Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#121

Post by spfzero »

washbrain wrote: post #99
spfzero wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more the density that people object to, not more people, or more housing. It's when there's an area in the denominator. More density means more cars, more air pollution, more traffic, more noise. More accidents, more time searching for parking and standing in lines. It may not add up to ruin, but it's objectively worse.

It... Doesn't have to mean any of those things? Trains and bikes (and ebikes) and scooters and sidewalks and buses and trolleys and streetcars exist. You don't have to design around the car...

Probably best to try the trolley and scooter thing in a new town where everyone who moved there knew what they were getting.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#122

Post by effingwewt »

washbrain wrote: post #72
mbesto wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Build it somewhere else Reminds me of a Ben Shapiro quote: Let's say for the sake of argument that all of the water levels around the world rise by, let's say, five feet over the next 100 years. Say 10 feet over the next 100 years. And it puts all of the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. Let's say all of that happens. You think people aren't just going to sell their homes and move?

This quote is hilarious to me. Sell it to who, Ben? Sell it to who? "Want to buy my land?" "Sure, why are you selling?" "It'll be literally devoured by the seas soon and totally worthless." "That sounds like a great investment. Sold!"

This is about to happen as we speak now that Colorado is stopping water deliveries.

How do you sell a multi-million dollar home in a remote location with no access to water?

If people want houses to be treated as investments, then they should be punished as such when their bet goes sideways.

Lose money imvested in stock/crypto/whatever? Too bad so sad.

House value even so much as commits the sin of not appreciating because of whatever reason? Stop the presses and think of the children!

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#123

Post by washbrain »

golemotron wrote: post #118
washbrain wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are saying is, "convert farmland to housing and highways." It's an inefficient use of space, it socially isolates us, and it has devastating ecological consequences.

Suddenly, all non-urban space in the US becomes farmland.

Show me land on the periphery of an urban center that's large enough to meaningfully expand housing that isn't farmland, rangeland, forestry, or a protected habitat/important ecological preserve.

I'll wait, take your time.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#124

Post by washbrain »

effingwewt wrote: post #122
washbrain wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This quote is hilarious to me. Sell it to who, Ben? Sell it to who? "Want to buy my land?" "Sure, why are you selling?" "It'll be literally devoured by the seas soon and totally worthless." "That sounds like a great investment. Sold!"

This is about to happen as we speak now that Colorado is stopping water deliveries. How do you sell a multi-million dollar home in a remote location with no access to water? If people want houses to be treated as investments, then they should be punished as such when their bet goes sideways. Lose money imvested in stock/crypto/whatever? Too bad so sad. House value even so much as commits the sin of not appreciating b…

I don't want housing to be an investment. But I also own a house that will inevitably be treated like one because that's the currently supported cultural standard.

I don't think ordinary folks should lose their shirts off their backs if they lose their homes. Sure, I have zero sympathy for the investors who are manipulating markets, but the every day worker? Nah.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#125

Post by washbrain »

spfzero wrote: post #121
washbrain wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It... Doesn't have to mean any of those things? Trains and bikes (and ebikes) and scooters and sidewalks and buses and trolleys and streetcars exist. You don't have to design around the car...

Probably best to try the trolley and scooter thing in a new town where everyone who moved there knew what they were getting.

That's typically how it's done, yeah. Intentional communities will often market themselves specifically as walkable or transit adjacent.

But there's no reason not to take the things that work well in them and bring them elsewhere. Traffic separated bike lanes and Dutch style intersections are common sense improvements that we can build that improve access without requiring a car.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#126

Post by rich_sasha »

It's hypocritical, sort of, but doesn't outrage me. Like other celebrities, these guys have a public and a private persona. Basically tweeting in support of their ventures is part of their job, a bit like 50 Cent's job is to take pictures surrounded by wads if cash. It wouldn't offend me if it turned out actually he had a bank account.

It might be that their position on new housing in their region is an egregious one, i haven't really thought about it, but the hypocrisy around it is, I think, par for the course.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#127

Post by t_mann »

golemotron wrote: post #119
drusenko wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is growing wide good policy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

covering more and more land in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impervious_surface is not a good idea either

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#128

Post by nazka »

mstipetic wrote: post #24
helloworld11 wrote: post #6

>“I am writing this letter to communicate our IMMENSE objection to the creation of multifamily overlay zones in Atherton,” wrote Andreessen and his wife Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen in an email. “Please IMMEDIATELY REMOVE all multifamily overlay zoning projects from the Housing Element which will be submitted to the state in July. They will MASSIVELY decrease our home values, the quality of life of ourselves and our ne…

I really don’t understand this mindset, shouldn’t you stop caring about money at a certain point? So what if one of your houses decreases in value, you’re set for life. Is it some weird money obsession/disease?

The mind can be that: I will be feeling fulfilled after I get a little bit more. And they never fill fulfilled.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#129

Post by golemotron »

washbrain wrote: post #123
golemotron wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suddenly, all non-urban space in the US becomes farmland.

Show me land on the periphery of an urban center that's large enough to meaningfully expand housing that isn't farmland, rangeland, forestry, or a protected habitat/important ecological preserve. I'll wait, take your time.

Yes, legislative capture and over-zealous zoning are real problems.

Re: Marc Andreessen slams new multi-family affordable housing

#130

Post by golemotron »

t_mann wrote: post #127
golemotron wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

covering more and more land in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impervious_surface is not a good idea either

Generally solved by incentivizing large lush green lawns for single family housing in large tracts. The lawns have the added benefit of capturing carbon and increasing air quality.

Mandating one 18-hole golf course for every 2K people in municipalities would also create positive offsets to impervious surface and add to the benefit.

Post reply on HN