Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” • Hacker News Board

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#121

Post by jaredcwhite » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

cullenking wrote: post #32

jaredcwhite wrote: post #8

So much here resonates with me. I’m sitting in a train right now taking me from a suburb into downtown Portland, OR...an easy commute...only $5 a day gets you unlimited transportation across all of the regional transit services (all part of the excellent TriMet system). I moved here from the Bay Area mainly due to affordability and sane public transit. The Bay Area is an amazing place but it’s imploding under the wei…

"I moved here from the Bay Area..." At the risk of sounding xenophobic, Portland is going to turn into San Francisco soon enough if people/companies keep immigrating from California and New York, and elected officials keep proposing policies modeled after the Bay Area. I'm not saying "stay away" as I enjoy much of the growth PDX has seen over the last few years, especially the fact we have a much easier time finding…

Fair points. I'm happy to push for all the things you just mentioned, and I certainly don't want to contribute to messing up the good thing you have going. :)

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#122

Post by alphonsegaston » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

tomkarlo wrote: post #49

polskibus wrote: post #17

Is it beneficial for the rest of US to save SF? Won't its demise actually improve the lives in the rest of the country/world as businesses spread out after workers or allow remote work?

It's beneficial for the rest of the US to find solutions that make high density cities successful. Such locations tend to be both your cultural and economic centers, in particular due to the network effects of putting so many people in close proximity to each other. (The Internet helps but hasn't proven to be a substitute quite yet.) Additionally, dense urban areas tend to have the smallest environmental impact per c…

These solutions have already been found and implemented in developed countries around the world. The problems in the US are ideological limits that circumscribe the forms of collectivist action that are required to implement strategies that work. Singapore, Western Europe, Japan etc don’t have these limits and thus don’t have the problems that result from them. Heck in Singapore, upwards of 80% of people live in some form of public housing. It’s not means tested and there’s no stigma about it.

How we’re currently trying to address these problem is a bit like trying to address climate change while refusing to believe it exists.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#123

Post by wwgg715 » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

habosa wrote: post #18

This article really gets it. It's all about transportation. It will never be possible for everyone who wants to be in San Francisco to live downtown, or even adjacent to downtown. Just like the article said, Manhattan is much denser but no more affordable. But we make it so hard for people to get around. You can take a bus for 45m or take the BART which is overcrowded, unreliable, and has trains that can be as much a…

Agree. And people who want density first - how do those people get to work without transit. Transit comes first.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#124

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

polskibus wrote: post #17

Is it beneficial for the rest of US to save SF? Won't its demise actually improve the lives in the rest of the country/world as businesses spread out after workers or allow remote work?

If the only way you feel that you can attract talented workers is for some other place to go under, you're not trying hard enough.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#125

Post by usaar333 » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #45

The real solution is for companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, etc to have the COURAGE to create large work epicenters outside of the Bay Area. Create headquarters for tens of thousands of workers in more remote areas with a strong infrastructure, with great benefits for working families. Do what Amazon wants to do with a second HQ, and create demand outside of the Bay Area. If Google created a new HQ in Kansas Cit…

> If Google created a new HQ in Kansas City, with it's fiber links, and low cost of living, and added really great benefits like free day care, etc, then won't software engineers move there, especially those that are ready to start a family? I bet you they would. I definitely would.

Maybe some, but I'd be really surprised if you get substantial numbers of your top people to move - which effectively blocks the overall team moving.

A Google Staff engineer makes $400k+. On such a salary, the high cost of living in the Bay Area really isn't a problem; sure in Kansas you could afford a mansion on that salary, but a lot of folks (myself included) prefer "paying" for the Bay Area's weather, scenery, and culture over larger living.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#126

Post by akgerber » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:04 PM UTC

jra_samba wrote: post #73

pfarnsworth wrote: post #45

The real solution is for companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, etc to have the COURAGE to create large work epicenters outside of the Bay Area. Create headquarters for tens of thousands of workers in more remote areas with a strong infrastructure, with great benefits for working families. Do what Amazon wants to do with a second HQ, and create demand outside of the Bay Area. If Google created a new HQ in Kansas Cit…

In its heyday HP did this. Look at places like Roseville and Fort Collins. Essentially company towns. And while the going is good, and the quarterly numbers keep going up, everything is great. But eventually the bad times come, and the employees living in these places are cast off like so many worn shoes, along with their families. I've seen this. I'm never moving out of the SF Bay Area until well after retirement (a…

The tradeoff is that if you make anything resembling Bay Area wages in Kansas City, you can pay off a lovely older house in a walkable neighborhood in two years or so.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#127

Post by tomkarlo » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:04 PM UTC

ryguytilidie wrote: post #117

tomkarlo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great, but it seems kind of orthogonal and non-scalable to the problem of the Bay Area housing crisis. Are you proposing that everyone in SF move to places like the Central Valley (driving up price) and start driving around cars (increasing traffic and pollution)? What about folks who don't have the luxury of jobs where they can work remotely?

"Are you proposing that everyone in SF move to places like the Central Valley (driving up price) and start driving around cars (increasing traffic and pollution)?" I don't know where you came up with this. The OP implied that by moving away from a heavily populated area and working remotely, he was able to afford more space and shorten his commute. You managed to turn no commute into increased pollution and moving to…

He didn't use a car to commute before (I'd hope) given he was in the middle of SF. But now he likely needs one to get to the grocery, take his kids to school, etc even if he's WFH. And he's likely also using more energy at home, too. So yes, more pollution - and if a lot of other people moved there, higher prices too.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#128

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #94

jra_samba wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In its heyday HP did this. Look at places like Roseville and Fort Collins. Essentially company towns. And while the going is good, and the quarterly numbers keep going up, everything is great. But eventually the bad times come, and the employees living in these places are cast off like so many worn shoes, along with their families. I've seen this. I'm never moving out of the SF Bay Area until well after retirement (a…

Risk vs return. That's okay that you prefer the Bay Area. I would have no problems if I knew that Google were committing to a permanent HQ in Kansas City. If they close down, they close down. I have no control over that, but I do have control over saving money and still maintaining a high quality of life because I'm not obsessing over property prices, private school for my kids because the public schools are so terri…

You don't think Google moving to KC would have a huge effect on property prices?

Not to mention, if they close down, you'll likely have a harder time finding another job than you would somewhere with a lot of tech places.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#129

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

akgerber wrote: post #126

jra_samba wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In its heyday HP did this. Look at places like Roseville and Fort Collins. Essentially company towns. And while the going is good, and the quarterly numbers keep going up, everything is great. But eventually the bad times come, and the employees living in these places are cast off like so many worn shoes, along with their families. I've seen this. I'm never moving out of the SF Bay Area until well after retirement (a…

The tradeoff is that if you make anything resembling Bay Area wages in Kansas City, you can pay off a lovely older house in a walkable neighborhood in two years or so.

The first wave might. However, I'm guessing housing prices would adjust.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#130

Post by Apocryphon » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:11 PM UTC

jra_samba wrote: post #73

pfarnsworth wrote: post #45

The real solution is for companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, etc to have the COURAGE to create large work epicenters outside of the Bay Area. Create headquarters for tens of thousands of workers in more remote areas with a strong infrastructure, with great benefits for working families. Do what Amazon wants to do with a second HQ, and create demand outside of the Bay Area. If Google created a new HQ in Kansas Cit…

In its heyday HP did this. Look at places like Roseville and Fort Collins. Essentially company towns. And while the going is good, and the quarterly numbers keep going up, everything is great. But eventually the bad times come, and the employees living in these places are cast off like so many worn shoes, along with their families. I've seen this. I'm never moving out of the SF Bay Area until well after retirement (a…

Amazon seems intent on attempting this. It's incredibly doubtful that they'll build HQ2 in the Bay Area (though the backlash from such a decision would be incredibly hilarious).