5 ms·

>I'd like to know what we're doing to destroy communities and how we can prevent that. Stop moving into small cities with workers paid significantly above the

>I'd like to know what we're doing to destroy communities and how we can prevent that. Stop moving into small cities with workers paid significantly above the average of the existing residents. Restaurants open that they can't afford, the limited housing stock gets bid up quickly, good schools get overcrowded, etc. It's not a pleasant answer, but realistically that's ultimately what upsets a good chunk of the people that complain. If you bring in 2,000 people into any small city who make $200k/year+ when the average is down around $50k/year, it's going to result in a backlash and there is nothing you can really do unless you ban your employees from spending money there. The only real strategy is to pretend you are concerned and wait for the problem to gentrify away.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Over half a million people live within commuting distance of Boulder. It may 'only' have 100k people in it, but you aren't forced to live in the city limits if you want to work at Google Boulder
- hueving 9y ago
  But many will want to, and that's enough to impact the market there significantly. No Googlers are forced to live in Mountain View either. That doesn't change the fact that Google employees fight for houses in Mountain View. People with means who do not like commutes will buy closer housing. And guess what, most people don't like commutes.
  - jtmcmc 9y ago
    sounds like a real reason to build more housing nearby...
    - hueving 9y ago
      Yep, then you're just displacing the existing residents via higher rent prices in downtown Boulder where everyone actually wants to be.
stale2002 9y ago
What if, instead, these cities relax zoning laws, and allow supply to meet demand in the housing market? For every 1k Googlers who move to the city, the city should make damn sure that at least 1k apartments are built by developers.
- hueving 9y ago
  It's not that simple. You can't add more land for 1000 more houses in the desirable areas of town. So people renting in the desirable houses are going to get forced out into the new apartments because the rich can outbid them for the good houses. People will still be pissed. There is no solution to bringing a ton of people into a small area of land that preserves each person renting the same place for the same price. If you could turn Boulder into Tokyo overnight, it's still going to screw everyone who was there for single family homes and low density.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    There is absolutely a way to preserve everyone's ability to live in the place that they were living before for the same price. The solution is to pick a small, 1 mile square area, and make THAT the high density, 40 story, skyscraper area. A single high density zone could double the size of many cities, while still leaving hundreds of square miles of area for the low density people to live in the surrounding area. Sure, it would be a comparatively high cost of living to live in the high density area, but that's fine, as it is an extra area that you can choose not to live in. There are lots of people who love high density living. And I think it is completely fair to give high density dwellers a single square mile of no limits 40+ story tall buildings, for ever 100 miles of area that the low density living people can choose to live in.
    - hueving 9y ago
      That absolutely does not work. The prices of all of the homes anywhere near the high density area would sky rocket. Do you realize how much a single story house with a yard within a block of Chelsea Market in NYC would be worth? High rise costs to build are several hundred per square foot, so the cost to the tenants would be higher. Why would anyone pay several times the cost of a house a block away for a spot in the high rise?
jsky_goog 9y ago
I understand the concern but as someone who grew up in Boulder, and now works at Google Boulder I feel like people are giving off this incorrect impression of Boulder. It's a small town (~120k people w/ students) but it was never a particularly affordable place. Unfortunately there's not a whole lot that can be done to shield a desirable small town from becoming more expensive as more people become aware of it's existence. You can keep Boulder small with minimal development and get the skyrocketing housing prices or you can attempt to remedy this by building significantly more housing. For a long time now it's been evident that the city council has chosen the first option.
- lazerpants 9y ago
  Boulder may be the most quintessentially NIMBY community in the USA. And it's been that way for decades, so yes, this is a strange discussion to have about Boulder of all places. Importantly though, I suspect Boulder has an above average number of renters who will be disproportionately impacted by an increase in high paying job growth, as they will not see any return on equity.
  - jsky_goog 9y ago
    This is very true, last census I saw which I think was a few years old said 65% of residents rented.

oh_sigh 9y ago

Over half a million people live within commuting distance of Boulder. It may 'only' have 100k people in it, but you aren't forced to live in the city limits if you want to work at Google Boulder

hueving 9y ago
But many will want to, and that's enough to impact the market there significantly. No Googlers are forced to live in Mountain View either. That doesn't change the fact that Google employees fight for houses in Mountain View. People with means who do not like commutes will buy closer housing. And guess what, most people don't like commutes.
- jtmcmc 9y ago
  sounds like a real reason to build more housing nearby...
  - hueving 9y ago
    Yep, then you're just displacing the existing residents via higher rent prices in downtown Boulder where everyone actually wants to be.

stale2002 9y ago

What if, instead, these cities relax zoning laws, and allow supply to meet demand in the housing market? For every 1k Googlers who move to the city, the city should make damn sure that at least 1k apartments are built by developers.

hueving 9y ago
It's not that simple. You can't add more land for 1000 more houses in the desirable areas of town. So people renting in the desirable houses are going to get forced out into the new apartments because the rich can outbid them for the good houses. People will still be pissed. There is no solution to bringing a ton of people into a small area of land that preserves each person renting the same place for the same price. If you could turn Boulder into Tokyo overnight, it's still going to screw everyone who was there for single family homes and low density.
- stale2002 9y ago
  There is absolutely a way to preserve everyone's ability to live in the place that they were living before for the same price. The solution is to pick a small, 1 mile square area, and make THAT the high density, 40 story, skyscraper area. A single high density zone could double the size of many cities, while still leaving hundreds of square miles of area for the low density people to live in the surrounding area. Sure, it would be a comparatively high cost of living to live in the high density area, but that's fine, as it is an extra area that you can choose not to live in. There are lots of people who love high density living. And I think it is completely fair to give high density dwellers a single square mile of no limits 40+ story tall buildings, for ever 100 miles of area that the low density living people can choose to live in.
  - hueving 9y ago
    That absolutely does not work. The prices of all of the homes anywhere near the high density area would sky rocket. Do you realize how much a single story house with a yard within a block of Chelsea Market in NYC would be worth? High rise costs to build are several hundred per square foot, so the cost to the tenants would be higher. Why would anyone pay several times the cost of a house a block away for a spot in the high rise?

jsky_goog 9y ago

I understand the concern but as someone who grew up in Boulder, and now works at Google Boulder I feel like people are giving off this incorrect impression of Boulder. It's a small town (~120k people w/ students) but it was never a particularly affordable place. Unfortunately there's not a whole lot that can be done to shield a desirable small town from becoming more expensive as more people become aware of it's existence. You can keep Boulder small with minimal development and get the skyrocketing housing prices or you can attempt to remedy this by building significantly more housing. For a long time now it's been evident that the city council has chosen the first option.

lazerpants 9y ago
Boulder may be the most quintessentially NIMBY community in the USA. And it's been that way for decades, so yes, this is a strange discussion to have about Boulder of all places. Importantly though, I suspect Boulder has an above average number of renters who will be disproportionately impacted by an increase in high paying job growth, as they will not see any return on equity.
- jsky_goog 9y ago
  This is very true, last census I saw which I think was a few years old said 65% of residents rented.