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

81–90 of 380 posts

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

#81

Post by tamana »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #48
rayiner wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My parents live in a subdivision with 5,000-6,000 square foot houses occupied by empty nesters. There is a growing Hispanic population in the area and a lot of opposition to Hispanics moving into such houses with big extended families. But so long as everyone followed other laws, letting those extended families move in would be a win for both economic and racial integration as well as the general character of the nei…

"But so long as everyone followed other laws" Would you agree that the population density of an area has some correlation to the crime in that area?

NYC is one of the safest places in the world _per capita_

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

#82

Post by nihonde »

hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

Japan (which is not a perfect analogue) handles several of these issues nicely, IMO. I live in a city of a few million people. Nearly every building is multi-tenant. Even homes are designed with two- or three-generation residents in mind. Large, functional apartment complexes are the norm. Many people live in so-called one-room apartments because they're affordable and available. I'm not familiar with zoning rules here, but just looking around tells me that there is far less segregation of commercial, industrial, and residential space. Also, housing in Japan is designed with a twenty to thirty year lifespan, so almost every space is relatively new. For example, I rent a brand new four-bedroom, two-bath house in a lovely, safe neighborhood with good schools and parking for two cars and a few bikes, for US $1,700 per month. (That is considered shockingly expensive to most people here, but I'm anchored on the American markets.)

This way of living might offend some people's aesthetics or their idea of what they deserve, but it works very well.

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

#83

Post by crdoconnor »

hodwik2 wrote: post #32
pj_mukh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a liberal, I agree. One problem, foreign money. It is mentioned in passing in the article but Vancouver (even with more sensible building laws) is still getting screwed because foreign money keeps pouring in.

Could you please explain why the foreign investment is a problem? Every time I've heard this discussed, it's mostly been people saying "The CHINESE are buying up houses" with a racist glint in their eyes. I don't get the impression these people would be as worried if the foreign investors were of French or Irish parentage. If I've misunderstood the issue, people correct me.

>Could you please explain why the foreign investment is a problem? Every time I've heard this discussed, it's mostly been people saying "The CHINESE are buying up houses" with a racist glint in their eyes.

It's pretty much any major world city oligarchs have decided to throw their ill gotten gains at. In London it's Russians and Arabs with oil wealth. In Vancouver and SF it's Chinese.

These oligarch investments physically occupy a massive amount of premium space, pushing the poorer residents further and further out of the city.

In a lot of cases these people are pretty much criminals. It's rare to earn a lot of money in Russia, China or the Middle East honestly. Hence the desire for a foreign bolthole and an investment the host country can't touch.

But sure. Racist glint or whatever.

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

#84

Post by tamana »

hodwik2 wrote: post #56
mountaineer22 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I need to purchase or develop additional property? He supports my right use the house I purchased (next door to his) in any way I see fit. So, If I have 8 families living in a single family home, there may be some sanitation and parking problems.

If 8 families want to live in a single family home, it must be an exceptionally desirable area, with very little housing. It stands to reason there are probably many more people who want to move in to the area, but who aren't willing to be one of 8 families in a single family home. So given the huge amount of pent-up demand, there must be some building laws in place keeping this specific city from growing upwards, an…

There are plenty of places where land is cheap but units are still too expensive for low wage workers and their nonworking children.

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

#85

Post by rayiner »

no_wave wrote: post #57
hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian.

OP may be a libertarian, but you can't determine that from what he posted. There is a strong conservative case for fighting segregation enabled by zoning. I'm currently living in a rich suburb of DC. The local high school, one of the best public schools in the country, is underenrolled. Per student spending in this county is far lower than in DC proper, because we're not trying to make up for all of the consequences of segregated inner city neighborhoods by ineffectually shoveling money at schools. If we could get some lower-income people into dense housing in this area, we could replace expensive DC teachers with cheaper Fairfax County teachers and probably achieve better outcomes for kids to boot.

A lot of the symptoms liberal policies try to fight are caused by the underlying disease of segregated cities and suburbs. If we had more integrated communities where minority populations weren't relegated to looking in from the outside, the demand on the welfare state would go down.

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

#86

Post by joe_the_user »

icebraining wrote: post #64
ktRolster wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Also, there are serious environmental impacts that need to be considered every time you build a…

For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Why would people with children move to a place without schools?

People with children move into places without schools because they're short-sighted or because other priorities are higher for them.

Some portion of people with children may not care at all about them. That's one reason why there's public education, to prevent parent's lack of concern being something that cause a child to have nearly no future. Of course, such considerations seem to be already going away, so sure we'll have whole housing developments for home schooling nuts.

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

#87

Post by tamana »

salimmadjd wrote: post #50

SV is becoming a real estate business instead of tech. When you have 50% or more of salaries spent on rent or mortgage then so much of the revenue generated is just lost into real estate instead of innovation growth, investment and R&D. I don't understand why FB, Apple, Google, etc. do not lobby hard the local cities and push to build 100,000 new units. It'll bring the rent or house prices down and it will allow many…

The billionaires who run the company have many huge beautiful homes. Their employees beg them to open offices in resident friendly cities, and the managers ignore them.

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

#88

Post by crdoconnor »

hodwik wrote: post #2

I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…

>The nation will become more equitable economically when rich people and poor people all share the same zipcodes again.

Sure. Works great in Brazil.

https://imgur.com/jRg2ZKQ

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

#89

Post by refurb »

long wrote: post #60
lalala12399 wrote: post #22

I can't tell you how many people I know making very good money in tech and finance living in rent-controlled units paying ridiculously low rents in SF.

What's an example ridiculously low rent?

$900 per month for a one bedroom unit, with parking, in the Mission.
Post reply on HN