3 ms·

"I'm not sure where you're seeing that type of discussion on HN." Everywhere. The comment I originally replied to (upthread) has a delusional vision of New Yor

by timr 9y ago

"I'm not sure where you're seeing that type of discussion on HN." Everywhere. The comment I originally replied to (upthread) has a delusional vision of New York and Tokyo, and "the problem" is (ostensibly) that the bay doesn't look like that. Any facts that are inconvenient to this narrative will be downvoted into invisibility. "But this bill was precisely the thing that would have opened up the Avenues in SF without touching the eastern side very much." While I sympathize with the stated goals, this bill was little more than grandstanding by Weiner. It never had a prayer of becoming law. You probably couldn't pass a rule like this in San Francisco itself, let alone the entire state.

epistasis 9y ago
If I'm understanding you, the "delusional" part was calling Tokyo buildings "tall"? What you describe Tokyo as, 4-5 story buildings, IS tall by local Bay Area standards. In fact, to those who harangue planning commissions and set zoning standards, 4-5 stories is horrifyingly tall, and something that is fought against. You are not downvoted because you are inconvenient to the narrative, but because you seem to be misunderstanding the discussion. Similarly, you seem to misunderstand this: > You probably couldn't pass a rule like this in San Francisco itself, let alone the entire state. because passing a bill in San Francisco is orders of magnitude more challenging than passing it at the State level. Local decision makers are incredibly vulnerable to small voting blocs, whereas State lawmakers are more free to serve the entire community rather than a few special interests. And that's what happened last year when Jerry Brown pushed hard on more housing and a ton of affordable housing bills were passed. Impossible at the local level, but possible at the state level. Calling this "grandstanding" is kind of an outrageous interpretation too. It seems to reveal a huge bias. Do you think he didn't want this? Did you think that it wasn't an honest attempt? He sacrificed a ton to rounds of amendments, and it was still a close committee vote.
- timr 9y ago
  "What you describe Tokyo as, 4-5 story buildings, IS tall by local Bay Area standards." Entirely depends on the neighborhood. In Palo Alto, yes, they're going to be horrified by 5-story construction. In Oakland, not so much. The "delusional" part of said comment was the characterization of Tokyo as a place where all of the buildings are tall. In fact, take a train a couple of stops outside the Yamanote line, and you'll likely find yourself standing in the middle of a community of detached, 1-2 story homes that would evoke large parts of the bay area. Tokyo is not especially dense, or tall. Tokyo simply sprawls, and most people on HN have never been outside of Shinjuku enough to know the difference. Don't believe me? I dropped a pin at random in an area of Tokyo about 10 minutes west of Shinjuku by train: https://goo.gl/maps/6vXn2KqUK4P2 https://goo.gl/maps/6vXn2KqUK4P2 I'm not cherry picking. This is what Tokyo actually looks like, when you get out of the business/tourist districts. "Do you think he didn't want this? Did you think that it wasn't an honest attempt? He sacrificed a ton to rounds of amendments, and it was still a close committee vote." Sacrificed? LOL. He threw a half-baked bill over the fence. In exchange, he got his name in the press for months, and convinced a bunch of his (more credulous) voters that he's an effective politician. This was pure political upside for him, and "amendments" don't even factor into it. Read his public comments; he all but admits that the bill never had a chance of passing.

by timr 9y ago

epistasis 9y ago

If I'm understanding you, the "delusional" part was calling Tokyo buildings "tall"? What you describe Tokyo as, 4-5 story buildings, IS tall by local Bay Area standards. In fact, to those who harangue planning commissions and set zoning standards, 4-5 stories is horrifyingly tall, and something that is fought against. You are not downvoted because you are inconvenient to the narrative, but because you seem to be misunderstanding the discussion. Similarly, you seem to misunderstand this: > You probably couldn't pass a rule like this in San Francisco itself, let alone the entire state. because passing a bill in San Francisco is orders of magnitude more challenging than passing it at the State level. Local decision makers are incredibly vulnerable to small voting blocs, whereas State lawmakers are more free to serve the entire community rather than a few special interests. And that's what happened last year when Jerry Brown pushed hard on more housing and a ton of affordable housing bills were passed. Impossible at the local level, but possible at the state level. Calling this "grandstanding" is kind of an outrageous interpretation too. It seems to reveal a huge bias. Do you think he didn't want this? Did you think that it wasn't an honest attempt? He sacrificed a ton to rounds of amendments, and it was still a close committee vote.

timr 9y ago
"What you describe Tokyo as, 4-5 story buildings, IS tall by local Bay Area standards." Entirely depends on the neighborhood. In Palo Alto, yes, they're going to be horrified by 5-story construction. In Oakland, not so much. The "delusional" part of said comment was the characterization of Tokyo as a place where all of the buildings are tall. In fact, take a train a couple of stops outside the Yamanote line, and you'll likely find yourself standing in the middle of a community of detached, 1-2 story homes that would evoke large parts of the bay area. Tokyo is not especially dense, or tall. Tokyo simply sprawls, and most people on HN have never been outside of Shinjuku enough to know the difference. Don't believe me? I dropped a pin at random in an area of Tokyo about 10 minutes west of Shinjuku by train: https://goo.gl/maps/6vXn2KqUK4P2 https://goo.gl/maps/6vXn2KqUK4P2 I'm not cherry picking. This is what Tokyo actually looks like, when you get out of the business/tourist districts. "Do you think he didn't want this? Did you think that it wasn't an honest attempt? He sacrificed a ton to rounds of amendments, and it was still a close committee vote." Sacrificed? LOL. He threw a half-baked bill over the fence. In exchange, he got his name in the press for months, and convinced a bunch of his (more credulous) voters that he's an effective politician. This was pure political upside for him, and "amendments" don't even factor into it. Read his public comments; he all but admits that the bill never had a chance of passing.