3 ms·

The entire current population of the bay area (~9M) would fit within 165 of the 10,000 square miles of the CSA, if built at Parisian densities. That is less tha

The entire current population of the bay area (~9M) would fit within 165 of the 10,000 square miles of the CSA, if built at Parisian densities. That is less than 2% of the land. This is what boggles my mind: despite such a minimal land requirement, nobody in the entire fucking region will budge. Put it somewhere else, they say. It has become a game of musical chairs where nobody gets up for the next round. State intervention is the only thing that will solve this problem.

shifter 8y ago
Or, as the calculus on living in the Bay Area shifts [0], top tier talent starts to direct itself elsewhere. This stems growth in the Bay Area since founding successful companies in lower cost areas will be possible, housing investment slows as a result of that, and the market naturally cools down a bit [1]. [0] Don't fool yourself into thinking that only people without the income or capital to live well in the Bay Area would leave it. There are intangibles (culture, traffic, distance to skiing, etc.) that, for some people, are non-optimal. For others, it's perfect. That's okay, humans are a varied lot (and it's a good thing). [1] Nothing major, it will remain expensive due to geography and talent/creativity/capital density.
- jdtang13 8y ago
  It's not really about tech companies, although the tech companies don't help. Contemporary conversation about Bay Area housing always makes it sound like some impossible dream that is hampered by hordes of techies. It seems to me that most of those concerns are red herrings; it's actually about zoning, local opposition, and government incompetence. The other HN comment ITT summarizes it pretty well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16970532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16970532
digianarchist 8y ago
California tried and failed to pass legislation recently. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/04/26/606151956/california-s-housing-conundrum https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/04/26/606151956/cali...

shifter 8y ago

Or, as the calculus on living in the Bay Area shifts [0], top tier talent starts to direct itself elsewhere. This stems growth in the Bay Area since founding successful companies in lower cost areas will be possible, housing investment slows as a result of that, and the market naturally cools down a bit [1]. [0] Don't fool yourself into thinking that only people without the income or capital to live well in the Bay Area would leave it. There are intangibles (culture, traffic, distance to skiing, etc.) that, for some people, are non-optimal. For others, it's perfect. That's okay, humans are a varied lot (and it's a good thing). [1] Nothing major, it will remain expensive due to geography and talent/creativity/capital density.

jdtang13 8y ago
It's not really about tech companies, although the tech companies don't help. Contemporary conversation about Bay Area housing always makes it sound like some impossible dream that is hampered by hordes of techies. It seems to me that most of those concerns are red herrings; it's actually about zoning, local opposition, and government incompetence. The other HN comment ITT summarizes it pretty well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16970532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16970532

digianarchist 8y ago

California tried and failed to pass legislation recently. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/04/26/606151956/california-s-housing-conundrum https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/04/26/606151956/cali...