In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build • Hacker News Board

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#231

Post by PKop » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:00 PM UTC

freyr wrote: post #224

Houshalter wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man "entitlement" is such a weird word, and such a weird way to frame the issue. There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone. And being told they're not allowed to because rich people like the aesthetic. There's poor people being priced out of their own city because of this. Who's entitled? And this is hardly the first time a US city has experienced growth.

Yes, it's somewhat a matter of perspective. Although I'd point out that it's not just rich people who appreciate San Francisco's aesthetic.

But of course it's rich people who are prioritizing it above affordable housing.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#232

Post by rayiner » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:01 PM UTC

skewart wrote: post #150

rconti wrote: post #140

The Times selected as an "NYTimes Pick" a comment from someone in Berlin who absolutely makes my blood boil. (S)he starts off by stating privilege as a 5th-generation San Franciscan (obviously, the kind who DESERVE to live in the city), and who fled in the tech boom of the 90s. The usual rant about whitewashing and yuppies and artists being pushed out ensues. Of course they don't want more housing built, because then…

Yeah, the comment section on that article is pretty sad. The number of people whose argument against building more housing is a fear that it will make the city "ugly" is astounding. It's mind-numbingly selfish and greedy to think that a family should barely be able to make ends meet, and children should spend less time with their long-commuting parents, just so that SF can meet your personal aesthetic sensibilities.…

Also, San Francisco is already ugly. It's not like you'd be razing historically important beaux arts buildings to build more.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#233

Post by Decade » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:02 PM UTC

These articles always pit “newcomers” like Sonja Trauss (2012, originally from Philadelphia) against “long-time residents” like Jennifer Fieber (1990 from wherever).

What about my generation: Kids born in San Francisco, who are growing up in a city where either we stay with our parents indefinitely, we move into tech, or we move out of the area. In terms of the economy, we are newcomers, but in terms of community, we’re losing our friends and family. We need more room so we can move out of our parents’ houses.

So, when I see people like Fieber campaigning against more housing, I find it quite upsetting. This is the past stealing from the future.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#234

Post by canoebuilder » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

rconti wrote: post #140

The Times selected as an "NYTimes Pick" a comment from someone in Berlin who absolutely makes my blood boil. (S)he starts off by stating privilege as a 5th-generation San Franciscan (obviously, the kind who DESERVE to live in the city), and who fled in the tech boom of the 90s. The usual rant about whitewashing and yuppies and artists being pushed out ensues. Of course they don't want more housing built, because then…

Yuppies being pushed out?

'Yuppy' mean young urban professional. If you live in SF, working in the tech profession, you're likely some value of 'young,' and therefore a yuppy.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#235

Post by mc32 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #232

skewart wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the comment section on that article is pretty sad. The number of people whose argument against building more housing is a fear that it will make the city "ugly" is astounding. It's mind-numbingly selfish and greedy to think that a family should barely be able to make ends meet, and children should spend less time with their long-commuting parents, just so that SF can meet your personal aesthetic sensibilities.…

Also, San Francisco is already ugly. It's not like you'd be razing historically important beaux arts buildings to build more.

Beautiful and ugly architecture can be pretty subjective. But, yeah, SFists have an above average tendency towards preservation. Not even sure why when in most other senses SFists believe in change.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#236

Post by rconti » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

bhickey wrote: post #221

skewart wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. > or making your schools overcrowded To which I say, build more schools! With more housing and people comes a bigger tax base and more money to fund infrastructure improvements. I don't know a single pro-construction person who doesn't also vigorously support improving urban infrastructure.

With Prop 13 in place, cities and towns can't adjust taxes to cover their budgets. It behooves a Bay Area municipality to seek out commercial investment and drive away residential.

Well, or new residential assessed at new rates. I'm not sure how free cities are to change their tax rates, my understanding is the major problem with Prop 13 is that existing owner's taxes can't go up very fast. But if a new resident displaces an older one, the tax value resets and the tax receipts go up. Same for building new residential, you get a bunch of taxpayers at the 'current' rate.

But I'm guessing there are also limits on overall rates because otherwise property tax rates would have gone up to make up for the 'lost' revenue from owners who are grandfathered in.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#237

Post by simulate » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

SonjaKT wrote: post #220

Hi guys, it's me, Sonja Trauss, AMA.

Hi Sonja. How can San Francisco locals like me can help encourage building? Are there ways to engage that you've found particularly effective? What can my friends who live in the Bay Area but outside of San Francisco do?

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#238

Post by rconti » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

Decade wrote: post #233

These articles always pit “newcomers” like Sonja Trauss (2012, originally from Philadelphia) against “long-time residents” like Jennifer Fieber (1990 from wherever). What about my generation: Kids born in San Francisco, who are growing up in a city where either we stay with our parents indefinitely, we move into tech, or we move out of the area. In terms of the economy, we are newcomers, but in terms of community, we…

Unfortunately, "the past" votes more regularly than "the future" (particularly the future which is underage or not yet born).

And they REALLY vote more than outsiders!

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#239

Post by rayiner » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

fizx wrote: post #214

skewart wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. The point is that Paris is about three times as dense as SF and it still is widely considered a "beautiful" city.

Paris's characteristic "beautiful" architecture is six stories tall stone, SF's is three stories tall wood. Unfortunately SF was started on a major fault, and probably without nearby quarries (which would be insane to use in an earthquake zone anyways). So now we're stuck in a dichotomy between 4+ stories steel and glass, and the "original" SF Edwardian architecture, which doesn't scale as well as Paris's stone.

DC's architecture is converging on 12-14 stories steel and glass and it looks great while allowing a lot of density.

Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

#240

Post by PKop » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

ktRolster wrote: post #105

skewart wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a massive leap from legalizing more different kinds of development in the US to a totally unregulated city in India. It's basically a strawman fallacy. The article clearly talks about a lack of many basic government authority and services way beyond zoning codes, like electricity and criminal justice. I think the lack of reliable power and sweage treatment might have a lot more to do with it being chaot…

If you think builders won't screw home-purchasers every chance they get, then you don't know many home builders. There's a reason we have housing inspections at so many steps in the building process.

What does that have to do with zoning?