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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 380 posts

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

#371

Post by yardie »

ktRolster wrote: post #44
yardie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property tax comes after the fact. You move to a new area with kids now. You pay your property tax at the end of the year. But the kids need school right now and the district has to: find property to build a new school, raise bonds to fund it, build the damn thing, hire staff. A modern tract home can be built in as little as 2 weeks with modern prefab construction. Schools take much longer.

A modern school can be built in a couple days with modern portable classrooms: http://www.modulargenius.com/portable-classroom.html

Is there a warehouse where you can order a bunch of portables like you can USB cables off of Amazon? No, prefab doesn't mean prebuilt. And that still doesn't cover funding, staff, and all the various local, state, and federal rules that make a school. Buildings, the US has plenty of.

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

#372

Post by bluthru »

Noos wrote: post #369
bluthru wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>finally going to liberate us from crowded, noisy, polluted urban prisons What are you, a suburban developer from the 50's? Urban areas often provide a higher quality of life than The Geography of Nowhere. Do some introductory research into urban design. Read some Jane Jacobs. You thought the human desire for community and activity was just going to leave?

They only do so for a specific type of person, who is happy externalizing and surrendering ownership. It is too expensive to own a workshop, so you go to a makerspace. You do not have land to have your own garden, so you go to a communal one. If you feel the desire to see nature, public park. To entertain, bars in stead of your own dwelling. You cannot transport yourself beyond walking distance, you rely on communal…

>urban areas are perfect for housing worker drones

That's what I'd call the suburbs: Nothing to do, no competition, and labor is kept cheap. http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/stuck-in-1950s-subu...

If one cares about resources and climate change it's a non starter: Unless you are productive with the land, sprawl is a horrible waste of resource. (About half of a suburban family's energy use is transportation.)

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

#373

Post by CamperBob2 »

skewart wrote: post #329
CamperBob2 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's great, I wouldn't argue with any of the choices you've made for yourself. For you, the social benefits of urban life are apparently worth the costs, and that's fine. You and your friends probably aren't the ones who are doing most of the complaining. But if it's that important to someone that they live in that particular city, to the exclusion of all other possibilities available on the planet, then they s…

> they shouldn't complain when it turns out that real estate and transportation are limited resources that somebody has to pay for. I whole-heartedly disagree. It's much better to try to change things and improve the world instead of throwing your hands up and accepting the status quo as immutable fact. The truth is that real estate in SF is limited largely by anti-growth laws. People have to pay exohorbinantly high…

The truth is that real estate in SF is limited largely by anti-growth laws.

Someone in another thread pointed out that if this were the problem, New York would be the cheapest place in the country.

The local anti-growth political sentiment is a problem but ultimately there's just not that much space in SF to expand into, being a peninsula. Any sustained expansion of housing in SF will have to happen vertically, at which point we're back to the NYC example. The additional housing won't be "affordable" unless the developers are forced to build the 21st-century equivalent of Cabrini Green.

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

#374

Post by patmcguire »

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.…

Saw one about Sunset, "hey, maybe we should mix a three to four story building in there some places" followed by outrage about the ascetic value of the Sunset. Nonsense friend who grew up there used to get lost growing u because they built the whole neighborhood from a few dozen house designs... everything repeats after a few blocks, it's like Sim City 2000.

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

#375

Post by [deleted] »

willholloway wrote: post #182

With the secular urbanization trend created by the consolidation of jobs in the city for work, contrarians that can work remotely have an incredible opportunity for easy living. I've given up on living in major metro areas and the rat race it entails. I tried it in a few different cities, and it was fun in my 20's. But now at 31, I want to semi-retire, do some remote consulting and work on my ideas. There are a lot o…

[deleted]

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

#376

Post by someguydave »

cylinder wrote: post #267
everyone wrote: post #228

Why is the bay area important? In the software industry, in theory, where you are should be irrelevant as long as you have decent internet. Why not just choose a city that has the requirements your business needs and set up there. One example I can think of is Id deciding to set up Austin.

It will happen more when the current cycle of tech enters maturity. Right now shareholders just want Growth! and don't care about profits. Once the big companies enter maturity, they will be forced to cut costs, and salaries will come down, real estate costs will be scrutinized so offices will be spread around the world. It happens in every industry, it is nothing new and will happen in tech.

Agreed. As someone who owns san francisco/sv companies via my s&p 500 fund, I'm disappointed that their boards aren't considering their fiduciary duty to contain real estate and salary costs.

After all, what percentage of the highly paid tech workers come from elsewhere in the US? Is there really a justification for them to all be present physically in san francisco other than to swell the egos of their bosses?

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

#377

Post by CamperBob2 »

bluthru wrote: post #372
Noos wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They only do so for a specific type of person, who is happy externalizing and surrendering ownership. It is too expensive to own a workshop, so you go to a makerspace. You do not have land to have your own garden, so you go to a communal one. If you feel the desire to see nature, public park. To entertain, bars in stead of your own dwelling. You cannot transport yourself beyond walking distance, you rely on communal…

>urban areas are perfect for housing worker drones That's what I'd call the suburbs: Nothing to do, no competition, and labor is kept cheap. http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/stuck-in-1950s-subu... If one cares about resources and climate change it's a non starter: Unless you are productive with the land, sprawl is a horrible waste of resource. (About half of a suburban family's energy use is transportation.)

I love articles like that, because they're so good at packing the maximum number of leftist dog whistles possible into the available physical space and rhetorical spectrum. Just to pull a typical quote:

   Meanwhile, as the labor movement gained steam, corporate 
   leaders were struggling to prevent employees from 
   unionizing. “In the early 20th century, there was a 
   limited but influential set of companies engaging in 
   what is commonly referred to as ‘welfare capitalism,’” 
   Mozingo explains. “The idea was to prevent turnover 
   and control workers better by making factory sites that 
   were tidy, safe, and well-ventilated with good lighting 
   and all those things.
The entire premise of the article, as far as I can tell, is that the corporate pigs should be condemned because they kept their workers from unionizing by actually treating them like human beings. So, if the "welfare capitalists" hadn't tried to create "tidy, safe, and well-ventilated" factory sites, could we expect Ms. Mozingo's judgment, handed down on all history's behalf, to be more sympathetic? I'm guessing not.

For what it's worth, I actually agree with a lot of the criticism directed toward campuses like Apple's. It's hard to describe the renderings we've seen in any terms other than dystopian. A building designed to keep everyone looking inward is better suited to a religious cult than to a creative organization.

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

#378

Post by bluthru »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #377
bluthru wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>urban areas are perfect for housing worker drones That's what I'd call the suburbs: Nothing to do, no competition, and labor is kept cheap. http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/stuck-in-1950s-subu... If one cares about resources and climate change it's a non starter: Unless you are productive with the land, sprawl is a horrible waste of resource. (About half of a suburban family's energy use is transportation.)

I love articles like that, because they're so good at packing the maximum number of leftist dog whistles possible into the available physical space and rhetorical spectrum. Just to pull a typical quote: Meanwhile, as the labor movement gained steam, corporate leaders were struggling to prevent employees from unionizing. “In the early 20th century, there was a limited but influential set of companies engaging in what…

>The entire premise of the article, as far as I can tell

The premise of the article is that choice is good for workers, and urbanity fosters choice. Corporations creating isolated campuses removes choice and reduces quality of life.

>A building designed to keep everyone looking inward is better suited to a religious cult than to a creative organization.

That's not the intent of the design and the view is pretty much identical for both sides: trees. The point of the shape is to connect as much as possible while creating a secure courtyard. The closest path from one side of the building to another is outside.

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

#379

Post by CamperBob2 »

bluthru wrote: post #378
CamperBob2 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love articles like that, because they're so good at packing the maximum number of leftist dog whistles possible into the available physical space and rhetorical spectrum. Just to pull a typical quote: Meanwhile, as the labor movement gained steam, corporate leaders were struggling to prevent employees from unionizing. “In the early 20th century, there was a limited but influential set of companies engaging in what…

>The entire premise of the article, as far as I can tell The premise of the article is that choice is good for workers, and urbanity fosters choice. Corporations creating isolated campuses removes choice and reduces quality of life. >A building designed to keep everyone looking inward is better suited to a religious cult than to a creative organization. That's not the intent of the design and the view is pretty much…

The premise of the article is that choice is good for workers, and urbanity fosters choice. Corporations creating isolated campuses removes choice and reduces quality of life.

Regardless, it's very clear that there's no way to win with these people. No matter what decisions the managers and architects arrive at, there will always be some ankle-biting from noncontributing journalists and academics with political axes to grind.

The point of the shape is to connect as much as possible while creating a secure courtyard. The closest path from one side of the building to another is outside.

Interesting, I didn't know that. My understanding was that the courtyard area would be easily accessible to everyone working there.

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

#380

Post by NotSammyHagar »

jessaustin wrote: post #275
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds appealing to have no building limits. How about if I want to start fraking on my land near your land? Cities in Texas like Dallas don't like this, so they passed laws saying you can't have hydraulic fracturing on the land in the city, because it causes small earthquakes and could cause pollution. Guess what happened, the state legislature passed a new law saying cities couldn't pass laws against frakking.

...and that's why Dallas was swallowed up by a great crack in the ground.

Dallas wasn't swallowed, but they have been having small earthquakes where they used to have none. It's much worse in Oklahoma.
Post reply on HN