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

A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 157 posts

Re: A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge

#31

Post by switchbak »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #15
virtualwhys wrote: post #13

FTA, $500 per day to rent an historic mansion overlooking the bay (i.e. before the bridge obstruction) I have a family wedding to attend back east this autumn and we're looking at around that (before "service fees" and taxes) to sleep 5 out in the sticks of New Hampshire -- short-term housing has truly gotten out of hand, basically everywhere.

Yeah Airbnb has become so outrageously expensive and is so much less convenient than a hotel that it's almost never worth it anymore, it's crazy.

Things must be different here (BC, Canada). I can't think of why I'd ever rent a hotel room when AirBnB's are usually a similar price and way more comfortable (usually).

Unless I had a worry about cancellations I suppose.

Re: A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge

#32

Post by CPLX »

jfoutz wrote: post #9

also, interesting they had to design it not to cast a shadow on that house """ But the decision to build an architectural icon didn't end problems - it started new ones. The most bizarre was with the U.S. Navy. In 1998, it refused to let Caltrans onto Yerba Buena Island to finish its engineering work. The Navy's issue was whether the Bridge would overshadow the one-time home of Admiral Chester Nimitz, a hero of World…

San Francisco is the only place I know with this bizarre obsession that things shouldn’t be allowed to cast shadows on other things, as a general rule.

It’s just strange.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-supervisors-...

Re: A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge

#33

Post by dmd »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #15
virtualwhys wrote: post #13

FTA, $500 per day to rent an historic mansion overlooking the bay (i.e. before the bridge obstruction) I have a family wedding to attend back east this autumn and we're looking at around that (before "service fees" and taxes) to sleep 5 out in the sticks of New Hampshire -- short-term housing has truly gotten out of hand, basically everywhere.

Yeah Airbnb has become so outrageously expensive and is so much less convenient than a hotel that it's almost never worth it anymore, it's crazy.

I have the exact opposite experience -- as someone who always wants two adjoining rooms (for kids). Doing that in a hotel tends to cost as much as 3 times what an Airbnb would cost, and the airbnb is more comfortable. You just need to actually read reviews.

Re: A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge

#34

Post by stdbrouw »

virtualwhys wrote: post #13

FTA, $500 per day to rent an historic mansion overlooking the bay (i.e. before the bridge obstruction) I have a family wedding to attend back east this autumn and we're looking at around that (before "service fees" and taxes) to sleep 5 out in the sticks of New Hampshire -- short-term housing has truly gotten out of hand, basically everywhere.

They mention this was before the Loma Prieta earthquake which was in 1989; if we take inflation from 1980 to now into account that'd be $1600-1900 today. Probably still good value, esp. given the view, but I guess it does depend on how it was furnished at the time.

Re: A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge

#35

Post by bombcar »

switchbak wrote: post #31
iLoveOncall wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Airbnb has become so outrageously expensive and is so much less convenient than a hotel that it's almost never worth it anymore, it's crazy.

Things must be different here (BC, Canada). I can't think of why I'd ever rent a hotel room when AirBnB's are usually a similar price and way more comfortable (usually). Unless I had a worry about cancellations I suppose.

AirBnB is like the proverbial curléd girl:

When she was good, She was very good indeed, But when she was bad she was horrid.

Re: A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge

#36

Post by zeagle »

CPLX wrote: post #32
jfoutz wrote: post #9

also, interesting they had to design it not to cast a shadow on that house """ But the decision to build an architectural icon didn't end problems - it started new ones. The most bizarre was with the U.S. Navy. In 1998, it refused to let Caltrans onto Yerba Buena Island to finish its engineering work. The Navy's issue was whether the Bridge would overshadow the one-time home of Admiral Chester Nimitz, a hero of World…

San Francisco is the only place I know with this bizarre obsession that things shouldn’t be allowed to cast shadows on other things, as a general rule. It’s just strange. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-supervisors-...

In the USA. For interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light . The second last paragraph comments on SF.

Re: A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge

#37

Post by CPLX »

zeagle wrote: post #36
CPLX wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Francisco is the only place I know with this bizarre obsession that things shouldn’t be allowed to cast shadows on other things, as a general rule. It’s just strange. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-supervisors-...

In the USA. For interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light . The second last paragraph comments on SF.

Very interesting. The concept has been soundly rejected in the US. Except for San Francisco.

How’s that working out?

Re: A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge

#38

Post by manquer »

onychomys wrote: post #10
nchudleigh wrote: post #4

The ads on this site are unbearable on mobile.

Brave blocks ads natively in their mobile browser, you should give them a shot.

Many sites are using adblocker blockers (including this one)

don’t know about Brave but μblock origin fails for this site on Firefox mobile on iOS

Re: A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge

#40

Post by jfoutz »

CPLX wrote: post #37
zeagle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the USA. For interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light . The second last paragraph comments on SF.

Very interesting. The concept has been soundly rejected in the US. Except for San Francisco. How’s that working out?

I think NYC is king of sunlight regulation https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical-manual/08_Shadows_2...
Post reply on HN