply on HN