6 ms·

The challenge is 'we' is not a homogenous group within a city such as LA. In fact they are very much heterogenous groups lumped together. We want affordable h

by jpao79 8y ago

The challenge is 'we' is not a homogenous group within a city such as LA. In fact they are very much heterogenous groups lumped together. We want affordable housing = existing residents who want to rent their affordable apartments or continue to own their single family house without additional traffic/school overcrowding and their network of friends to have that opportunity too, politicians who want to represent these folks We want tech jobs, more office space, more apartments = real estate developers, young tech professionals who want job options, incoming residents who aren't aware of how uncrowded these neighborhoods used to be, politicians who want to represent these folks

majormajor 8y ago
So is there a way we can have those two sides hash things out in a more controlled manner? As well as the people not represented by either group? Right now we get the jobs, and we get the neighborhood protections and development restrictions, and in some ways everybody else loses. Cities that can grow outwards, like Houston or Dallas, can punt on this problem for a lot longer than LA or SF or NY can, but I'm very interested in seeing what that looks like long-term. Maybe Dallas hits a continuing density-vs-sprawl equilibrium that results in mostly-reasonable prices w/ mostly-reasonable commute lengths (people seem pretty tolerant up to 45-min one direction, IME) just over a wider and wider footprint without ever needing to densify - not many natural barriers for a while. But maybe it doesn't.
- jpao79 8y ago
  Personally, I think the best option is to encourage the high growth companies in tech/finance/media to create secondary headquarters in nearby secondary cities that are ready to handle higher density growth (i.e high density residential and light rail systems, etc.). SF/SV -> Sacramento NYC -> Newark LA -> San Diego High level management can day trip it via 1-2 hour train/car/shuttle ride to the secondary headquarters without the expense/complexity of plane rides and overbite hotels, or conversely the employees can day trip it to primary headquarters. Plus there is no timezone difference for conference calls. And most importantly the employees can still be within driving distance of their social network and have a very similar quality of life (climate, outdoor recreation, etc.) but not all of their paycheck is spent on housing.
  - taurath 8y ago
    I’d love we’re this to happen, but it seems like the trend is to cram everyone in the same space - the ambiguous “network benefit” seems to be trumping economics a lot of the time.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    > Personally, I think the best option is to encourage the high growth companies in tech/finance/media to create secondary headquarters in nearby secondary cities that are ready to handle higher density growth (i.e high density residential and light rail systems, etc.). We already tried that. Google, Apple, etc. located themselves in the small orchard towns of Mountain View and Cupertino instead of the big San Francisco. San Jose responded by building up its downtown, anchored by Adobe, and investing in light rail. A similar story played out in L.A., with media companies moving to Burbank. This didn't solve the problem. There's really no way around building housing.
    - mwcampbell 8y ago
      The answer for software companies in particular seems obvious to me: remote work. I think that for the kind of work we do, in-person communication and synchronous collaboration are over-rated. I hope that the next generation of programmers will all have the freedom to stay in their home towns rather than having to congregate in a few cities, thus driving up costs. I know that this change requires a major culture shift, though.
      - taurath 8y ago
        Execs don’t go for it. That’s the primary reason it’s not been done at large scale companies - you do get better control and coordination in person, but not so much better that it outweighs the economics (IMO)
      - afarrell 8y ago
        Remote work is harder for entry-level workers just out of university who haven't yet learned the communication skills needed to be effective working remotely. At least, this is my own particular experience. It took me years to learn how to ask good questions. Before, I would either: 1) When I ran into something that seemed frustrating or inefficient, I would assume that the task was just difficult and I needed to put my head down and slog through it. 2) Ask broad questions to try and build a mental model that would let me work more efficiently and know what to focus on, hear the feedback "you're trying to understand the universe", and think that meant I should stop asking questions and just keep punching. It was only at my current employer (where everyone is in the same office and my tech lead and I could have in-person 1-on-1s) that I got feedback on how to be more specific and contextual in my questions.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  > Cities that can grow outwards, like Houston or Dallas, can punt on this problem for a lot longer than LA or SF or NY can The difference between Texas and California is not geographical but political. Texas is pro housing. California is anti housing.
  - emj 8y ago
    I think the point was that if you are so sprawled out it's easy to build more houses without bothering people, so it does not become a political issue. (This thought is only based on pop density and without knowing anything about the political stances of e.g. Dallas and SF, and how that affects new projects in dense areas.)
    - BurningFrog 8y ago
      The areas around SF are not dense at all. About half are nature preserves. That is, political decisions have been made to not build any more housing there.
jadedhacker 8y ago
"We" are heterogeneous, but we are also united by our membership in the working class. We can't ignore our brothers and sisters that share your class interests and should fight for them together.

by jpao79 8y ago

majormajor 8y ago

So is there a way we can have those two sides hash things out in a more controlled manner? As well as the people not represented by either group? Right now we get the jobs, and we get the neighborhood protections and development restrictions, and in some ways everybody else loses. Cities that can grow outwards, like Houston or Dallas, can punt on this problem for a lot longer than LA or SF or NY can, but I'm very interested in seeing what that looks like long-term. Maybe Dallas hits a continuing density-vs-sprawl equilibrium that results in mostly-reasonable prices w/ mostly-reasonable commute lengths (people seem pretty tolerant up to 45-min one direction, IME) just over a wider and wider footprint without ever needing to densify - not many natural barriers for a while. But maybe it doesn't.

jpao79 8y ago
Personally, I think the best option is to encourage the high growth companies in tech/finance/media to create secondary headquarters in nearby secondary cities that are ready to handle higher density growth (i.e high density residential and light rail systems, etc.). SF/SV -> Sacramento NYC -> Newark LA -> San Diego High level management can day trip it via 1-2 hour train/car/shuttle ride to the secondary headquarters without the expense/complexity of plane rides and overbite hotels, or conversely the employees can day trip it to primary headquarters. Plus there is no timezone difference for conference calls. And most importantly the employees can still be within driving distance of their social network and have a very similar quality of life (climate, outdoor recreation, etc.) but not all of their paycheck is spent on housing.
- taurath 8y ago
  I’d love we’re this to happen, but it seems like the trend is to cram everyone in the same space - the ambiguous “network benefit” seems to be trumping economics a lot of the time.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  > Personally, I think the best option is to encourage the high growth companies in tech/finance/media to create secondary headquarters in nearby secondary cities that are ready to handle higher density growth (i.e high density residential and light rail systems, etc.). We already tried that. Google, Apple, etc. located themselves in the small orchard towns of Mountain View and Cupertino instead of the big San Francisco. San Jose responded by building up its downtown, anchored by Adobe, and investing in light rail. A similar story played out in L.A., with media companies moving to Burbank. This didn't solve the problem. There's really no way around building housing.
  - mwcampbell 8y ago
    The answer for software companies in particular seems obvious to me: remote work. I think that for the kind of work we do, in-person communication and synchronous collaboration are over-rated. I hope that the next generation of programmers will all have the freedom to stay in their home towns rather than having to congregate in a few cities, thus driving up costs. I know that this change requires a major culture shift, though.
    - taurath 8y ago
      Execs don’t go for it. That’s the primary reason it’s not been done at large scale companies - you do get better control and coordination in person, but not so much better that it outweighs the economics (IMO)
    - afarrell 8y ago
      Remote work is harder for entry-level workers just out of university who haven't yet learned the communication skills needed to be effective working remotely. At least, this is my own particular experience. It took me years to learn how to ask good questions. Before, I would either: 1) When I ran into something that seemed frustrating or inefficient, I would assume that the task was just difficult and I needed to put my head down and slog through it. 2) Ask broad questions to try and build a mental model that would let me work more efficiently and know what to focus on, hear the feedback "you're trying to understand the universe", and think that meant I should stop asking questions and just keep punching. It was only at my current employer (where everyone is in the same office and my tech lead and I could have in-person 1-on-1s) that I got feedback on how to be more specific and contextual in my questions.
BurningFrog 8y ago
> Cities that can grow outwards, like Houston or Dallas, can punt on this problem for a lot longer than LA or SF or NY can The difference between Texas and California is not geographical but political. Texas is pro housing. California is anti housing.
- emj 8y ago
  I think the point was that if you are so sprawled out it's easy to build more houses without bothering people, so it does not become a political issue. (This thought is only based on pop density and without knowing anything about the political stances of e.g. Dallas and SF, and how that affects new projects in dense areas.)
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    The areas around SF are not dense at all. About half are nature preserves. That is, political decisions have been made to not build any more housing there.

jadedhacker 8y ago

"We" are heterogeneous, but we are also united by our membership in the working class. We can't ignore our brothers and sisters that share your class interests and should fight for them together.