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

$1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 547 posts

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#511

Post by beetwenty »

skoocda wrote: post #481
khazhou wrote: post #478

There's a very large area of land directly south of Redwood City with an extremely low housing density, that could be torn down (with some controversy, no doubt) to make way for the new Google housing. You can easily see the underutilized density on the satellite view, by how green it is compared to surrounding cities: https://goo.gl/maps/K3i32Rj4yoQ9gcUD6

I do wonder if you're joking when you say "some" controversy. A quick check of property values shows that these are estates in the $5M - $20M range: https://www.zillow.com/homes/Atherton-CA_rb/

That's the joke - Atherton is the town of the tech billionaires.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#512

Post by pas »

nordsieck wrote: post #493
BurningFrog wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it would be unfair for MV to carry the weight The fact that it's perceived as a sacrifice to build housing is one of the core problems. And one of the main reasons for this perception is that, for the city, it is true. Due to Prop 13, CITIES LOSE MONEY BY HAVING RESIDENTS. As long as that is true, don't expect much to change around housing in California.

>> it would be unfair for MV to carry the weight > The fact that it's perceived as a sacrifice to build housing is one of the core problems. In the short term, increased housing will decrease property values. This has to be the case because rentals are a direct competitor to real estate ownership. In the long term, increased housing should increase property values; however, few people are willing to place much value…

> increased housing will decrease property values.

How? It means you get either a new nice property on a lot, or a lot more properties on a lot. (If density increases.)

Increased density increases demand which draws in services and attention, which increases property values.

Of course there's an inflection point, but the US/Cali/Valley/SF is a looooong waaaay awaaaaay from worrying about slums.

> short term

Yes, people don't like constructions, but that's it probably. After it's done, no one cares.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#513

Post by pas »

vinay_ys wrote: post #489
aidenn0 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice there are a lot of soundproofings that can substitute for an air-gap, but the cheapest soundproofing to meet code (resilient channels) is useless: Resilient channels basically work by fixing horizontal metal strips to the studs, and then hanging the drywall on the strips with clips. Because there is purposefully play in the connection, vibrations cannot easily transfer from drywall to stud to drywall. Why…

One thing that has bugged me is why don't they use concrete construction in US, like we have in India and most of Europe? Concrete construction would definitely eliminate the noisy neighbor problem to a very high degree (unless they are drilling into the concrete wall, you cannot hear them).

Or good old bricks. But the answer is simply because the industry is set up to build two very distinct kinds of building in the US. Big, multi-story, high-margin, safe skyscraper stuff (high rises, or other big commercial buildings, with fancy pre/post stressed concrete, full of artisanal rebar - I mean really, some column specialist civil engineer calculated the stuff) and the complete opposite, which is relatively low-cost low-margin single-family houses.

Sure, there are others, it's always a continuum. But this is probably a significant factor.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#514

Post by pas »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #382
shados wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and that requires changing peoples' minds Yup, and that is straightforward, if time and money consuming. Changing zoning isn't enough: making an area denser without appropriate matching infrastructure investment isn't going to go well. If you want the next Tokyo or Paris (or even something significantly smaller), you need Tokyo or Paris' infra. Then the next problem is that people can't stand each other. People don…

> If you want the next Tokyo or Paris (or even something significantly smaller), you need Tokyo or Paris' infra. But for that infra to make sense, you also need the zoning. Running a subway line through predominately single-family home neighborhoods makes no sense. Realistically though, you don't need a lot of new infra for going from SFH-only zoning to moderate density housing like fourplexes and townhomes. Better o…

Electric buses and bus lanes are probably able to solve 90% of the problems with public transportation. Bus stops/routes are easy to plop down, and move if demand is changing.

Lot of people complain about crazy people on buses, but this might be a US thing, but anyhow, it's not like it's impossible to introduce a simple way to manage this problem. (From simple disturbance fines to simply giving the right to the driver to suspend anyone from travel. Of course watch out for overzealous/racist/anti-whatever drivers.)

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#515

Post by pas »

panopticon wrote: post #400
brandall10 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a concrete/glass/steel luxury high-rise in downtown San Diego. My neighbors can have raging parties into the early morning and I can't hear a thing unless I wander into the hallway. The construction quality of multi-family homes in SV pretty poor.

I've lived in apartment buildings in at least four cities (mostly in the midwest) where I could hear my neighbors doing normal things (i.e., not throwing ragers). It seems be a widespread problem not confined to SV.

It's pretty much a thing that happened in the last decades, when building materials and standards became advanced enough that noise became a serious issue.

Nowadays codes and trends - at least in parts of Europe - caught up, and soundproofing has became important through the process. (For architects/engineers, developers/builders and buyers/renters.)

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#516

Post by pas »

fzeroracer wrote: post #404
kens wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting article on why the mid-rise apartment style is so popular now: "Why America's New Apartment Buildings All Look the Same": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-ameri... The quick summary is that the 2000 Building Code allowed inexpensive construction of 5-floor wood buildings over a concrete base. This "5 over 1" construction gives "near-high-rise densities at a wood-frame price", so i…

This is unfortunately the free market at play when it comes to housing. Build as cheap as possible for the best ROI, even if the end result is something garbage for residents. Especially because people often don't have as much choice over housing when it comes to finding a job or relocating. We desperately need to tighten up some of our regulatory codes and force better soundproofing.

Blaming the free market does not seem to make sense here.

Soundproofing simply was left out of the code because the buildings of old were sturdy and massive enough to implicitly take care of most of the noise problems. Now new materials and standards are lean enough to conduct sound very well. Oops.

Buyers also got wise in the last decade. Now anyone buys or rents the first thing - after location, location, location - is checking how noisy it is.

If all housing would have been built by committee, it's just as likely that it'd have taken a lot of time for the committee to change its ways.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#517

Post by pas »

foobiekr wrote: post #458
crowbahr wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are too many people There really aren't. The fact of the matter is that NYC is a nice place to live (typing this from Brooklyn) and it's 1000x SF's density. The world produces a caloric surplus (based on a 2k calorie diet) per capita. We're not overpopulated. What you're saying is that you want your in demand area to remain exclusive and separate. It's not overpopulation: it's self interest. Preservation of so…

The current caloric surplus and population is largely supported by a truly outstanding amounts of petrochemicals being used since the start of the "green" revolution.

It's not like zero-carbon agriculture (hydroponics or not) is impossible.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#518

Post by brandall10 »

panopticon wrote: post #400
brandall10 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a concrete/glass/steel luxury high-rise in downtown San Diego. My neighbors can have raging parties into the early morning and I can't hear a thing unless I wander into the hallway. The construction quality of multi-family homes in SV pretty poor.

I've lived in apartment buildings in at least four cities (mostly in the midwest) where I could hear my neighbors doing normal things (i.e., not throwing ragers). It seems be a widespread problem not confined to SV.

For sure, I’ve lived in places like that in SD during and after college.

My point is that properties above entry level apartment grade are scarce in the valley despite the fact that rents can support it better than just about anywhere. It actually kept me from moving up there

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#519

Post by nordsieck »

pas wrote: post #512
nordsieck wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> it would be unfair for MV to carry the weight > The fact that it's perceived as a sacrifice to build housing is one of the core problems. In the short term, increased housing will decrease property values. This has to be the case because rentals are a direct competitor to real estate ownership. In the long term, increased housing should increase property values; however, few people are willing to place much value…

> increased housing will decrease property values. How? It means you get either a new nice property on a lot, or a lot more properties on a lot. (If density increases.) Increased density increases demand which draws in services and attention, which increases property values. Of course there's an inflection point, but the US/Cali/Valley/SF is a looooong waaaay awaaaaay from worrying about slums. > short term Yes, peop…

>> In the short term, increased housing will decrease property values.

> How?

If you keep demand constant and increase supply, you will decrease price. This is one of the most basic tenants of microeconomics.

If that's too abstract, just imagine you're a landlord in SF who's used to increasing your rent by 10% per year (no idea what the actual number is) because there are 1% vacancies in the city. Now imagine that all of a sudden more housing came on line so that there are now 20% vacancies in the city. You probably wouldn't be able to increase your price and may have to drop it.

Now imagine that the number of bedrooms in SF increased by a factor of 10 overnight. The price of real estate would crater.

In the long term, the price of real estate will go up with density. All you have to do is look at places like Manhattan, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc. This is because cities tend to draw in new citizens from the surrounding area until it is too expensive or too uncomfortable to live there. However, it takes time for those people to move to the city and fill vacancies.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#520

Post by DataWorker »

fountainofage wrote: post #490
hangonhn wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lumping Mountain View in there with Palo Alto and others is really unfair. MV is doing the best it can but it can't carry all the weight of Bay Area growth. 1/5 housing starts in Santa Clara county was in MV. MV issued more permits than ALL its neighboring cities COMBINED. MV issued more permits than even San Jose. https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/09/28/mountain-view-leads... Unless the whole of Santa Clara county…

I guess another way to look at it is how much office space has Mountain View approved to be developed? If they're super happy to have a Googleplex expansion that will fit another 5,000 Googlers, but only approve 1,000 more units... how do you reconcile that? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - every single place should want to build more housing! But when has MV said "You know what? take your fancy office comp…

This is the most important part of the equation but it is very intentionally omitted. Another factor is financial mismanagement on the part of municipalities like the debacle with San Jose’s fire chief pensions and police salaries. People want to simplify the issue to nimby old people versus the rest of decent society but the reality is that it’s a problem of unsustainable population growth and myopic and incompetent governance.
Post reply on HN