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

381–390 of 547 posts

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

#381

Post by andromeduck »

abeppu wrote: post #309

They're pitching this as being a benevolent gesture, but (a) It sounds like they're just becoming a larger real-estate developer? They didn't say "we're donating all this land plus some capital to a housing non-profit"; they're going to receive revenue from their investments. Are we supposed to say thanks? (b) How does 20k units compare to their impact on Bay Area housing to date? This is not my area, and I'm not awa…

Haha, having to do onerous amounts of environmental impact studies and various community impact studies/hearings, is exactly why we're in this situation to begin with.

We already have plenty of people that want to build, that's not the problem. Problem is local regulation and policies that don't align with regional interests.

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

#382

Post by TulliusCicero »

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…

> If you want the next Tokyo or Paris (or even something significantly smaller), you need Tokyo or Paris' infra.

But for that infra to make sense, you also need the zoning. Running a subway line through predominately single-family home neighborhoods makes no sense.

Realistically though, you don't need a lot of new infra for going from SFH-only zoning to moderate density housing like fourplexes and townhomes. Better options for walking and biking, maybe more bus routes (bus-only lanes?) would suffice.

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

#383

Post by smus »

Fins wrote: post #275
sidlls wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicago might be on par with the Bay Area in terms of culture, or even marginally better in some ways. In just about any other measure, especially education, job opportunities and salary adjusted for CoL, Chicago compares poorly.

I am not sure if I agree. Culture-wise (IMHO, of coursde and all the disclaimers) it is lightyears ahead of the Bay Area. In education, both schools and universities, Chicagoland would compare very favorably with Bay Area (stepkid went to schools in both; entirely unimpressed with BA schools). In job opportunities at FAANG-type companies Bay Area obviously comes out ahead,but for the vast majority of people both in a…

>On climate BA might win on paper, but personally I like to have actual seasons.

Nice, I've lived in both and Chicago winters made me want to kill myself. If all else was equal I'd pay significant sums to live in the Bay Area simply because the weather.

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

#384

Post by compiler-guy »

sxates wrote: post #325
compiler-guy wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, this does tell a SFH owner that they have to do something: Live in a place substantially different than when they bought there. This may be worth it broadly, but it absolutely enforces our preferences onto the SFH owner.

The SFH has domain over their property - and that's where it should reasonably end. Giving them domain over what gets built on everyone else's property is where we get into trouble.

Except that they don't exercise the preference over what happens over everyone else's property in isolation. The SFH owners collectively vote for their town councils and governments and what not. And those governments in turn make the zoning rules.

If we choose to overturn those collective preferences, we need to have principled discussions as to why our preferences should rule over the other groups'.

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

#385

Post by gamblor956 »

Shivetya wrote: post #122
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 would run into the same issues which are used to sabotage any new development. I gave a list below, it really isn't meant to be in jest but it sadly does happen. The only way to get the issue fixed is with a state amendment and even then it would be years in court. It really comes down to two real reasons, they do not want those people in their city and second it makes so much money for all involved the longer no…

Literally none of what you said is true.

1 is required only for developers seeking zoning changes. Low-income housing allowances aren't required if a development falls within existing site zoning, which is something that LA developers have used to great effect.

2) This is completely false, anti-union FUD.

3) This wasn't true before CA law was changed to simplify the approval process. You only need 1 comprehensive environmental impact study, and if you're close enough to another planned development (generally within 1 block), you can incorporate parts of their EIS into your own.

4) Views are not protected in CA...Appeasement not required.

5) Both cynical, false, and also misunderstands where the political class gets its wealth from (lobbying, not real estate).

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

#386

Post by JoshTriplett »

aidenn0 wrote: post #363
JoshTriplett wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't want neighbors because neighbors are a pain. > LOUD Sound is very much the problem. I don't want a huge amount of land, I don't want lawn, I don't want landscaping, I definitely don't want a neighborhood association, but what I do want is good soundproofing and no shared walls (or worse, floors/ceilings). In practice, there's no soundproofing that can substitute for an air gap.

In practice there are a lot of soundproofings that can substitute for an air-gap, but the cheapest soundproofing to meet code (resilient channels) is useless: Resilient channels basically work by fixing horizontal metal strips to the studs, and then hanging the drywall on the strips with clips. Because there is purposefully play in the connection, vibrations cannot easily transfer from drywall to stud to drywall. Why…

> In practice there are a lot of soundproofings that can substitute for an air-gap

To clarify, I did indeed mean "no soundproofing in widespread common use", rather than "no physically possible soundproofing". And thanks for the great explanation!

> The proper fix is to have a separate frame for each dwelling unit, preferably with fiberglass insulation. This essentially doubles the cost of inter-unit walls, so it is less popular. My parents live in a townhouse constructed in this manner, and if they dial up the volumes on the movie to 11, the subwoofer can cause pictures to rattle on the neighbor's walls, but audible sound is nearly zero.

That does indeed sound like the correct fix. How would you know if a potential apartment has such construction? How would it be advertised? What would it take to promote a standard/certification for that?

I think that level of soundproofing would make a substantial difference in people's willingness to live in anything more efficient than a standalone building.

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

#387

Post by TulliusCicero »

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.

Just because the current residents don't want it doesn't make their opinion right. If the current residents said "well we don't want anyone of [race]", we wouldn't just go, "oh well it's their neighborhood, guess they get to decide!"

There's a housing crisis, and yes, many residents are using democracy to stand in the way of fixing the problem. That's bad!

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

#388

Post by TulliusCicero »

dgzl wrote: post #283
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…

Here's a solution: have tech companies settle in other regions. I know the benefits for being in the bay are substantial, but this problem is entirely brought about by tech companies, not the resident. Employers need to setup shop in less populated places and grow there.

Jesus Christ, what is it with people acting like companies having lots of high-paying jobs is some kind of economic pox? Don't we want companies to be successful and pay their employees well? Why get in the way of that, instead of supporting that and helping as many people share in the success as possible?

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

#389

Post by TulliusCicero »

drugme wrote: post #318
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-ab…

There's various reasons for why people are NIMBYs, sure. But that's still the single biggest proximate cause of the housing crisis, by far.

I mean, you could also say, "those tech companies created too many high-paying jobs!!" but last I checked, that's generally what we wanted companies to do, so getting mad at them for it seems pretty weird.

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

#390

Post by gamblor956 »

davidw wrote: post #5
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #2

Most major tech companies want to hire onsite, when there are plenty of places in this country where you can buy a lot of real estate for much cheaper than the Bay Area. I pay less on my mortgage for a large house with over an acre of land than friends of mine pay for rent for studio apartments in San Francisco or Seattle. Investing $1B into housing in the Bay Area seems nice at the surface, but maybe if we stopped d…

The 'root' cause is that industries tend to concentrate, and that's not an easy problem to solve. And at the same time there's a massive economic draw, California refuses to let the market provide anything like enough housing.

California recently passed several laws to make it easier for the market to provide housing.

However, local governments are still the ultimate deciders and many of them are opposed to new housing, such as in the SF Peninsula.

Other parts of CA are less resistant to new housing. In LA's downtown, for example, almost 50,000 units of new housing are being brought online between 2016-2021. In both Korea Town and Hollywood, more than 5,000 new units have come online in the past 3 years (and they're already the densest neighborhoods). In Marina Del Rey and Playa Del Rey, roughly 2500 new units have opened/will open up in 2018 and 2019. Along the Metro Expo Line, more than 25,000 residential units within 4 blocks of a station are planned or already under construction. Inglewood will see somewhere between 500 and 2500 new apartments in the neighborhood around the Sofi Stadium, not including other residential development. Even Santa Monica will see roughly 2000 new apartments over the next 2 years.

Edit: these are just the developments that I'm aware of. There are plenty more. If you're interested in following LA-area development, there are several Facebook groups devoted to this subject.

Post reply on HN