5 ms·

I live in Boulder and don't share this sentiment whatsoever. Google already has a large campus here and they're expanding into an area that frankly needed to be

I live in Boulder and don't share this sentiment whatsoever. Google already has a large campus here and they're expanding into an area that frankly needed to be renovated anyway. Their entire new + old complex is supposed to house ~2,000 employees. If adding 1.5k employees and a new building is "largely ruining Boulder" in your eyes you should see a doctor.

eternalcode 9y ago
I would suggest seeing a Geologist perhaps. Get it? Boulder? Geologist?
hueving 9y ago
>If adding 1.5k employees and a new building is "largely ruining Boulder" in your eyes you should see a doctor. Put some effort into understanding perspectives before resorting to derision. Bringing thousands of highly paid employees into a smaller city is often not good for many who already lives there unless they own property. The majority of the new jobs will not go to existing residents, rents will increase, restaurants will get more expensive, traffic will get worse, and everything will get more crowded. For rich city-dwellers, the above might sound like nothing, but for people who seek smaller cities it will suck because it quickly erodes the character of the city.
- finkin1 9y ago
  I appreciate you trying to make OP's case, and I'm genuinely interested in changing my mind about this. What do you think should be done? Should growing companies be prevented from expanding because it might 'erode the character of the city'? I'm not in favor of the city subsidizing a company's growth, even if it does stimulate the economy in the long-run, but I just can't get behind any policy that would prevent a growing company due to something as nebulous as the erosion of the city's character.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    What should be done is that cities should relax zoning laws, and allow more housing to be built in high demand areas. That way the city can fit everyone, cheaply.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - jtmcmc 9y ago
      100 times this
    - mancerayder 9y ago
      I keep hearing this over and over in this forum, relax the code, change the zoning laws, that'll solve problems. How many of these folks actually live in a densely populated city? Zoning laws in Manhattan have a different source and downstream effect than some suburb of SF or LA, or some other city with housing cost issues. It's a huge topic of conversation, but I'll summarize it by offering a few items to ponder before we reduce the problem to "zoning restrictions" and people reply with "100X times this!". --- Infrastructure is more than housing. And much more expensive. The subway system in NYC isn't scaling to capacity due to the speed of development. It may feel expensive to build a new rental building, but scaling public transportation, education, and more is deeply more expensive. --- Manhattan isn't dense enough for you? You realize the parent article is about Google purchasing a huge swathe of Manhattan real estate. Are the skyscrapers not high enough? Better yet, maybe we should knock down those 19th century buildings in whatever pockets are left of low density housing in Manhattan and turn everything into a giant concrete reed jungle? Not all NIMBY is mean-spirited, and if you're the traveling type you can understand the need for preservation of architectural character. --- I live in a part of NYC where zoning laws allow for more building. As it turns out, I even own a building where I could potentially build an additional 1500 square feet, and I could convert my building into six separate apartment buildings. This would add net 4 apartments to a city which has a housing crisis. And I'd love do. However, I'd have to comply with code, which like zoning exists to protect us from ourselves, if for different reasons. To comply with code, so my tenants don't get incinerated in a fire, I'd have to spend so much money that it's cost prohibitive. Sorry, I'm just tired of reading the same "it's the zoning laws" reductionism by people who know only suburbs.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  There are maybe 600k people within commuting distance of Google Boulder. Adding 1.5k high paying jobs isn't going to drastically affect the community.
- lallysingh 9y ago
  Note 1: This is interestingly isomorphic to the immigration debate. I'm not taking sides on this point, I just find the parallels interesting. Note 2: Thousands of highly paid employees will cause real estate prices to rise, certainly. But they'll spend on more than just real estate, so the economy as a whole will grow with a lot of incoming money to be spent. As these incoming people are already working for 1 company, their demand for products/services will fall onto the local economy. Which is good for existing residents who participate in that economy. It'll also be good for anyone else who lives (after surviving applicable rent hikes) in the same districts, as the influx of tax money will help local schools, law enforcement, libraries, etc.
  - hueving 9y ago
    I think you're overestimating how much money will pour into the pockets of renting middle class people. You only need to look to Mountain View and Sunnyvale to see how all people making less than 6 figures have either been pushed into a trailer park, pushed into a roommate situation, or pushed out entirely. A bunch of rich people showing up does not really help most people.
  - marnett 9y ago
    Your second note about products/services falling into the local economy is probably not all too true. A bunch of googlers will not support the local coop grocery store, but instead continue using amazon fresh/blue apron, etc. Not to mention the boutique stores they want to shop at probably don't exist yet (depending on the city).
- davidcbc 9y ago
  I agree that rising housing costs are a problem and more should be done on the affordable housing front, but everything getting more crowded sounds pretty good for those businesses that are getting crowded. A growing vibrant economy is a good thing for a city to have.
- 1024core 9y ago
  > Bringing thousands of highly paid employees into a smaller city When you have to twist figures so that 1.5 thousand becomes "thousands" (thereby making it sound much bigger), then it means you have no argument at all. Boulder's population is 108,000. Adding an additional 1500 employees adds 1.5% to that population; not a huge amount.

eternalcode 9y ago

I would suggest seeing a Geologist perhaps. Get it? Boulder? Geologist?

hueving 9y ago

>If adding 1.5k employees and a new building is "largely ruining Boulder" in your eyes you should see a doctor. Put some effort into understanding perspectives before resorting to derision. Bringing thousands of highly paid employees into a smaller city is often not good for many who already lives there unless they own property. The majority of the new jobs will not go to existing residents, rents will increase, restaurants will get more expensive, traffic will get worse, and everything will get more crowded. For rich city-dwellers, the above might sound like nothing, but for people who seek smaller cities it will suck because it quickly erodes the character of the city.

finkin1 9y ago
I appreciate you trying to make OP's case, and I'm genuinely interested in changing my mind about this. What do you think should be done? Should growing companies be prevented from expanding because it might 'erode the character of the city'? I'm not in favor of the city subsidizing a company's growth, even if it does stimulate the economy in the long-run, but I just can't get behind any policy that would prevent a growing company due to something as nebulous as the erosion of the city's character.
- stale2002 9y ago
  What should be done is that cities should relax zoning laws, and allow more housing to be built in high demand areas. That way the city can fit everyone, cheaply.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jtmcmc 9y ago
    100 times this
  - mancerayder 9y ago
    I keep hearing this over and over in this forum, relax the code, change the zoning laws, that'll solve problems. How many of these folks actually live in a densely populated city? Zoning laws in Manhattan have a different source and downstream effect than some suburb of SF or LA, or some other city with housing cost issues. It's a huge topic of conversation, but I'll summarize it by offering a few items to ponder before we reduce the problem to "zoning restrictions" and people reply with "100X times this!". --- Infrastructure is more than housing. And much more expensive. The subway system in NYC isn't scaling to capacity due to the speed of development. It may feel expensive to build a new rental building, but scaling public transportation, education, and more is deeply more expensive. --- Manhattan isn't dense enough for you? You realize the parent article is about Google purchasing a huge swathe of Manhattan real estate. Are the skyscrapers not high enough? Better yet, maybe we should knock down those 19th century buildings in whatever pockets are left of low density housing in Manhattan and turn everything into a giant concrete reed jungle? Not all NIMBY is mean-spirited, and if you're the traveling type you can understand the need for preservation of architectural character. --- I live in a part of NYC where zoning laws allow for more building. As it turns out, I even own a building where I could potentially build an additional 1500 square feet, and I could convert my building into six separate apartment buildings. This would add net 4 apartments to a city which has a housing crisis. And I'd love do. However, I'd have to comply with code, which like zoning exists to protect us from ourselves, if for different reasons. To comply with code, so my tenants don't get incinerated in a fire, I'd have to spend so much money that it's cost prohibitive. Sorry, I'm just tired of reading the same "it's the zoning laws" reductionism by people who know only suburbs.
oh_sigh 9y ago
There are maybe 600k people within commuting distance of Google Boulder. Adding 1.5k high paying jobs isn't going to drastically affect the community.
lallysingh 9y ago
Note 1: This is interestingly isomorphic to the immigration debate. I'm not taking sides on this point, I just find the parallels interesting. Note 2: Thousands of highly paid employees will cause real estate prices to rise, certainly. But they'll spend on more than just real estate, so the economy as a whole will grow with a lot of incoming money to be spent. As these incoming people are already working for 1 company, their demand for products/services will fall onto the local economy. Which is good for existing residents who participate in that economy. It'll also be good for anyone else who lives (after surviving applicable rent hikes) in the same districts, as the influx of tax money will help local schools, law enforcement, libraries, etc.
- hueving 9y ago
  I think you're overestimating how much money will pour into the pockets of renting middle class people. You only need to look to Mountain View and Sunnyvale to see how all people making less than 6 figures have either been pushed into a trailer park, pushed into a roommate situation, or pushed out entirely. A bunch of rich people showing up does not really help most people.
- marnett 9y ago
  Your second note about products/services falling into the local economy is probably not all too true. A bunch of googlers will not support the local coop grocery store, but instead continue using amazon fresh/blue apron, etc. Not to mention the boutique stores they want to shop at probably don't exist yet (depending on the city).
davidcbc 9y ago
I agree that rising housing costs are a problem and more should be done on the affordable housing front, but everything getting more crowded sounds pretty good for those businesses that are getting crowded. A growing vibrant economy is a good thing for a city to have.
1024core 9y ago
> Bringing thousands of highly paid employees into a smaller city When you have to twist figures so that 1.5 thousand becomes "thousands" (thereby making it sound much bigger), then it means you have no argument at all. Boulder's population is 108,000. Adding an additional 1500 employees adds 1.5% to that population; not a huge amount.