4 ms·

You have to react to the state of the world today, not some unknown future state. The Bay Area is very successful financially with tech, biotech, and finance jo

You have to react to the state of the world today, not some unknown future state. The Bay Area is very successful financially with tech, biotech, and finance jobs. People from all over the country and world are coming here. We need housing for them. Basically, we can choose between two sets of problems, the problems of increased density, or the problems of gentrification. Yes, there is some amount of subjectivity here, and I clearly prefer the problems of higher density, but living here, I see a lot of very bad effects of gentrification. Service industry people have massive commutes from far away, yet we're dependent on their services, but we don't want to make housing affordable to make their lives better because we don't want change. We prioritize saving three big trees [1] over development, for example. What is really disheartening is people saying, as you do, that we should drive tech away in some capacity. I've lived in the rust belt, in areas of low housing cost due to industrial decline, I really would hate to see that here, it's horrible. [1] https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2017/12/22/downtown-residents-rally-to-save-neighborhood-redwoods https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2017/12/22/downtown-residents-...

oppositelock 9y ago
Oh, and one more thing - I'm glad that SB 827 died, despite being pro-housing. This is fundamentally a local decisions, it's just that the locals are being unreasonable. Whenever the state imposes a one-size-fits-all policy, you end up with different problems. San Jose, for example, is building housing like crazy, and tech companies are already building campuses near the new housing, as even Google employees can't afford to buy in Mountain View today. Basic 3 bed / 2 bath houses on < 6,000 ft lots go for over $2.5M in Mountain View. Owner condos are non-existent, rents are on par with Manhattan, but we don't have public transit to move people out into the boroughs. It's not a good situation. I'm lucky because I've been here since the 90's, but today, I'd be forced to leave the bay area given my income level.
- jcoffland 9y ago
  > San Jose, for example, is building housing like crazy And they have ruined what used to be beautiful farm land and orchards to create ugly urban sprawl punctuated by strip malls and plagued by violent crime. There's a very good reason San Jose, not San Francisco, was the site of the first major European settlement on the West Coast. Aside from having fantastic weather year round, San Jose was once beautiful. Few would argue that now. I know people need jobs and housing but unrestrained urban sprawl is a terrible solution to that problem.
  - quotemstr 9y ago
    It'll be beautiful once again one day: imagine vines growing over the scattered, silent ruins of our decadent civilization.
    - jcoffland 9y ago
      The Romans probably thought they would be the last civilisation too.
  - epistasis 9y ago
    San Jose was ruined when suburban sprawl ripped out all the orchards. Or it was ruined when the orchards replaced the prior natural beauty with industrial agriculture and rigid rows of trees. There is no urban sprawl in San Jose, it's all ugly suburbs.
  - Fins 9y ago
    San Jose looks anything but urban. It's a big boring suburb, just like everything else between Gilroy and SF.
    - astrange 9y ago
      No way, our suburbs have way better restaurants than any other suburbs. Where else in the US are you going to find thirty different ramen shops?
      - Fins 9y ago
        Only if you count Napa as a suburb, too. Otherwise, SFBA's opinion of its restaurants is slightly exaggerated.
  - astrange 9y ago
    The farm land was ruined in 1950, not in 2018. That's when it was all paved over to build single-family houses. And "urban" is the opposite of "sprawl"; YIMBYs are looking for infill and walkable development, which will eventually end sprawl… maybe. You might want to check out some Apple Park drone videos - it's gone and time traveled back to 1940, and only cost like ten billion dollars!
- redditmigrant 9y ago
  I think the local control approach has absolutely utterly failed. And we have had plenty of time for local governments to adapt, but they haven't. So now its probably time to take away local control. People won't learn unless there is a change in incentives or consequences.
- namlem 9y ago
  Local governments have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are incapable of addressing this problem. State intervention is the only way.
- masonic 9y ago
  tech companies are already building campuses near the new housing Where are you seeing such construction? (And if you're rooting for the land between San Carlos St and Santa Clara St. east of the railway to be an employee laden Googleplex, take a good look at 280 during rush hours now even without events at the Arena). Google is buying those parcels because the city of San Jose is corrupt and selling at a fraction of their value, just like they tried to do when those were earmarked for an A's ballpark. That doesn't mean they will use it for dense office space.
majormajor 9y ago
> I've lived in the rust belt, in areas of low housing cost due to industrial decline, I really would hate to see that here, it's horrible. There're more options than rust belt or NYC. I've spent my life in places that are thriving but also more sprawling. I suspect the future looks more like Atlanta or Dallas or Houston, especially with autonomous and electric vehicles on the horizon. They have a huge advantage in that world, in having far more land to easily expand into. I'm sympathetic to those who like their current areas, as well as to those in economically depressed areas - some increased diversification would help both of those groups! And I'm skeptical of densification as an answer to all cost woes, since Manhattan is dense and still stupendously expensive. Similarly, LA is much denser than Dallas, and still much more expensive. Maybe we'd be better off if some of that wealth got spread around, instead of continuing to accommodate even more concentration in a few centers. I have a goal of owning a single-family detached home, and here's the thing I see missing in these arguments: it's not because of property values. It's because it's a fundamentally different experience that is how I would prefer to live, and so I see why people would fight to preserve the ability to have that, instead of just bowing to the god of economic efficiency. In many places you can satisfy both, but the geographic constraints of the Bay Area make that harder. So someone has to lose, but I don't see either side worse than the other.
jcoffland 9y ago
> You have to react to the state of the world today, not some unknown future state. But the state of the world today in Silicon Valley is that there's not enough housing. Another possible reaction is to hire more telecommuters and expand offices outside of Silicon Valley. Why do you believe the local communities must change rather than the business practices? Are business needs inherently more important?
burfog 9y ago
You've lived in the rust belt and would hate to see it where you are now, but what of the people you left behind? They'd love some of those tech jobs. Driving tech toward the rust belt would solve some of both the California housing crisis and the rust belt unemployment. We really shouldn't try to all live in the same city.

oppositelock 9y ago

Oh, and one more thing - I'm glad that SB 827 died, despite being pro-housing. This is fundamentally a local decisions, it's just that the locals are being unreasonable. Whenever the state imposes a one-size-fits-all policy, you end up with different problems. San Jose, for example, is building housing like crazy, and tech companies are already building campuses near the new housing, as even Google employees can't afford to buy in Mountain View today. Basic 3 bed / 2 bath houses on < 6,000 ft lots go for over $2.5M in Mountain View. Owner condos are non-existent, rents are on par with Manhattan, but we don't have public transit to move people out into the boroughs. It's not a good situation. I'm lucky because I've been here since the 90's, but today, I'd be forced to leave the bay area given my income level.

jcoffland 9y ago
> San Jose, for example, is building housing like crazy And they have ruined what used to be beautiful farm land and orchards to create ugly urban sprawl punctuated by strip malls and plagued by violent crime. There's a very good reason San Jose, not San Francisco, was the site of the first major European settlement on the West Coast. Aside from having fantastic weather year round, San Jose was once beautiful. Few would argue that now. I know people need jobs and housing but unrestrained urban sprawl is a terrible solution to that problem.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  It'll be beautiful once again one day: imagine vines growing over the scattered, silent ruins of our decadent civilization.
  - jcoffland 9y ago
    The Romans probably thought they would be the last civilisation too.
- epistasis 9y ago
  San Jose was ruined when suburban sprawl ripped out all the orchards. Or it was ruined when the orchards replaced the prior natural beauty with industrial agriculture and rigid rows of trees. There is no urban sprawl in San Jose, it's all ugly suburbs.
- Fins 9y ago
  San Jose looks anything but urban. It's a big boring suburb, just like everything else between Gilroy and SF.
  - astrange 9y ago
    No way, our suburbs have way better restaurants than any other suburbs. Where else in the US are you going to find thirty different ramen shops?
    - Fins 9y ago
      Only if you count Napa as a suburb, too. Otherwise, SFBA's opinion of its restaurants is slightly exaggerated.
- astrange 9y ago
  The farm land was ruined in 1950, not in 2018. That's when it was all paved over to build single-family houses. And "urban" is the opposite of "sprawl"; YIMBYs are looking for infill and walkable development, which will eventually end sprawl… maybe. You might want to check out some Apple Park drone videos - it's gone and time traveled back to 1940, and only cost like ten billion dollars!
redditmigrant 9y ago
I think the local control approach has absolutely utterly failed. And we have had plenty of time for local governments to adapt, but they haven't. So now its probably time to take away local control. People won't learn unless there is a change in incentives or consequences.
namlem 9y ago
Local governments have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are incapable of addressing this problem. State intervention is the only way.
masonic 9y ago
tech companies are already building campuses near the new housing Where are you seeing such construction? (And if you're rooting for the land between San Carlos St and Santa Clara St. east of the railway to be an employee laden Googleplex, take a good look at 280 during rush hours now even without events at the Arena). Google is buying those parcels because the city of San Jose is corrupt and selling at a fraction of their value, just like they tried to do when those were earmarked for an A's ballpark. That doesn't mean they will use it for dense office space.

majormajor 9y ago

> I've lived in the rust belt, in areas of low housing cost due to industrial decline, I really would hate to see that here, it's horrible. There're more options than rust belt or NYC. I've spent my life in places that are thriving but also more sprawling. I suspect the future looks more like Atlanta or Dallas or Houston, especially with autonomous and electric vehicles on the horizon. They have a huge advantage in that world, in having far more land to easily expand into. I'm sympathetic to those who like their current areas, as well as to those in economically depressed areas - some increased diversification would help both of those groups! And I'm skeptical of densification as an answer to all cost woes, since Manhattan is dense and still stupendously expensive. Similarly, LA is much denser than Dallas, and still much more expensive. Maybe we'd be better off if some of that wealth got spread around, instead of continuing to accommodate even more concentration in a few centers. I have a goal of owning a single-family detached home, and here's the thing I see missing in these arguments: it's not because of property values. It's because it's a fundamentally different experience that is how I would prefer to live, and so I see why people would fight to preserve the ability to have that, instead of just bowing to the god of economic efficiency. In many places you can satisfy both, but the geographic constraints of the Bay Area make that harder. So someone has to lose, but I don't see either side worse than the other.

jcoffland 9y ago

> You have to react to the state of the world today, not some unknown future state. But the state of the world today in Silicon Valley is that there's not enough housing. Another possible reaction is to hire more telecommuters and expand offices outside of Silicon Valley. Why do you believe the local communities must change rather than the business practices? Are business needs inherently more important?

burfog 9y ago

You've lived in the rust belt and would hate to see it where you are now, but what of the people you left behind? They'd love some of those tech jobs. Driving tech toward the rust belt would solve some of both the California housing crisis and the rust belt unemployment. We really shouldn't try to all live in the same city.