5 ms·

I get depressed every time I think about the Bay Area housing situation. As half of an early-30s professional couple looking at our baby clock and anxious to st

I get depressed every time I think about the Bay Area housing situation. As half of an early-30s professional couple looking at our baby clock and anxious to start a family, I don't see how I can possibly provide a middle-class lifestyle for children while staying here. The choices are to join the bleeding edge of gentrification by moving into a slum like East Palo Alto or commit to severely degraded quality of life that comes with a megacommute. I don't mind leaving and I probably will, but I do resent it when people act like two highly-educated and gainfully employed young people wanting to live where they work is some kind of unreasonable millennial self-entitlement.

lisper 10y ago
Wanting to live where you work is not "unreasonable millennial self-entitlement", but wanting to live in PA is. PA is one of the best places on earth. That makes it a scarce commodity. A lot more people want to live there than can possibly live there without fundamentally changing what makes it a nice place to live in the first place. If everyone who wanted to live in PA did it wouldn't be PA any more, it would be Westwood.
- davidw 10y ago
  If some of the area were more like this: https://goo.gl/maps/h6VUZB7hVZs https://goo.gl/maps/h6VUZB7hVZs Wouldn't it still be a pretty desirable place to live because of access to so many things, high paying jobs, a great climate, etc....?
  - lisper 10y ago
    It would be pretty desirable, but it would not be as desirable. All else being equal most people would rather live in less crowded conditions.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - davidw 10y ago
      "Human wants are unlimited, but resources aren't" - and markets are a pretty good way of allocating things. Sure, not everyone can afford Palo Alto, but a functioning market would likely provide for more people than the artificial scarcity they have now.
      - lisper 10y ago
        Providing for more people is not the same as creating more total value, and markets do the latter, not the former. PA is the result of market forces, together with democratically elected government, working together to serve a particular segment of the market: rich people who want to live in a low-density area close to both undeveloped land and urban amenities. Yes, this leaves a lot of people on the outside looking in, but that's not a market failure. Not everyone can live in the most desirable areas. If they did, they would cease to be the most desirable areas.
        davidw 10y ago
        Realistically, "not everyone" is going to live in Palo Alto, but in any actual market, density would be significantly increased. Some people might actually like that. Others wouldn't. Those people can always sell their houses at hugely, hugely profitable valuations and move to, say, Lakeview, Oregon if they want a small town. I'm not one of those internet libertarians that thinks 'free market' is the answer for any problem, but the market in most of the US is anything but free. Have a look at this book: https://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO https://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B...
        lisper 10y ago
        > Those people can always sell their houses at hugely, hugely profitable valuations and move to, say, Lakeview, Oregon if they want a small town. Sure, and the people who want higher density can move to Los Angeles or Seattle or even Oakland if they want to be in the Bay Area. There are plenty of places where development is not as restricted as PA. So I don't see your point. And I don't see how PA is not an "actual market."
lpolovets 10y ago
Not sure what part of the bay area you live/work in, but where have you been looking? I bought in Redwood City last year and the prices, while high relative to the rest of the country, are probably manageable for many professional Bay Area couples. You can get a decent 3 bedroom for $900k-$1.2m, which is probably ~$3k-$4k/mo for [mortgage + property taxes - tax breaks].
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Wow, only a million dollars for a 3 bedroom house. That's so affordable /s
  - tdb7893 10y ago
    People should come to the midwest or texas and see how far a million can really go
  - lpolovets 10y ago
    I know it's very expensive relative to the rest of the US, but: 1) It's way cheaper than Palo Alto (where a 3br is probably $2m). 2) This would be affordable in the bay area for many couples, especially when at least one person is an engineer.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
omilu 10y ago
commit to severely degraded quality of life that comes with a megacommute Do not under any circumstances concede to a megacommute, any other option is better than that. You might as well concede to chopping your right arm off.
sjg007 10y ago
EPA will gentrify. It already has in some respect. Right now elementary and middle school are bad but for high school you end up in Menlo Atherton. Charter schools exist and Zuckerberg is working on something.

lisper 10y ago

Wanting to live where you work is not "unreasonable millennial self-entitlement", but wanting to live in PA is. PA is one of the best places on earth. That makes it a scarce commodity. A lot more people want to live there than can possibly live there without fundamentally changing what makes it a nice place to live in the first place. If everyone who wanted to live in PA did it wouldn't be PA any more, it would be Westwood.

davidw 10y ago
If some of the area were more like this: https://goo.gl/maps/h6VUZB7hVZs https://goo.gl/maps/h6VUZB7hVZs Wouldn't it still be a pretty desirable place to live because of access to so many things, high paying jobs, a great climate, etc....?
- lisper 10y ago
  It would be pretty desirable, but it would not be as desirable. All else being equal most people would rather live in less crowded conditions.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - davidw 10y ago
    "Human wants are unlimited, but resources aren't" - and markets are a pretty good way of allocating things. Sure, not everyone can afford Palo Alto, but a functioning market would likely provide for more people than the artificial scarcity they have now.
    - lisper 10y ago
      Providing for more people is not the same as creating more total value, and markets do the latter, not the former. PA is the result of market forces, together with democratically elected government, working together to serve a particular segment of the market: rich people who want to live in a low-density area close to both undeveloped land and urban amenities. Yes, this leaves a lot of people on the outside looking in, but that's not a market failure. Not everyone can live in the most desirable areas. If they did, they would cease to be the most desirable areas.
      - davidw 10y ago
        Realistically, "not everyone" is going to live in Palo Alto, but in any actual market, density would be significantly increased. Some people might actually like that. Others wouldn't. Those people can always sell their houses at hugely, hugely profitable valuations and move to, say, Lakeview, Oregon if they want a small town. I'm not one of those internet libertarians that thinks 'free market' is the answer for any problem, but the market in most of the US is anything but free. Have a look at this book: https://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO https://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B...
        lisper 10y ago
        > Those people can always sell their houses at hugely, hugely profitable valuations and move to, say, Lakeview, Oregon if they want a small town. Sure, and the people who want higher density can move to Los Angeles or Seattle or even Oakland if they want to be in the Bay Area. There are plenty of places where development is not as restricted as PA. So I don't see your point. And I don't see how PA is not an "actual market."

lpolovets 10y ago

Not sure what part of the bay area you live/work in, but where have you been looking? I bought in Redwood City last year and the prices, while high relative to the rest of the country, are probably manageable for many professional Bay Area couples. You can get a decent 3 bedroom for $900k-$1.2m, which is probably ~$3k-$4k/mo for [mortgage + property taxes - tax breaks].

TheCoelacanth 10y ago
Wow, only a million dollars for a 3 bedroom house. That's so affordable /s
- tdb7893 10y ago
  People should come to the midwest or texas and see how far a million can really go
- lpolovets 10y ago
  I know it's very expensive relative to the rest of the US, but: 1) It's way cheaper than Palo Alto (where a 3br is probably $2m). 2) This would be affordable in the bay area for many couples, especially when at least one person is an engineer.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

omilu 10y ago

commit to severely degraded quality of life that comes with a megacommute Do not under any circumstances concede to a megacommute, any other option is better than that. You might as well concede to chopping your right arm off.

sjg007 10y ago

EPA will gentrify. It already has in some respect. Right now elementary and middle school are bad but for high school you end up in Menlo Atherton. Charter schools exist and Zuckerberg is working on something.