5 ms·

I'm fairly ignorant of the housing market in general, but from what I understand the problem in SF has more than one layer: the local government won't allow new

by oxide 10y ago

I'm fairly ignorant of the housing market in general, but from what I understand the problem in SF has more than one layer: the local government won't allow new housing to be built, the NIMBY crowd wants a one-story skyline across the entire bay, etc. what is to be done to introduce new supply? the whole thing seems like a hell of a headache, I feel for folks trying to live in that area.

davidw 10y ago
Yes, the problem is an entirely artificial, political lack of supply. I mean, at a certain point, you get so dense that only building way, way up (skyscrapers) works to add new housing, and those are expensive. But SF is a long ways from there.
- oxide 10y ago
  If the problem is a political one, is the only solution to fight fire with fire? Politics is a slow turning ship, so I can't imagine the problem getting better any time soon for folks who's lives are affected most. I'd probably just settle for a much longer commute if push came to shove, but I imagine that's not an option for everyone.
  - davidw 10y ago
    Yes: http://www.sfyimby.org/ http://www.sfyimby.org/
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I'm fairly ignorant of the housing market in general, but from what I understand the problem in SF has more than one layer: the local government won't allow new housing to be built, the NIMBY crowd wants a one-story skyline across the entire bay, etc. That's not really more than one factor. That's a root cause and a mechanism by which that root cause produces the effect under consideration.
sliverstorm 10y ago
You can always build down. It's a lot more expensive than building up, but with prices where they are I'm surprised it's not feasible by now. Maybe the earthquakes make underground habitation too dangerous?
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  There isn't really a place where underground habitation is feasible, even places where you can build down. New York has a well developed underground world, but a basement apartment is still a basement apartment, dark and dank.
  - sliverstorm 10y ago
    But what if an above-ground apartment was $3,000/mo and the same apartment below-ground was $500/mo? I'd take the darkness, dankness, and $2,500/mo, thank you.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  Fire safety is a bigger issue with underground construction. Above-ground, you have an easy alternative access - out the window, and down a fire escape if you're above the ground floor.
- OJFord 10y ago
  > Maybe the earthquakes make underground habitation too > dangerous? The inherent (underground) conditions anywhere make it too undesirable.
brownbat 10y ago
> the NIMBY crowd wants If it's become a company town as so many suggest,[0] why isn't the company writing the rules? I don't know much about local politics, except that the area is considered decidedly liberal. Why hasn't a pro-tech party emerged as a meaningful political force? Or why hasn't Google migrated significant portions of its workforce to a more accommodating location? Honest questions as an outsider, just curious. [0] http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/26/5444030/company-town-how-google-is-taking-over-mountain-view http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/26/5444030/company-town-how-g...

by oxide 10y ago

davidw 10y ago

Yes, the problem is an entirely artificial, political lack of supply. I mean, at a certain point, you get so dense that only building way, way up (skyscrapers) works to add new housing, and those are expensive. But SF is a long ways from there.

oxide 10y ago
If the problem is a political one, is the only solution to fight fire with fire? Politics is a slow turning ship, so I can't imagine the problem getting better any time soon for folks who's lives are affected most. I'd probably just settle for a much longer commute if push came to shove, but I imagine that's not an option for everyone.
- davidw 10y ago
  Yes: http://www.sfyimby.org/ http://www.sfyimby.org/

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I'm fairly ignorant of the housing market in general, but from what I understand the problem in SF has more than one layer: the local government won't allow new housing to be built, the NIMBY crowd wants a one-story skyline across the entire bay, etc. That's not really more than one factor. That's a root cause and a mechanism by which that root cause produces the effect under consideration.

sliverstorm 10y ago

You can always build down. It's a lot more expensive than building up, but with prices where they are I'm surprised it's not feasible by now. Maybe the earthquakes make underground habitation too dangerous?

stinkytaco 10y ago
There isn't really a place where underground habitation is feasible, even places where you can build down. New York has a well developed underground world, but a basement apartment is still a basement apartment, dark and dank.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  But what if an above-ground apartment was $3,000/mo and the same apartment below-ground was $500/mo? I'd take the darkness, dankness, and $2,500/mo, thank you.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Fire safety is a bigger issue with underground construction. Above-ground, you have an easy alternative access - out the window, and down a fire escape if you're above the ground floor.
OJFord 10y ago
> Maybe the earthquakes make underground habitation too > dangerous? The inherent (underground) conditions anywhere make it too undesirable.

brownbat 10y ago

> the NIMBY crowd wants If it's become a company town as so many suggest,[0] why isn't the company writing the rules? I don't know much about local politics, except that the area is considered decidedly liberal. Why hasn't a pro-tech party emerged as a meaningful political force? Or why hasn't Google migrated significant portions of its workforce to a more accommodating location? Honest questions as an outsider, just curious. [0] http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/26/5444030/company-town-how-google-is-taking-over-mountain-view http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/26/5444030/company-town-how-g...