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

Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

kevin.burke.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#31

Post by jcranmer »

qurren wrote: post #2

I wonder why 4b apartments are so rarely seen in the US. In Asia they are quite common.

In the US, when you start to get to planning to have a larger family, especially the size of family that would necessitate 4 bedrooms (multiple children, or maybe having a parent live with you), most people expect to move out of an apartment building into a house anyways (maybe detached single-family home, maybe duplex, maybe condo). So there's just not the demand for 4-bedroom apartments or even 3-bedroom apartments to a large degree.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#32

Post by carabiner »

mikelitoris wrote: post #4

“Human driven cars are going to be around for about 5 years” is one of the most out of touch quotes I’ve seen this month. Also, all of this is about NIMBYism, which is about house prices being inflated to make up most of households’ wealth, which is not fixable without triggering a massive wealth redistribution. Most western societies are stuck in a very non-ideal Nash equilibrium and it is not going to be solved any…

lmao. Average age of a car on the road right now is 12 years. Yes, I'm sure my mexican housekeeper will be selling her 15 year old corolla for a self driving car any time now.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#34

Post by kevinburke »

mikelitoris wrote: post #4

“Human driven cars are going to be around for about 5 years” is one of the most out of touch quotes I’ve seen this month. Also, all of this is about NIMBYism, which is about house prices being inflated to make up most of households’ wealth, which is not fixable without triggering a massive wealth redistribution. Most western societies are stuck in a very non-ideal Nash equilibrium and it is not going to be solved any…

The point is the city's parking code assumes that every car has a human driver that needs to park and then exit the car. This informs the choices about how wide the spaces and how wide the aisles are.

Even if only some of the cars had the ability to park themselves - onsite or offsite - you could drastically reduce the floor space required for parking. Reducing the floor space reduces the building height, the construction cost, and the required rent.

We are going to be stuck with the choices we make now about how much space to allocate for parking for the next ~75 years or however long this building is there for. I don't think humans are going to be driving for a lot of that time.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#35

Post by throwway120385 »

CitrusFruits wrote: post #6
qurren wrote: post #2

I wonder why 4b apartments are so rarely seen in the US. In Asia they are quite common.

The article mentions a lot of the reasons. Our building codes, especially the double stairway requirement, eliminate a lot of reasonable layouts and have downstream effects on the economics of apartment buildings. Another reason that isn't mentioned in the article is that there are different ideals for family housing, especially in suburban areas like Walnut Creek. Family apartments just aren't as desirable.

Family apartments could be really desirable, but nobody builds them because of the building codes so people don't look for them. The point that a single-family home costs 1.5 million dollars is very applicable here, as the monthly payment on that loan is cripplingly expensive or totally out of reach. A 4-bedroom apartment for a family of 4 would be extremely desirable in that market.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#36

Post by fhdkweig »

tobinfricke wrote: post #17

This seems like a specious argument: "Most of the apartments have a window on just one side. The interior facing rooms on the lower floors are going to have a lot of trouble getting light in. With a window on only one side, you can't ventilate your apartment by opening windows on multiple sides. This increases the demand for HVAC, which increases the cost of living." I doubt A/C costs are anything but negligible comp…

Even then, opening two windows require that the wind is blowing and in the right direction. I purchased a box fan just so I can put it in a window to get more ventilation (and it was to blow out allergens, not temperature control). Best $18 I ever spent.

This is someone who is just looking for an excuse to not like the apartment.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#37

Post by sokoloff »

qurren wrote: post #30
dgeiser13 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US the nuclear family is usually two parents and two children. The parents share one bedroom and each child gets one. In Asia I would guess families make room for their older relatives which would mean an extra bedroom is needed. Immigrants to the US typically do that but I think it's uncommon among the rank and file Americans.

I think in the US a home office and a guest room is also usually needed, so 4-5 bedrooms makes total sense. In fact 4-5 bedroom single family houses in the US are extremely common. What I don't understand is why apartments always seem to stop at 2b or 3b.

Because there’s a heavy bias for people who have use for 4+ bedrooms to also not want to live in an apartment building.

The reasons vary, but I have lived in Boston/Cambridge area for 40 years and can’t think of literally any of my friends who raised a kid past the age of 3 in an apartment, despite many of them (including me) enjoying the apartment life while young and single. But, literally as soon as we could [barely] afford to, we bought a house and only then added to the family.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#38

Post by kevinburke »

carabiner wrote: post #32
mikelitoris wrote: post #4

“Human driven cars are going to be around for about 5 years” is one of the most out of touch quotes I’ve seen this month. Also, all of this is about NIMBYism, which is about house prices being inflated to make up most of households’ wealth, which is not fixable without triggering a massive wealth redistribution. Most western societies are stuck in a very non-ideal Nash equilibrium and it is not going to be solved any…

lmao. Average age of a car on the road right now is 12 years. Yes, I'm sure my mexican housekeeper will be selling her 15 year old corolla for a self driving car any time now.

With respect, people who drive used cars are not renting brand new apartments in downtown Walnut Creek.

It does not make sense to mandate parking standards in new buildings that assume 100% of cars will be driven by humans who park and then need to open the door to exit the car.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#39

Post by andsoitis »

mikelitoris wrote: post #4

“Human driven cars are going to be around for about 5 years” is one of the most out of touch quotes I’ve seen this month. Also, all of this is about NIMBYism, which is about house prices being inflated to make up most of households’ wealth, which is not fixable without triggering a massive wealth redistribution. Most western societies are stuck in a very non-ideal Nash equilibrium and it is not going to be solved any…

> “Human driven cars are going to be around for about 5 years” is one of the most out of touch quotes I’ve seen this month.

Where did you see that sentiment expressed? I couldn't find anything along those lines in the article. The closes was about parking, which I think is very different.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#40

Post by kevinburke »

tobinfricke wrote: post #17

This seems like a specious argument: "Most of the apartments have a window on just one side. The interior facing rooms on the lower floors are going to have a lot of trouble getting light in. With a window on only one side, you can't ventilate your apartment by opening windows on multiple sides. This increases the demand for HVAC, which increases the cost of living." I doubt A/C costs are anything but negligible comp…

Walnut Creek is in PG&E territory where peak hour energy is 54 cents/kwh right now.

And the difference is A/C is paid by the renter not the building owner. If you want to address cost of living one thing we could do is make it easier to have the wind cool down apartment buildings.

Post reply on HN