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

491–500 of 547 posts

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

#491

Post by IloveHN84 »

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…

A simple solution would be: remote work. Work from anywhere in the world, the housing problem will not be anymore a problem due to it.

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

#492

Post by fountainofage »

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…

Lots of people agreeing, so I just want to say this: if people don't want neighbors, then they should buy the land surrounding them for the FMV. Abusing various laws to get the benefits of purchasing the property/land without having done so is a complete jerk move. And there's no debating that.

Source: from the Midwest in a very rural area. Someone moved in right next to my parents. They aren't happy, but nothing they could do about it (while remaining a responsible human, a productive member of society, and not a worthless mooch) - they didn't have the money to buy the lot, so it is what it is.

Before people start talking about strip clubs next to schools or factories dumping waste into the aquifers. These neighbors are well within their by-right zoning regulations. They just have a house, and they just happened to buy the lot right next to my parents'. In California, it would have been perfectly acceptable for my parents to tie that development up for 20+ years with all sorts of ridiculousness. But in by-right zoning states, you just get housing built and move on because that's how the real world works.

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

#493

Post by nordsieck »

BurningFrog wrote: post #444
hangonhn wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lumping Mountain View in there with Palo Alto and others is really unfair. MV is doing the best it can but it can't carry all the weight of Bay Area growth. 1/5 housing starts in Santa Clara county was in MV. MV issued more permits than ALL its neighboring cities COMBINED. MV issued more permits than even San Jose. https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/09/28/mountain-view-leads... Unless the whole of Santa Clara county…

> it would be unfair for MV to carry the weight The fact that it's perceived as a sacrifice to build housing is one of the core problems. And one of the main reasons for this perception is that, for the city, it is true. Due to Prop 13, CITIES LOSE MONEY BY HAVING RESIDENTS. As long as that is true, don't expect much to change around housing in California.

>> it would be unfair for MV to carry the weight

> The fact that it's perceived as a sacrifice to build housing is one of the core problems.

In the short term, increased housing will decrease property values. This has to be the case because rentals are a direct competitor to real estate ownership.

In the long term, increased housing should increase property values; however, few people are willing to place much value on something even 2 years in the future, much less 20.

> Due to Prop 13, CITIES LOSE MONEY BY HAVING RESIDENTS.

I'm not sure how much I buy this. I'm not super familiar with California, so I'm not going to say it's false, but there should be a number of other methods (sales tax comes to mind) for cities to raise revenue from residents.

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

#494

Post by megaremote »

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…

> Buy a smaller cruise ships and rent a pier to dock it.

Oh yes, no one has thought of that before. It has even been implemented.

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

#495

Post by os7borne »

Quick Question: Will Google be using this project, once built out, to test all its future "Home" products? Clearly it will have the leverage to do so and will greatly benefit the company over the long term. If so, great strategic thinking.

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

#496

Post by deepakhj »

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.

South Florida is no where close to dense. Dense = Paris/Barcelona. Florida is sprawl with huge landscaping and empty space.

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

#497

Post by deepakhj »

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.

Current landowners are not the only demographic in your democracy. Minorities were banned from owning in many areas due to redlining.

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

#498

Post by deepakhj »

burlesona wrote: post #472
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’m struggling to find a citation for this, so I’ll caveat that this is from memory, but I’m pretty sure SF had had about as many housing starts as the rest of the Bay Area over the last ten years. It’s not nearly enough units, and it’s basically all in SoMa and Mission Bay, but nevertheless the city is doing more than most of the bay. Interesting to note that Mountain View is also trying to pull its weight, per a si…

The western half of San Francisco isn't doing anything. It's a small sliver of SOMA/Downtown which is not enough.

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

#499

Post by geezerjay »

reaperducer wrote: post #365
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 ... The only solution In the real world, nothing has one simple cause or one "only" solution. The housing problem in California, and elsewhere is complex. This is akin to people who say, "The problem with homelessness there has one simple cause..." and then insert their favorite boogeyman. There are many factors involved, other than NIMBYs, and BANANAs (Bu…

> This is akin to people who say, "The problem with homelessness there has one simple cause..." and then insert their favorite boogeyman.

It's pretty obvious that the housing shortage problem is caused by those who oppose building additional houses although demand is skyrocketting. There is no way around it.

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

#500

Post by deepakhj »

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…

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...
Post reply on HN