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

401–410 of 547 posts

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

#401

Post by Bahamut »

danans wrote: post #341
nostrademons wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's largely it. MV was radically anti-housing until there was a big shake-up in the city council in 2014 (IIRC 4 grey-haired NIMBYs lost their seats in favor of 20- and 30-something techies and progressive activists). The flood of permits followed after that, and construction lags permitting by several years. Sunnyvale has been reliably pro-housing since about 2010, which means that a lot of new supply cam…

Sunnyvale and Mountain View aren't really different rental markets, though, so I'd be surprised if the difference in rent increases you saw between the two are related to differences in new housing permits. Put another way, restricting housing supply in Mountain View likely impacts rents its socioeconomically similar neighbor, Sunnyvale.

They definitely are - two years ago I left a previous place that had jacked up my rent for a 1 bed/1 bath place to a little over $2600, and was frustrated by the housing market in Mountain View. Most places were charging over $3k, with some going even over $5k. I ended up settling in Sunnyvale for a 2 bed/2 bath place for $2700.

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

#402

Post by koala_man »

summerlight wrote: post #215

There's a bunch of people saying "why not going out of the Bay?" This doesn't work because for most of the foreign workers with H1B visa job security matters more to them. With H1B visa, you gotta find another job in 60 days when there's a trouble with your employer. Otherwise you'll be kicked out. Also note that Chinese and Indian people are typically stuck at H1B for 5~10 years and they're the majority of SWE H1B h…

Do you really think H1Bs are driving this? When I got my H1B, I was significantly more willing to move into a company town in the middle of nowhere.

Arguably I did. Instead of New York or London, I moved to some dusty suburb an hour south of SF just because Google's HQ was there.

Now that I'm no longer on an H1B, but have a house and wife with a job in the area, I'm way less willing to do anything like that.

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

#403

Post by [deleted] »

reaperducer wrote: post #374
avocado4 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the weather sucks everywhere else.

The problem is the weather sucks everywhere else. Only if you've never been anywhere else. San Diego is the paragon of lovely weather in California, not the Bay Area. SF is enshrined in a song made famous by Sinatra with the line, "She hates California/It's cold and it's damp."

[deleted]

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

#404

Post by fzeroracer »

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…

This is unfortunately the free market at play when it comes to housing. Build as cheap as possible for the best ROI, even if the end result is something garbage for residents. Especially because people often don't have as much choice over housing when it comes to finding a job or relocating.

We desperately need to tighten up some of our regulatory codes and force better soundproofing.

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

#405

Post by TulliusCicero »

drugme wrote: post #397
TulliusCicero wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's generally what we wanted companies to do, Maybe so -- but as a response it completely dodges the question of whether or it has been a contributing factor or not.

It doesn't dodge the question at all. Of course it's a proximate contributing factor, in the same way that voting was a proximate contributing factor to Trump being the chief executive of the United States. That doesn't mean voting is a bad general idea.

I'm pointing out that even though lots of high paying jobs is obviously an input into the housing crisis, 'blaming' companies for that is clearly stupid, because we want and encourage them to do exactly that, and higher housing prices is a predictable side effect of housing supply being constrained, not some out of nowhere surprise that the tech sector foisted onto an unsuspecting public.

We have met the enemy, and they are us.

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

#406

Post by alexhutcheson »

greglindahl wrote: post #355
alexhutcheson wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need much more density around the train stations than currently exists for it to be sustainable to operate those trains on a frequent schedule. So yes, you're correct that better transportation is needed, but greater density is needed to make that transportation system possible.

... and the area we're talking about is both building better transportation and agreed to prioritize building dense at train stations. It's certainly the case that more can be done for both of these.

Yes, 100% agreed. I'm just saying it's kind of pointless to invest a lot in more train systems without already having an agreement to densify those areas, because there just wouldn't be enough riders to justify frequent service at current levels of density.

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

#407

Post by Apes »

I feel like I'm going crazy here: why is absolutely no one talking about the fact that $1B is no where near enough money for 20,000 homes? That's only a budget of $50,000 per home. In an area where the average cost to build a home is over $250,000, they're clearly only investing around 1/5 of the required cost, but seem to be taking the credit for all the work.

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

#409

Post by clairity »

reaperducer wrote: post #374
avocado4 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the weather sucks everywhere else.

The problem is the weather sucks everywhere else. Only if you've never been anywhere else. San Diego is the paragon of lovely weather in California, not the Bay Area. SF is enshrined in a song made famous by Sinatra with the line, "She hates California/It's cold and it's damp."

yup, LA beats SF and the bay area by a mile on weather, but san diego edges out LA in both weather and lush greenery.

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

#410

Post by [deleted] »

danans wrote: post #399
nostrademons wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are, though. I wouldn't have expected it, but I was just looking at Craigslist now and rents in Mountain View seem to go for about $700/month over roughly equivalent housing in Sunnyvale. I'm in a pretty old 2BR right next to the Mountain View border for $2600; the equivalent would be a 2BR in the California/Escuela area, which rents for about $3300/month. Perhaps it's just my neighborhood (rents in new construc…

Those factors do make sense, although I'd think Sunnyvale would have a shorter commute to employers like Apple. I definitely don't have a nuanced enough understanding of the difference in civic liveliness of the two cities - and resulting desirability - they both always felt pretty suburban to me. But I've never lived in either one.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN