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

411–420 of 547 posts

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

#411

Post by SomeOldThrow »

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…

> Bay area voters have made their intentions abundantly clear, in numerous elections and voting: they don't want growth.

That's silly, there are more than two sides to this discussion. Development without allocations for affordable and public housing is just throwing money at developers and hoping for the best.

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

#412

Post by SomeOldThrow »

raldi wrote: post #339
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...

SB-50 would have just led to displacement and more homeless people, exacerbating how much it sucks to live in the city. We need better quality bills than Weiner's.

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

#413

Post by taurath »

aiisjustanif wrote: post #357
taurath wrote: post #254

As a thought experiment, lets say Google owns a significant percentage of the housing market in the areas they operate in. They thereby receive both rent from their own employees, and others in the area. Lets see how this gives them leverage: * Want to fully choke out competition on salaries, while leveraged against it by taking in the rent money those salaries provide for? * Why not invest in housing, when you're th…

Welcome to the less extreme version of Seoul.

It feels like a vertical integration ala a Zaibatsu. If they move heavily into education next they'll have control of their own knowledge worker supply chain.

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

#414

Post by gusmd »

driverdan wrote: post #291
bluedino wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$2,000 house payment vs a $3,000 apartment rental is only $12,000 a year in difference.

I want to downvote you for your ridiculous show of privilege in that statement but won't since that's not what downvotes are for. $12,000 a year is a lot of money, especially when added up over time. The US median income is just over $61,000, meaning "only" $12,000 represents 20%. That's just crazy to consider that a small amount.

I think you missed the point. The point is that compensation in the Bay is much much more than $12k/year higher than other low-COL cities, and therefore the trade-off is worth it.

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

#415

Post by mentos »

charlesju wrote: post #196
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…

I also believe another option, where we can throw massive amounts of money at the problem, is to completely fix our transportation system. If you have been to any major city in Asia, they have WAYYY more people and are able to commute from much further distances because the public transportation is clean, safe, fast, reliable. We have tons of land under utilized in the bay area, especially in the east bay, if we were…

I travel to work at light speed already..

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

#416

Post by no_wizard »

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…

Like the "icebreaker" ?

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/05/11/tech-company-st...

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

#417

Post by dgzl »

robbyking wrote: post #301
dgzl wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is it's scary to live in a city that only has one employer offering jobs in your field. My wife and I moved to a new city last year, and while we considered a lot of smaller cities, it ultimately wasn't worth the risk to live someplace that only had a couple prospective employers.

You make a really great point, and I myself have been victim of losing a tech job that brought me two-thousand miles from home. Thankfully my company gave me a large enough severance to move myself and my belongings back to my home state.

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

#418

Post by dgzl »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #388
dgzl wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe you don't realize this but there's a homelessness crisis happening right now, partially due to massive gentrification brought on by successful tech companies.

You shouldn't pretend that there aren't negative side-effects from the collection of success and wealth in Seattle, Portland and the Bay Area.

Decentralizing the workforce would help decentralize the problem.

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

#419

Post by flukus »

robbyking wrote: post #301
dgzl wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is it's scary to live in a city that only has one employer offering jobs in your field. My wife and I moved to a new city last year, and while we considered a lot of smaller cities, it ultimately wasn't worth the risk to live someplace that only had a couple prospective employers.

That sounds more like a rural town, what kind of city only has a single employer? I grew up and lived in one of ~400,000 (there are 47 US cities over this size) people which is small for a city and there were many potential employers. Not as many as larger cities of course and many were on the more boutique side of the spectrum, but there were enough opportunities and the lower pay was a better deal when adjusted for cost of living.

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

#420

Post by scarejunba »

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 lived in an apartment in London and couldn't hear my neighbours if I shut my windows. It was all steel and concrete, though, not the flimsy shit that passes for American new build.
Post reply on HN