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

331–340 of 547 posts

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

#331

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#332

Post by brandall10 »

pickle-wizard wrote: post #277
SilasX wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amen. I think I live in such a building (in Austin) now, and the cheapness of the construction shows. I have 15 foot ceilings and I can hear conversations of people above me ... through the side walls.

After 10 years of living in an apartments and hearing all of my neighbors I got tired of it. So I bought a single family house. I have a small yard, only 1/8th acre, but it is enough of an air gap that I don't hear my neighbors.

I live in a concrete/glass/steel luxury high-rise in downtown San Diego. My neighbors can have raging parties into the early morning and I can't hear a thing unless I wander into the hallway.

The construction quality of multi-family homes in SV pretty poor.

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

#333

Post by quicklyfrozen »

davidw wrote: post #76
Tade0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and face-to-face communication is very important to this job. For what purpose specifically?

Let's see - software development can take different forms. On one end you have work where someone gives you well defined specs and the tools you need, and you just go crank out some code on your own. That works well for remote work. On the other end there are plenty of software positions that require people who can understand and develop requirements, possibly by talking with disparate groups like customer support, f…

To me, it has always seemed like face-to-face is very useful to get to know people and get the process started, but after that, following up via messaging and video conferencing is fine. But a similar timezone remains pretty important.

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

#335

Post by scarface74 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #326
scarface74 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just what I’m saying about your other example, most of the money spent on “cloud computing” from a consulting and implementation side is nowhere near Seattle. It’s spread out all over the US. In fact I would think that Seattle would be the last place you would want to be even if you are working for Amazon as an SA since the pay is the same everywhere, most of your face to face interactions are with clients, an…

> That’s just what I’m saying about your other example, most of the money spent on “cloud computing” from a consulting and implementation side is nowhere near Seattle. Okay, and most money people spend on movies is nowhere near LA. That has nothing to do with whether LA is a hub for movie development, though. A huge proportion of cutting-edge cloud platform development for the big cloud companies happens in the SF ba…

The whole theory of going to a”hub” is being around other smart people that makes it easier for companies to find people and funding and make it easier for people to find a job and being in the ecosystem.

But if you are in the “cloud industry” you don’t need to be anywhere near Seattle to either find a job, find funding, or find “smart people”. I don’t know the movie industry but I do know the cloud industry from the consulting side. The cloud consulting industry is much larger than the development industry.

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

#336

Post by mjevans »

shados wrote: post #232
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…

> 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…

I cannot agree with this enough. The building code is wildly out of whack with reality.

Noise: All of my neighbors should be able to have active, stomping, marching band in each of their units, and I not hear a single peep. Contrast with reality: In every apartment I've ever lived in normal /quiet/ walking, sink use, and even bathroom fans were audible in other units.

Air quality: Smokers, "Marry Jane" users I think all who don't smoke can agree with; but I also dislike vaping, perfumes, and dryer scents. They make it hard for me to breath and irritate me (I think in both the medical and psychological sense). Scrubbed, negative draw exhausts are required for all of those things. Have a designated smoking room. Also have designated clean air intakes that supply positive pressure to the hallways and units (in that order) and proper door seals.

Also, yes, build a TOKYO grade subway that connects to parking silos in the outskirts. Then go ahead and ban (most) cars from the city. But ONLY in that order. Don't ban the cars first.

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

#337

Post by ethanwillis »

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…

That's not the only solution. The other solution is don't live in the valley, don't live in these places where there's no affordable housing.

Should we make cities denser? Should we force people shoulder to shoulder? I don't know if we should and I never see the "wisdom" of the denser city questioned.

Instead Google and other groups should give money to residents who would be amenable to living elsewhere. $1 billion for freedom of choice instead of perpetuating that everyone must live in the same few square miles.

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

#338

Post by avocado4 »

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #56

Bay area voters have made their intentions abundantly clear, in numerous elections and voting: they don't want growth. So much so, that local politicians even brag about how much housing developments they've stopped. Why fight such a huge uphill battle in trying to get housing in the Bay area? Wouldn't it be easier to start from a city or town outside of CA? or at least outside the bay area? Maybe somewhere in the mi…

The problem is the weather sucks everywhere else.

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

#339

Post by raldi »

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #56

Bay area voters have made their intentions abundantly clear, in numerous elections and voting: they don't want growth. So much so, that local politicians even brag about how much housing developments they've stopped. Why fight such a huge uphill battle in trying to get housing in the Bay area? Wouldn't it be easier to start from a city or town outside of CA? or at least outside the bay area? Maybe somewhere in the mi…

"Poll: Two-thirds of California voters back SB 50 housing bill"

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/5/17/18629809/sb-50-housing-trans...

Post reply on HN