$1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by shados » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #514

TulliusCicero wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

Electric buses and bus lanes are probably able to solve 90% of the problems with public transportation. Bus stops/routes are easy to plop down, and move if demand is changing. Lot of people complain about crazy people on buses, but this might be a US thing, but anyhow, it's not like it's impossible to introduce a simple way to manage this problem. (From simple disturbance fines to simply giving the right to the drive…

> the right to the driver to suspend anyone from travel

That wouldn't fly in the US. The moment you ban someone from anything, someone will find a way to push why it was wrong to do. But yeah, I haven't that issue in other countries.

Another issue with buses are cities with streets that are too small. In some US cities, drivers already have to do miracles to get buses through.

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

#522

Post by shados » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #420

shados wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yup absolutely. My dinky shitty rent controlled poor neighborhood apartment in Canada was better built (by a LOT) than my expensive new construction in the US. Im so sick of being involved in all my neighbors private conversations.

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

#523

Post by BurningFrog » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 3:44 PM UTC

phamilton wrote: post #508

BurningFrog wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Due to Prop 13... I'm not following. Prop 13 doesn't apply to new residents. It only applies to existing residents. Building new homes increases revenue. Or an I missing something?

> Building new homes increases revenue

In year 1, yes. Then that revenue is never increased, while inflation goes up.

The alternate use of the land for retail (sales taxes!) and office buildings is far more favorable, especially long term.

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

#524

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

vinay_ys wrote: post #489

aidenn0 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One thing that has bugged me is why don't they use concrete construction in US, like we have in India and most of Europe? Concrete construction would definitely eliminate the noisy neighbor problem to a very high degree (unless they are drilling into the concrete wall, you cannot hear them).

I disagree on "unless they are drilling into the concrete wall you cannot hear them" A solid concrete wall better than drywall/stud/drywall for sound but still conducts sound relatively well.

Now usually a fascia of some sort is applied to the concrete and what is used affects the sound transmission. If you plaster over the concrete, for example, you get much better sound insulation than if you just paint the bare concrete.

Sometimes drywall is placed over furring strips to leave room for electrical work and this even better.

Another child comment mentioned brick, and all of the above is true for brick as well, though I believe mortared brick conducts sound better than poured masonry, and AAC conducts sound better than either.

As a further hiccup, I live in california, and the earthquake regulations greatly slow the innovation in building. In order for a new construction technique to be approved, someone has to pay the money to demonstrate that it is seismically sound.

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

#525

Post by Fins » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 4:45 PM UTC

smus wrote: post #383

Fins wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Certainly an understandable choice. Myself, after a year I got bored of looking in the window in the morning and not knowing if it is June or January.

Of course if I had the same living conditions in Chicago as in Bay Area and had to dig the car out every morning, I'd think differently, too. But of course in Chicago one can afford a nice place with a garage in a hot area for less money than a cardboard box in SV.

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

#526

Post by panopticon » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

brandall10 wrote: post #518

panopticon wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in apartment buildings in at least four cities (mostly in the midwest) where I could hear my neighbors doing normal things (i.e., not throwing ragers). It seems be a widespread problem not confined to SV.

For sure, I’ve lived in places like that in SD during and after college. My point is that properties above entry level apartment grade are scarce in the valley despite the fact that rents can support it better than just about anywhere. It actually kept me from moving up there

I'm not talking about college town apartments. Maybe I had bad luck, but two of the "luxury" apartment complexes I lived at in Kansas City were really emblematic of what I'm trying to describe. During the initial showing, I was impressed with the granite counters, flat-top range, amenities, ceiling heights, etc. But within days of moving in you noticed it's all so cheaply built.

And you can hear your neighbors cough.

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

#527

Post by JoshTriplett » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #395

JoshTriplett wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No clue how that would be advertised. My parents own rather than rent, and they specifically checked for that before purchasing. There are standards for sound-proofing, but they are construction standards, they require a particular amount of sound isolation, and resilient channel passes the current standards (since it gives "okay" levels of soundproofing at construction time, even though later modifications are almos…

Sounds like those standards need to be improved, then. What would it take to do that, in a major geographical area, for new construction? I think that would make a major difference in the acceptability of new high-density housing.

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

#528

Post by SilasX » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

panopticon wrote: post #526

brandall10 wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure, I’ve lived in places like that in SD during and after college. My point is that properties above entry level apartment grade are scarce in the valley despite the fact that rents can support it better than just about anywhere. It actually kept me from moving up there

I'm not talking about college town apartments. Maybe I had bad luck, but two of the "luxury" apartment complexes I lived at in Kansas City were really emblematic of what I'm trying to describe. During the initial showing, I was impressed with the granite counters, flat-top range, amenities, ceiling heights, etc. But within days of moving in you noticed it's all so cheaply built. And you can hear your neighbors cough.

Yeah, mine is a "luxury" apartment too (definitely by price and the furnishings you mention). Fortunately, it's not as bad as hearing people cough, but (as above) conversations from people above can transmit through the side walls. Plus, from one point in the kitchen, you can hear people urinate.

We can do better, and yes, I'm willing to sacrifice the superficial stuff and pay a bit more for quality construction.

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

#529

Post by derekdahmer » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #488

derekdahmer wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the right idea but the wrong enemy here. Local governments love adding corporations. They pay taxes while using few resources. So corporate campuses get approved super easily - sometimes even with tax breaks! New housing on the other hand is fought against tooth and nail because it brings new residents that require roads, services, and schools. Worse, if all the land has been used up, it requires larger buil…

> It's these local city governments like Palo Alto and Mountain View that allowed Google to massively expand without also allowing developers to build housing to support the employees for that expansion. There's probably plenty of blame to go all around. IMO companies like Google (disclosure: I work there) caught on to the magnitude of the problem too late, and when they did, they ran into the local political resista…

Blaming or praising Google is irrelevant. This is simply a response to a broken political system where regional housing supply is wildly inadequate relative to demand.

It isn’t the job of a company to provide housing for its employees. In the absence of constraints real estate developers will naturally build to satisfy this demand. However local governments have control over how and if housing is built and have systematically prevented building to meet this demand for decades. The blame is theirs since they are the only entities can and do constrain new housing. This is the part of the system that needs to change.

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

#530

Post by clairity » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #462

clairity wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

LA summers are ridiculously hot, but by all means live wherever you enjoy the weather.

it depends on where you live. the (san fernando) valley and inland are ridiculously hot, the coastal cities not so much.

the 10-15 really hot days we have center around august, with some spillover into july and september. but it's nothing compared to texas heat, for example.