4 ms·

Curious how much of this is “natural”, how much is forced by stupid CA policies and COL, and how much is “spread out jobs and investment to reduce government ri

by rdl 8y ago

Curious how much of this is “natural”, how much is forced by stupid CA policies and COL, and how much is “spread out jobs and investment to reduce government risk/gain government support at state and federal-legislative levels.”

ghaff 8y ago
As companies grow they naturally tend to distribute. As you get to this sort of scale it’s not like employees are co-located in any meaningful sense even if they’re in the same general geo. Distribute risk, get access to an additional pool of workers. Certainly COL (and general congestion) in the Bay Area will inevitably bias most companies against doing any sizable expansion there.
sargun 8y ago
I seriously do not understand anyone in the Bay Area that’s anti development. How can you justify yourself in good conscience to be anti development when CoL is so high?
- QuixoticQuibit 8y ago
  People who have vested interests in keeping it that way: NIMBYers. People who currently own homes and want to see their habitable “retirement plans” grow indefinitely. And god forbid we build apartment complexes greater than 5 stories all over the Bay Area. We wouldn’t want anyone’s glorious viewshed of the surrounding yellow hills to be blocked. Of course, increasing housing density highlights other problems: terrible traffic and poor public transportation. We’d need to make large investments in both housing and transportation infrastructure if we’re ever going to make headway in the CoL problem.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Yes. People can be generally pro-development and also oppose development that just consists of sticking tall apartment buildings here and there while leaving public transit, auto infrastructure, and other public works as an exercise for the indefinite future.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      This doesn't make much sense. Transit follows population. You wouldn't build transit before there was a need for it.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        In fact, population has historically often grown up around rail and transit lines. It's one argument for light rail vs. buses; people buying and developing along along a line are far less exposed to the transit moving than in the case of a bus. So, no. It's normally not a great idea to build a bunch of random housing and hope a total transportation mess--which already describes much of the Bay Area--will hopefully be solved someday.
        thaumasiotes 8y ago
        Yes, population centers have historically grown up around trade routes. Population grows around transit that is already in use, in order to provide services along the route. But a route that nobody uses doesn't have any surplus around which a population would grow.
      - matthewmacleod 8y ago
        A robust city development plan should incorporate infrastructure buildout as part of the planning sign-off process. For urban areas in particular, it's important to make sure that things like road and transit access, schools, medical facilities etc. are able to cope with increased demand. This can include requiring developers to make financial contributions towards infrastructure as part of that process. You can't realistically expect to create substantial residential developments without appropriate infrastructure, and just kind of "fill in the gaps" later – transit infrastructure in particular has long lead times that make that impractical. In reality, planning of residential development and infrastructure changes need to be part of an integrated planning strategy ad the government level.
        lukeschlather 8y ago
  - pixl97 8y ago
    >Of course, increasing housing density highlights other problems: terrible traffic and poor public transportation But that in itself is a zoning problem. Mixed development that allows the places people want to go to be integrated where people live drastically reduce transportation trips.
- jseliger 8y ago
  How can you justify yourself in good conscience to be anti development when CoL is so high? Bear in mind too that a fair number of people either can't or won't understand basic economics. I can't tell you how many times I've had or heard conversations that go like this: Person A: We should kick out all the greedy developers who are raising the price of housing. Person B: Housing costs are set by supply and demand; if the supply does not increase, prices will rise further. A: That's not true! When new housing gets built, it's more expensive than existing housing. B: That might be true of a particular unit, but that's because most people prefer new housing to old housing, and it's extremely hard to construct anything. A: Just look at that new development: it's more expensive. We need to ban new housing. Plus, I don't want my neighborhood to look like Manhattan. B: Missing Middle housing will not turn your neighborhood into Manhattan: http://missingmiddlehousing.com/ http://missingmiddlehousing.com/ A: I've lived here for five years and I still don't want to see the neighborhood change. You can go on for a long time in this vein, with more or less invective.
  - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
    Person A: we should make greedy developers to build cheaper houses Person B: (points out the cost of unionized workforce) Person A throws a tantrum.
simongr3dal 8y ago
If you compare the bubble map of new jobs with the heatmap of existing jobs it looks like they are expanding proportionally to the amount of people they are already employing in the different areas. To me that seems like it might just be a natural expansion.
pault 8y ago
Netflix contacted me a few times about coming in for an interview, but I did the math and even at Netflix salary, I would still be taking a relative pay cut by leaving Austin for California. I know I'm not the only one coming to this conclusion.
buildforrelease 8y ago
For what it's worth, most of those sites already have Apple locations and are being expanded. Austin is Apple's second largest campus. Culver City already has something like 500-700 employees, and even Pittsburgh is where things like iWork are made. So these are all pretty natural. Also keep in mind that several of the sites were in CA, so not likely anything to do with "stupid CA policies and CoL".

by rdl 8y ago

ghaff 8y ago

As companies grow they naturally tend to distribute. As you get to this sort of scale it’s not like employees are co-located in any meaningful sense even if they’re in the same general geo. Distribute risk, get access to an additional pool of workers. Certainly COL (and general congestion) in the Bay Area will inevitably bias most companies against doing any sizable expansion there.

sargun 8y ago

I seriously do not understand anyone in the Bay Area that’s anti development. How can you justify yourself in good conscience to be anti development when CoL is so high?

QuixoticQuibit 8y ago
People who have vested interests in keeping it that way: NIMBYers. People who currently own homes and want to see their habitable “retirement plans” grow indefinitely. And god forbid we build apartment complexes greater than 5 stories all over the Bay Area. We wouldn’t want anyone’s glorious viewshed of the surrounding yellow hills to be blocked. Of course, increasing housing density highlights other problems: terrible traffic and poor public transportation. We’d need to make large investments in both housing and transportation infrastructure if we’re ever going to make headway in the CoL problem.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Yes. People can be generally pro-development and also oppose development that just consists of sticking tall apartment buildings here and there while leaving public transit, auto infrastructure, and other public works as an exercise for the indefinite future.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    This doesn't make much sense. Transit follows population. You wouldn't build transit before there was a need for it.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      In fact, population has historically often grown up around rail and transit lines. It's one argument for light rail vs. buses; people buying and developing along along a line are far less exposed to the transit moving than in the case of a bus. So, no. It's normally not a great idea to build a bunch of random housing and hope a total transportation mess--which already describes much of the Bay Area--will hopefully be solved someday.
      - thaumasiotes 8y ago
        Yes, population centers have historically grown up around trade routes. Population grows around transit that is already in use, in order to provide services along the route. But a route that nobody uses doesn't have any surplus around which a population would grow.
    - matthewmacleod 8y ago
      A robust city development plan should incorporate infrastructure buildout as part of the planning sign-off process. For urban areas in particular, it's important to make sure that things like road and transit access, schools, medical facilities etc. are able to cope with increased demand. This can include requiring developers to make financial contributions towards infrastructure as part of that process. You can't realistically expect to create substantial residential developments without appropriate infrastructure, and just kind of "fill in the gaps" later – transit infrastructure in particular has long lead times that make that impractical. In reality, planning of residential development and infrastructure changes need to be part of an integrated planning strategy ad the government level.
      - lukeschlather 8y ago
- pixl97 8y ago
  >Of course, increasing housing density highlights other problems: terrible traffic and poor public transportation But that in itself is a zoning problem. Mixed development that allows the places people want to go to be integrated where people live drastically reduce transportation trips.
jseliger 8y ago
How can you justify yourself in good conscience to be anti development when CoL is so high? Bear in mind too that a fair number of people either can't or won't understand basic economics. I can't tell you how many times I've had or heard conversations that go like this: Person A: We should kick out all the greedy developers who are raising the price of housing. Person B: Housing costs are set by supply and demand; if the supply does not increase, prices will rise further. A: That's not true! When new housing gets built, it's more expensive than existing housing. B: That might be true of a particular unit, but that's because most people prefer new housing to old housing, and it's extremely hard to construct anything. A: Just look at that new development: it's more expensive. We need to ban new housing. Plus, I don't want my neighborhood to look like Manhattan. B: Missing Middle housing will not turn your neighborhood into Manhattan: http://missingmiddlehousing.com/ http://missingmiddlehousing.com/ A: I've lived here for five years and I still don't want to see the neighborhood change. You can go on for a long time in this vein, with more or less invective.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  Person A: we should make greedy developers to build cheaper houses Person B: (points out the cost of unionized workforce) Person A throws a tantrum.

simongr3dal 8y ago

If you compare the bubble map of new jobs with the heatmap of existing jobs it looks like they are expanding proportionally to the amount of people they are already employing in the different areas. To me that seems like it might just be a natural expansion.

pault 8y ago

Netflix contacted me a few times about coming in for an interview, but I did the math and even at Netflix salary, I would still be taking a relative pay cut by leaving Austin for California. I know I'm not the only one coming to this conclusion.

buildforrelease 8y ago

For what it's worth, most of those sites already have Apple locations and are being expanded. Austin is Apple's second largest campus. Culver City already has something like 500-700 employees, and even Pittsburgh is where things like iWork are made. So these are all pretty natural. Also keep in mind that several of the sites were in CA, so not likely anything to do with "stupid CA policies and CoL".