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

91–100 of 380 posts

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

#91

Post by skewart »

joe_the_user wrote: post #73
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…

The NYTimes had an article on an absolutely unregulated city in India. Sewage bumped in vacant lots is a problem. Safety outside developed areas is a problem. Still, removing parking requirements might be a good thing if creates incentive for public transit. Removing single family home mandates seems like it would be great for avoiding sprawl. But as you say, just these two. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/as…

You're making a massive leap from legalizing more different kinds of development in the US to a totally unregulated city in India. It's basically a strawman fallacy. The article clearly talks about a lack of many basic government authority and services way beyond zoning codes, like electricity and criminal justice. I think the lack of reliable power and sweage treatment might have a lot more to do with it being chaotic than the lack of laws banning multifamily apartment buildings.

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

#92

Post by dawhizkid »

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?

1000-1500 in a good area

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

#93

Post by tamana »

davidf18 wrote: post #77

What has happened in SF, NYC, London, is that the high cost of housing is caused by market inefficiencies as pointed out by a number of economists (eg, Edward Glaeser, Paul Krugman, Tim Harford) called “rent seeking” where politics is used to artificially limit supply (in this case through zoning restrictions) to create artificial scarcity. This is true of NYCs 13,000 limit on Taxi medallions which caused them to hav…

The construction bit seems silly. Everyone lives somewhere, so construction industry is just more active in exurbs and building more roads. Skyscrapers are very expensive per unit, they are only a bargain where land is expensive

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

#94

Post by revelation »

ktRolster wrote: post #37
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…

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…

What does that mean, "without being placed in a school district"?

Is the next school 20+ miles away?

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

#98

Post by crdoconnor »

davidf18 wrote: post #77

What has happened in SF, NYC, London, is that the high cost of housing is caused by market inefficiencies as pointed out by a number of economists (eg, Edward Glaeser, Paul Krugman, Tim Harford) called “rent seeking” where politics is used to artificially limit supply (in this case through zoning restrictions) to create artificial scarcity. This is true of NYCs 13,000 limit on Taxi medallions which caused them to hav…

The high cost of housing is simply due to the transformation of land into a 'gold-like' asset. This was done by untaxing it and reducing interest rates to zero (propelling demand for more 'gold' like assets).

It wasn't a market inefficiency that made land hard to create and intentionally drove up its value. It was neoliberals.

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

#99

Post by ktRolster »

nickff wrote: post #63
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…

What you say assumes that people want to purchase anything a developer builds, anywhere, at any price. In reality, market forces encourage developers to build nice homes in good areas well served by various amenities (which are publicly and privately available). The problem is that development is so tightly restricted in most areas, that new residents have few options. In short, you are blaming the market for the res…

In short, you are blaming the market for the results of zoning and land use restrictions.

I didn't blame the market for anything. You have reading comprehension issues. Fix that.

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

#100

Post by hodwik2 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #83
hodwik2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 physi…

In London they currently have 230 buildings 20 stories or more being developed, or planned for development. It looks like the investment capital is doing wonders there.
Post reply on HN