Live data from Hacker News

Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

strongtowns.org

31–40 of 256 posts

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#31
post #27

I walked around downtown San Bruno recently and it's honestly pathetic how this city is squandering their potential. Even on el camino real itself a lot of the property is being wasted on auto repair shops and fast food places, 2-3 story buildings, etc. This place could be way, way better given its proximity to the airport and SF.

I mean, I don't know how to tell you guys, but from the perspective of an east coaster, the entire peninsula (including SF) looks like this. It feels like some kind of parallel universe where nothing makes sense. Like I hear about a housing crisis in SF but I go there and there are supermarkets surrounded by parking lots in the middle of the city. There are literal big-box stores like you'd see in the suburbs adjacen…

It's quite sane if you bought property in the 60s-90s and are riding property appreciation to fortune.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#32
post #31
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I don't know how to tell you guys, but from the perspective of an east coaster, the entire peninsula (including SF) looks like this. It feels like some kind of parallel universe where nothing makes sense. Like I hear about a housing crisis in SF but I go there and there are supermarkets surrounded by parking lots in the middle of the city. There are literal big-box stores like you'd see in the suburbs adjacen…

It's quite sane if you bought property in the 60s-90s and are riding property appreciation to fortune.

[deleted]

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#33

I've noticed an increasing trend in West Coast cities where people complain that there's "just too many people". "Tell them to move elsewhere, we're full". It's as if the lessons of Malthusian limits were lost on us. For humanity to continue growing as a species we have to become more efficient with land use.

Why does humanity need to grow in population? That doesn't make sense and is an invalid assumption underlying what you're asking for here.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#34

I've noticed an increasing trend in West Coast cities where people complain that there's "just too many people". "Tell them to move elsewhere, we're full". It's as if the lessons of Malthusian limits were lost on us. For humanity to continue growing as a species we have to become more efficient with land use.

Not only that, the people who say that fail to realize that population control will simply replace a housing crisis with a demographic crisis. We're going to need a lot of people to care for the aging boomers as they enter their retirement years. The boomers don't realize that one of the groups most hurt by their policies will be themselves.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#35

I've noticed an increasing trend in West Coast cities where people complain that there's "just too many people". "Tell them to move elsewhere, we're full". It's as if the lessons of Malthusian limits were lost on us. For humanity to continue growing as a species we have to become more efficient with land use.

I just spent 3 weeks in the US Midwest. There is plenty of land to use, thousands of square miles of empty rolling grassy plains. (Ex.: South Dakota averages 11 people per square mile.) Apply a little modern technology (solar/wind, water storage/purification, insulation, Starlink satellite internet) and nobody need complain of population density. There's a startup waiting to happen: self-sufficient high-tech prefab h…

Roll it out in say Rugby, ND and you'll even have an Empire Builder stop right there, with service to Seattle, Portland, Spokane, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee, and Chicago!

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#36

I've noticed an increasing trend in West Coast cities where people complain that there's "just too many people". "Tell them to move elsewhere, we're full". It's as if the lessons of Malthusian limits were lost on us. For humanity to continue growing as a species we have to become more efficient with land use.

Why does humanity need to grow in population? That doesn't make sense and is an invalid assumption underlying what you're asking for here.

Because someone is going to have to care for an aging population. You can look at Japan for what happens when you have zero or negative population growth.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#37
post #27

I walked around downtown San Bruno recently and it's honestly pathetic how this city is squandering their potential. Even on el camino real itself a lot of the property is being wasted on auto repair shops and fast food places, 2-3 story buildings, etc. This place could be way, way better given its proximity to the airport and SF.

I mean, I don't know how to tell you guys, but from the perspective of an east coaster, the entire peninsula (including SF) looks like this. It feels like some kind of parallel universe where nothing makes sense. Like I hear about a housing crisis in SF but I go there and there are supermarkets surrounded by parking lots in the middle of the city. There are literal big-box stores like you'd see in the suburbs adjacen…

There I was, thinking I was the only one.

It's insane. When I first got here from the east coast, I thought maybe there was some reason involving earthquake codes. And then I learned.

I used to live in NYC, a city that's had its own difficulties adding new housing, corruption in the permitting process, considering too many areas "historic." But the Bay Area is something completely different. It seems that everyone who already owns a single family home is strongly in favor of pulling up the ladder.

Perhaps too much money is riding on the existing "market value" of homes here. If zoning restrictions were relaxed, could house prices collapse? Proposition 13 can't be helping, either.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#38
post #3

It's being overdone. A solid wall of railroad flats (cheezy "luxury" condos) is going up for miles along the Caltrain tracks. Those wooden multistory buildings are the slums of tomorrow. It's about time for the next Bay Area recession. Some of those buildings will never be fully occupied. Remember 2008? 2001?

> It's being overdone.

No economist agrees with you. It's indisputable that there is a housing shortage in the Bay Area.

> It's about time for the next Bay Area recession.

Do you really want misery for the working class because you don't want to see "cheezy luxury condos" along the tracks?

> Some of those buildings will never be fully occupied.

I recently bought a condo near 22nd St. and I can tell you the building filled up very quickly. With real residents, not foreign investors.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#39

I shared this because it's the best concise summary of many things that are going wrong with housing in the bay area that I've read in a while. I'm on the Strong Towns board (though I didn't write the article). Happy to answer questions if anyone has them.

Is housing "going wrong" simply because it is expensive? Maybe it is overall a good thing that tech companies are now expanding into cities outside the bay area due to high housing costs. At least housing prices are transparent to those thinking about moving in to the bay area, allowing them to make an informed decision. High traffic, insufficient public transit capacity, and over-capacity public services are less tr…

I would argue housing reaching the current prices is not good for the overall economy because it creates unreasonable pressure on people who aren't in the tech industry and still have a reason to live in the Bay Area. First, this makes it unreasonably difficult to stay in the region you grew up in unless you get into the top end of the local income brackets. Second, it makes it unreasonably difficult for all kinds of important and necessary, but lower paid, workers to live in the area. A city of nothing but high-end tech workers, with no teachers, police, firefighters, etc. would not be a very nice place to live.

As far as the "optimal amount of new housing," why not just match the number of new households moving into a region? That seems like a good place to start.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#40

> No neighborhood should be exempt from change. > No neighborhood should be subjected to radical change. Is there any dynamic evolutionary system that actually follows these rules? The tech industry is famous for lumbering behemoths that are constitutionally incapable of innovation and then get replaced wholesale by nimble startups. National borders change all at once, in wars or revolutions, rather than incrementall…

I mean, if we're being cynical, you say the second so that people feel comfortable with the first. If you can convince suburbanites that you won't put up a skyscraper next door, you'll have an easier time putting up a 5-story apartment building. Or so my thinking goes, anyway.
Post reply on HN