5 ms·

The biggest problem in most of these cities is current residents preventing new housing from being built. Most of these residents own property of their own and

The biggest problem in most of these cities is current residents preventing new housing from being built. Most of these residents own property of their own and directly benefit from the higher prices that result. Most of these residents are also old. It's literally the boomer generation fucking over everyone trying to move in for their own benefit.

guard-of-terra 10y ago
The solution here is to build new communities. Find a place with no residents but within commute radius, and build up. And ignore all the environmental bullcrap that existing home owners will try to astroturf. People won't hurt environment by gathering in one place that they did by spreading up.
- dajohnson89 10y ago
  The amount of capital required for that seems enormous. But a good idea.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    That's the sort of capital banks will happily lend to you.
- Decade 10y ago
  Not feasible in the San Francisco Bay Area. People are already commuting as far as Sacramento, because housing is more affordable out there. It's socio-economic repression. The job growth is in knowledge, which benefits from being close by. For example, last week I walked from the office to Eventbrite to learn what they're doing. No way you're getting the same benefit from watching a video. To promote the best opportunities, we're going to have to reform our existing cities. If you're trying to build a new community, it's going to require some other benefit. Like Peter Thiel and his seasteading.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Umm, CA 101 southeastward from San Jose? You can build a lot of apartment complexes 9 stores high on both sides of Caltrain, add more stations and trains, and here you go. You can also try building on inland hills. Look at Singapore or Haifa for an example how it can look like.
    - throwawaydbfif 10y ago
      Yeah I'm sure if that was possible we would be doing it. The same NIMBY folks preventing more housing from being built also control the construction of new highways, public transport, and zoning regulations

guard-of-terra 10y ago

The solution here is to build new communities. Find a place with no residents but within commute radius, and build up. And ignore all the environmental bullcrap that existing home owners will try to astroturf. People won't hurt environment by gathering in one place that they did by spreading up.

dajohnson89 10y ago
The amount of capital required for that seems enormous. But a good idea.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  That's the sort of capital banks will happily lend to you.
Decade 10y ago
Not feasible in the San Francisco Bay Area. People are already commuting as far as Sacramento, because housing is more affordable out there. It's socio-economic repression. The job growth is in knowledge, which benefits from being close by. For example, last week I walked from the office to Eventbrite to learn what they're doing. No way you're getting the same benefit from watching a video. To promote the best opportunities, we're going to have to reform our existing cities. If you're trying to build a new community, it's going to require some other benefit. Like Peter Thiel and his seasteading.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  Umm, CA 101 southeastward from San Jose? You can build a lot of apartment complexes 9 stores high on both sides of Caltrain, add more stations and trains, and here you go. You can also try building on inland hills. Look at Singapore or Haifa for an example how it can look like.
  - throwawaydbfif 10y ago
    Yeah I'm sure if that was possible we would be doing it. The same NIMBY folks preventing more housing from being built also control the construction of new highways, public transport, and zoning regulations