5 ms·

Welcome to Silicon Valley: where everyone has somehow bamboozled themselves into believing that working in a cramped parking space is more valuable than buying

Welcome to Silicon Valley: where everyone has somehow bamboozled themselves into believing that working in a cramped parking space is more valuable than buying office real estate in LITERALLY any other state... Remember kids: you don’t HAVE to live in California.

dcosson 7y ago
Can’t tell if you’re serious but this was a joke/stunt. The point being to show how poor of a use of space it is to have street parking lining every street in an expensive and crowded city.
- chrisan 7y ago
  He may have taken it too literally... but he does have a point. Everyone doesn't _need_ to live in SF. > proving two points: one about the high cost of coworking spaces in an already unaffordable city, and another about how the space currently dedicated to on-street parking in cramped cities like San Francisco could be put to better and more human-centric use. You can reduce your cost of living/co-working by moving out of the city. I can't imaging wanting to deal with fumes, electricity, weather, traffic dangers just to stay in the city by converting parking spots to more "human-centric" areas.
  - dcosson 7y ago
    Again...it was a stunt. These were pro-housing folks but no one is suggesting directly turning parking into makeshift long term office space or housing. Human centric uses might include — protected bike lanes, trees so that the sidewalks feel further removed from cars, food trucks, outdoor cafe seating, etc. Also, sure, not everyone needs to live in SF. But that’s a completely unrelated point. There are still people who do choose to live here and want to make the city a nicer place to live.
- zrobotics 7y ago
  Ironically, the pictures of one of the #wepark offices in the article was literally directly in front of empty commercial real estate for lease. What does this stunt prove, aside from being slightly silly? Should all the buildings be expanded by ~6',and the sidewalk moved directly adjacent to the road? Because even if personal automobiles are entirely eliminated, roads will still be necessary for access. As a tounge-in-cheek protest against high prices it works, but I think the grandparent is making a more salient point than the wepark group. If your job can be done from a temporary office environment (and many of the people interviewed already worked from their homes) then a far better solution to expensive real estate is to move, especially if you are already working remotely. How much space can actually be reclaimed from on-street parking in a feasible manner? Likely not enough to make a significant difference in the price of real-estate.
  - dcosson 7y ago
    Just a badly written article. The way I interpreted it (just having followed along a bit on twitter, I don't know these people personally) this particular thing is not directly about real estate. It's about better uses of outdoor/street space, focused on people rather than cars. This is extremely valuable space, and it's rented out, far below its market value, by a city that claims to value environmental issues, to be put towards one of the worst offenders of carbon emissions (personal vehicles). It also adds to congestion and makes a city less enjoyable when the roads are wider and everything that isn't a car is a second class citizen. Some better uses might be - more protected bike lanes, dedicated bus lanes, trees to offset the sidewalk further from the road or make sidewalks wider for a more vibrant, walkable street life.
- s3r3nity 7y ago
  Yeah I did catch on, but my read was that the conclusion of this stunt could drive thinking in a few directions. One of the more popular directions would be to push for more building, and/or better transit options. My recommendation was to push for more rational / sanity in the labor market choices: right now, it seems like it’s blasphemous to consider _NOT_ living in SF. Rather than trying to push for enormous change at all levels, you can just say “nah there are better choices for me to live.”
JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
The irony is that all the companies and startups work on internet companies which could happen anywhere with internet access. It's not like there is a gold mine under San Francisco streets that requires on site mining. And before you say "the people are the gold mine", those people could be interacted with remotely quite easily.
- sreyaNotfilc 7y ago
  I saw 'San Francisco' and rolled my eyes. This is the dumbest idea I have seen in a while. What if someone runs you over trying to back into a spot? What if something falls from the sky (besides rain)? Or someone runs off with your equipment because your weren't looking? Or even, its a busy day and someone didn't reserve a parking spot. Putting your workers at risk because you're trying to save some dough is highly irresponsible.
  - Luc 7y ago
    Woosh!
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    Read the article. The primary point is activism. This isn't about money or saving costs at all. In fact the only mention of price was to pay the hourly parking rate, there's no mention of anyone collecting or making any other money on it. There's no formal system here, just some inspired activism to make a point about how much space is devoted to parking.
    - sreyaNotfilc 7y ago
      I believe that my stance still stands. Say a lot of people join the bandwagon and become activists in this manner. Or even that, say someone is thinking that this is actually a great idea and starts buying up Parkmobile spots to. Sitting in a parking lot, no matter what the cause or circumstance is, is a recipe for disaster. Its still a highly unsafe thing to do.
      - 7y ago
nafey 7y ago
The other side of the coin is that a lot of very talented people congregate in places like Silicon Valley, so you rule out the potential of hiring/working for/working with them.
- cbm-vic-20 7y ago
  There are a lot of very talented people in places like Seattle and Boston, too, and yet the VCs and companies out in SF/SV are stuck in their little bubble.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Let them stay in their bubble. Every time CA vomits out a substantial number of upper-middle/upper class people it ruins another city, sometimes a whole state.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  Although SV culture seems to think otherwise, there are lots of very talented people across the rest of the nation as well. I've found them everywhere that I've worked.
lalos 7y ago
One could argue that this is the reason for why it's expensive, to limit the amount of people that can be there. The invisible hand at play.
- Johnny555 7y ago
  That doesn't really seem to be working -- people are coming but are doubling and tripling (and quadrupling) up in housing that wasn't meant to accommodate them. Of course, that's nothing new - I rented a large closet (literally a closet) when I first moved to SF over 2 decades ago. Eventually I got promoted to the formal dining room (which unfortunately was the walkway from the bedrooms to the livingroom, but still beat living in a closet!)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dcosson 7y ago

Can’t tell if you’re serious but this was a joke/stunt. The point being to show how poor of a use of space it is to have street parking lining every street in an expensive and crowded city.

chrisan 7y ago
He may have taken it too literally... but he does have a point. Everyone doesn't _need_ to live in SF. > proving two points: one about the high cost of coworking spaces in an already unaffordable city, and another about how the space currently dedicated to on-street parking in cramped cities like San Francisco could be put to better and more human-centric use. You can reduce your cost of living/co-working by moving out of the city. I can't imaging wanting to deal with fumes, electricity, weather, traffic dangers just to stay in the city by converting parking spots to more "human-centric" areas.
- dcosson 7y ago
  Again...it was a stunt. These were pro-housing folks but no one is suggesting directly turning parking into makeshift long term office space or housing. Human centric uses might include — protected bike lanes, trees so that the sidewalks feel further removed from cars, food trucks, outdoor cafe seating, etc. Also, sure, not everyone needs to live in SF. But that’s a completely unrelated point. There are still people who do choose to live here and want to make the city a nicer place to live.
zrobotics 7y ago
Ironically, the pictures of one of the #wepark offices in the article was literally directly in front of empty commercial real estate for lease. What does this stunt prove, aside from being slightly silly? Should all the buildings be expanded by ~6',and the sidewalk moved directly adjacent to the road? Because even if personal automobiles are entirely eliminated, roads will still be necessary for access. As a tounge-in-cheek protest against high prices it works, but I think the grandparent is making a more salient point than the wepark group. If your job can be done from a temporary office environment (and many of the people interviewed already worked from their homes) then a far better solution to expensive real estate is to move, especially if you are already working remotely. How much space can actually be reclaimed from on-street parking in a feasible manner? Likely not enough to make a significant difference in the price of real-estate.
- dcosson 7y ago
  Just a badly written article. The way I interpreted it (just having followed along a bit on twitter, I don't know these people personally) this particular thing is not directly about real estate. It's about better uses of outdoor/street space, focused on people rather than cars. This is extremely valuable space, and it's rented out, far below its market value, by a city that claims to value environmental issues, to be put towards one of the worst offenders of carbon emissions (personal vehicles). It also adds to congestion and makes a city less enjoyable when the roads are wider and everything that isn't a car is a second class citizen. Some better uses might be - more protected bike lanes, dedicated bus lanes, trees to offset the sidewalk further from the road or make sidewalks wider for a more vibrant, walkable street life.
s3r3nity 7y ago
Yeah I did catch on, but my read was that the conclusion of this stunt could drive thinking in a few directions. One of the more popular directions would be to push for more building, and/or better transit options. My recommendation was to push for more rational / sanity in the labor market choices: right now, it seems like it’s blasphemous to consider _NOT_ living in SF. Rather than trying to push for enormous change at all levels, you can just say “nah there are better choices for me to live.”

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

The irony is that all the companies and startups work on internet companies which could happen anywhere with internet access. It's not like there is a gold mine under San Francisco streets that requires on site mining. And before you say "the people are the gold mine", those people could be interacted with remotely quite easily.

sreyaNotfilc 7y ago
I saw 'San Francisco' and rolled my eyes. This is the dumbest idea I have seen in a while. What if someone runs you over trying to back into a spot? What if something falls from the sky (besides rain)? Or someone runs off with your equipment because your weren't looking? Or even, its a busy day and someone didn't reserve a parking spot. Putting your workers at risk because you're trying to save some dough is highly irresponsible.
- Luc 7y ago
  Woosh!
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Read the article. The primary point is activism. This isn't about money or saving costs at all. In fact the only mention of price was to pay the hourly parking rate, there's no mention of anyone collecting or making any other money on it. There's no formal system here, just some inspired activism to make a point about how much space is devoted to parking.
  - sreyaNotfilc 7y ago
    I believe that my stance still stands. Say a lot of people join the bandwagon and become activists in this manner. Or even that, say someone is thinking that this is actually a great idea and starts buying up Parkmobile spots to. Sitting in a parking lot, no matter what the cause or circumstance is, is a recipe for disaster. Its still a highly unsafe thing to do.
    - 7y ago

nafey 7y ago

The other side of the coin is that a lot of very talented people congregate in places like Silicon Valley, so you rule out the potential of hiring/working for/working with them.

cbm-vic-20 7y ago
There are a lot of very talented people in places like Seattle and Boston, too, and yet the VCs and companies out in SF/SV are stuck in their little bubble.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Let them stay in their bubble. Every time CA vomits out a substantial number of upper-middle/upper class people it ruins another city, sometimes a whole state.
JohnFen 7y ago
Although SV culture seems to think otherwise, there are lots of very talented people across the rest of the nation as well. I've found them everywhere that I've worked.

lalos 7y ago

One could argue that this is the reason for why it's expensive, to limit the amount of people that can be there. The invisible hand at play.

Johnny555 7y ago
That doesn't really seem to be working -- people are coming but are doubling and tripling (and quadrupling) up in housing that wasn't meant to accommodate them. Of course, that's nothing new - I rented a large closet (literally a closet) when I first moved to SF over 2 decades ago. Eventually I got promoted to the formal dining room (which unfortunately was the walkway from the bedrooms to the livingroom, but still beat living in a closet!)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]