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

Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

darrellowens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 289 posts

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#111

Post by quesera »

cyberax wrote: post #85
quesera wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Sacramento is hot, suburban, and has limited employment options. And Napa is dry, rural, and has no employment options. SFBA OTOH: Temperate, verdant, urban, and swimming in jobs. I do like Sacramento and Napa. But they are very different lifestyles, despite being so close. Also, it's very difficult to build in Napa, due to water availability. Sacramento is easier, and it gets even easier as you get farther o…

> And Napa is dry, rural Napa is more green than the SFBA in general. It also is about as hot as most of the Bay Area outside of SF. > and has no jobs. Good. Keep asking questions. What caused the lack of jobs?

Napa County has acute water availability problems. SF County and most of Alameda County (the most populated parts) generally do not.

I didn't say Napa was hot. Sacramento is hot.

But SFBA comprises a large area and large climatic variations. I don't think it's meaningful to consider all 9 (or 13) counties in comparisons, because all things become true. Cold, hot, humid, dry, windy, placid, densely populated, sparsely so.

If you're asking why SF is SF and Sacramento is Sacramento, then I don't think there is a satisfying answer. If you're trying to lead me to a preexisting conclusion, I'd prefer that you just engage directly.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#112

Post by chottocharaii »

josuepeq wrote: post #109

I like the idea! I also like Dingbats. And parking. Removing parking minimums is a noble idea, but one thing I have noticed is that the new “parking free” apartment buildings in San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin and SOMA, are having a hard time getting all of their units filled, even with prices slashed. This is a problem that buildings with parking seem to not have. Even with good transit, the city is much easie…

Okay so if that’s the case the developers/owners will work out the most economic model; whether it’s best to satisfy demand with bays or without bays

This is self-correcting. Minimums only ensure an inappropriate amount of parking will be built

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#113

Post by ajmurmann »

ipaddr wrote: post #104
ajmurmann wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is concern about underutilizing land, pass a land value tax and the market will figure out what's the best way to improve the value of the property itself beyond the windfall from the unimproved land going up in value due to surrounding economic activity. When it comes to housing the US seems to suffer some kind of disability that makes it impossible to not be tempted to steer towards a planned economy.

Let the people with the most money decide?

That's not how markets work

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#114

Post by panick21_ »

lettergram wrote: post #20

I’m still shocked by the notion that a highly dense population is inherently good. Pollution increases, energy requirements increase, crime per-capita increases, babies per-capita tend to decrease, time spent in traffic or commuting increases, space per person decreases. I get that you get more food or entertainment options, but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. T…

Pretty much all of this is just factually wrong.

> energy requirements increase > > Pollution increases

I can not even fathom how somebody with even rudimentary reasoning skills can actually think that. Its just factually incorrect. The opposite is true.

> time spent in traffic or commuting increases

What an American thing to say. Maybe if your model of a city is a place where there are a few offices in the center and then a bunch of 15 lane highways to a bunch of apparent buildings. But that's not actually what a real city should be like.

First of all, you can live much closer to your job. That means walking or biking work much better.

And density also increases efficiency for public transport. It hilarious to me how in the US many cities people spend hours in traffic everyday. I can take the train to the city centers in literally 5min and I can do that pretty much most of the day.

> space per person decreases

If by 'space' you mean space personally owned space maybe. But that's not how cities work. You have more public space and more places you can go. And if your city doesn't sprawl and convert all the surrounding nature into a hellscape of asphalt and single family homes, nature is actually pretty damn close as well.

So every individual has less space, but in reality, more common nature is preserved.

> but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. Though it may increase opportunity, that’s not necessarily something an existing community would be improved by.

These existing communities of single family homes all lose money. The city is subsidizing them. Literally the poorest parts of the population subsidizing the rich. People without cars subsidizing the those with cars. That the actual reality, if single family homes had to actually pay their far share, the world would look very different.

Having fairness and equity isn't something that would improve existing communities? Much easier to keep stepping on the poorest people and keep them down, am I right?

Much better to have all people under 16 in suburbs dreaming to get out and get a car. Whole generations of American art is literally dedicated to how incredible boring subberbia is.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#115

Post by mcbishop »

babyshake wrote: post #102
aorloff wrote: post #95

Berkeley is where 1/4 of the elected City Councilmember quit in the last month, one due to harassment and threats (People's Park appearing to be the exacerbating issue) and the other because she is fed up with Berkeley politics, not so much that she isn't still running for mayor, and not because of the protestors who were kinda talking over her big announcement, and also not because of threats like the other guy. We…

Can you speak more to the comedy and jazz in Berkeley and where to find it? Also feel free to suggest any food spots, especially ones that aren't as obvious as Viks, Cheeseboard, Chez Panisse, etc.

Wat Mongkolratanaram A Thai temple that serves Sunday brunch in their courtyard. https://m.yelp.com/biz/wat-mongkolratanaram-berkeley

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#116

Post by e-_pusher »

babyshake wrote: post #102
aorloff wrote: post #95

Berkeley is where 1/4 of the elected City Councilmember quit in the last month, one due to harassment and threats (People's Park appearing to be the exacerbating issue) and the other because she is fed up with Berkeley politics, not so much that she isn't still running for mayor, and not because of the protestors who were kinda talking over her big announcement, and also not because of threats like the other guy. We…

Can you speak more to the comedy and jazz in Berkeley and where to find it? Also feel free to suggest any food spots, especially ones that aren't as obvious as Viks, Cheeseboard, Chez Panisse, etc.

It is not in Berkeley, but Yoshi’s in Oakland is a great Jazz club.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#117

Post by mint2 »

josuepeq wrote: post #109

I like the idea! I also like Dingbats. And parking. Removing parking minimums is a noble idea, but one thing I have noticed is that the new “parking free” apartment buildings in San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin and SOMA, are having a hard time getting all of their units filled, even with prices slashed. This is a problem that buildings with parking seem to not have. Even with good transit, the city is much easie…

It would not take just 15 minutes by car, it would take another ten to park, but also if one person takes their car, how can they ask other people not to as well. It will take 30 minutes to driver now, and there won’t be parking as everyone drove.

Now upzone the city, oh dear it’s utter gridlock.

Edit: but actually forbidding the building of parking is just as misguided as requiring it. Did not initially see that it was actually proposed to be prohibited rather than simply not required.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#118

Post by nine_k »

low_tech_punk wrote: post #78

If only BSD applies to the re-distribution of land as well as software.

Any warranties disclaimed? Any liabilities waived? No guarantee of fitness and merchantability?

Maybe you you'd be interesting in buying a bridge which I'd gladly sell to you?

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#119

Post by josuepeq »

kredd wrote: post #98
meeks wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downtown Costco, is this Vancouver perhaps?

Yeah, it is. Although last time I bragged about it, I've been told SF and Seattle (?) also have that. But I shall keep boasting about it non-stop.

Ironically enough the Costco in San Francisco has more free parking than any other parking lot in the City, and is bigger than most all of the paid public garages also.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#120

Post by caesil »

amluto wrote: post #74

> If a builder chooses to add parking and they’re located 0.5 miles within a transit corridor, they are limited to one space for every two homes. This seems weird. I’m all in favor of getting rid of legislated parking minimums, but it seems to me that, if a developer thinks that adding parking is more economical, they should be allowed to do so.

I think the idea is that if you want to build a building with 3+ spaces per unit, you should be doing it further away from transit. Let buildings with a higher ratio of housing density to parking be closer.
Post reply on HN