Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#61

Post by jjtheblunt » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #27

opportune wrote: post #13

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…

So true, so well described, so depressing, and just true.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#62

Post by scrumbledober » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

H8crilA wrote: post #41

CPLX wrote: 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…

Not just east coasters can subscribe to this thinking. A citizen of pretty much any other country can. Compare with Hong Kong. Right off the Victoria Peak there are 40+ story apartment buildings. There's forest to one side of them, and more 40+ story buildings to the other side.

You don't need to live outside of the bay area to think this way. I've grown up on the peninsula and think it's absurd. I'm a software engineer and if I ever want to buy a house I feel like I'll be forced to relocate away from family and hometown. My friend's 90 year old grandmother constantly complains about new housing development in the town we live in, but then also questions why my friend has to live with her and his cousin had to move away. Stop voting to make this area too expensive to live in and your younger family won't have to move away.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#63

Post by snuxoll » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

hnaccy wrote: post #42

pcwalton wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

The population physically cannot grow limitlessly so there must be a point at which you level off. If you wait longer you're increasing the number of people that have to suffer during the transition period and increasing the ecological load of the stable population's lifestyle.

Signs point to the 10 billionth (concurrently living) human being never being born, birth rates have begun to stabilize worldwide as more countries modernize. Remember, more educated populations with better health care reproduce less.

It’s not an issue of limitless growth of the population, it’s an issue of the population consolidating into a smaller footprint (which from an ecological perspective is a Good Thing) and stupid policies blocking it from happening.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#64

Post by inferiorhuman » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

i_am_proteus wrote: post #37

CPLX wrote: 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…

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 wh…

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.

It's actually quite the opposite. So-called soft story buildings are more dangerous in an earthquake and property owners are taking quite a while to bring them up to code. Californians just love their cars.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#65

Post by swsieber » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

esotericn wrote: post #14

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #11

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.

> For humanity to continue growing as a species I'm pretty young. Since my birth, the population has expanded by over 40%, and we've increased global temperature by approximately 1 degree Celsius. The inevitable conclusion of forever-growth is, indeed, that everyone piles in to microscopic communal living spaces, that everything becomes factory farmed, that everything has to be as efficient as possible because we'll…

Don't worry, we're not. Human population growth is slowing down at a remarkable rate.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#66

Post by imtringued » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #46

CPLX wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe involving terraforming other planets This is like peak San Francisco housing conversation right here. Have you guys considering the radical idea of building a couple fucking apartment buildings instead? I mean, seriously.

No that's exactly what I mean, you read "terraforming" and took it too far. The parent was saying that, the general conclusion is making housing smaller and smaller. Today's apartment buildings will be too big as the population grows and we'll have to fit more people in more limited amounts of space. This is assuming several things, that we won't be able to build tall buildings, that we won't be able to go on another…

You're not solving the problem. There is no shortage of space for the future 11 billion humans. The big problem is the centralization of companies within few top tier cities without a corresponding increase in housing for the (locally) growing population.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#67

Post by cryptozeus » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:07 PM UTC

If you notice how new york and surrounding area is supported by very good transportation. West coast does not have that and on top of that there are no huge building being built outside sf. I wonder if this is due to earthquakes. Either way I think this issues and mixed with tech job demand is going to push remote culture more and more.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#68

Post by throwawaysea » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #36

throwawaysea wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Again, why does it need to grow? There seem to be people in this thread expecting that unchecked human population growth is a sure sign of progress. It isn't. And our current population levels are also unsustainable.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#69

Post by hnaccy » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

snuxoll wrote: post #63

hnaccy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The population physically cannot grow limitlessly so there must be a point at which you level off. If you wait longer you're increasing the number of people that have to suffer during the transition period and increasing the ecological load of the stable population's lifestyle.

Signs point to the 10 billionth (concurrently living) human being never being born, birth rates have begun to stabilize worldwide as more countries modernize. Remember, more educated populations with better health care reproduce less. It’s not an issue of limitless growth of the population, it’s an issue of the population consolidating into a smaller footprint (which from an ecological perspective is a Good Thing) an…

We're already over the carrying capacity if the world wants first world lifestyle.

Re: Approaching Peak Housing Dysfunction in California

#70

Post by i_am_proteus » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 9:09 PM UTC

markbnj wrote: post #59

btilly wrote: post #51

I have suggested this before, and I'll suggest this again. The whole problem could be solved if we gave people the choice of voting where they work rather than where they live. Currently every city wants all the businesses that they can get because businesses generate lots of tax revenues. Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue, and locals object on the basis of NIMBYism. But when everyon…

> Cities do not want apartments because that doesn't generate revenue The property owners still pay tax on it don't they? I'm sure it is less lucrative per square foot than commercial development, but I assume it is still better than the revenue from the closed furniture store and parking lot, and after all you need people to patronize businesses.

Perhaps it's something to do with how California has lower property taxes (partially due to Prop. 13) and higher income taxes-- but those income taxes go to Sacramento, not to municipalities.

In other parts of the country, municipal treasuries grow as volume and prices of residential units grow.