4 ms·

Alternately, if people want to exercise their “right” to not look at apartment buildings, they should move somewhere rural where land is cheap enough that no on

Alternately, if people want to exercise their “right” to not look at apartment buildings, they should move somewhere rural where land is cheap enough that no one builds them.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
That’s exactly what people did ~60 years ago. Bought some farmland way outside San Francisco, built houses and a community. No because a few billionaire execs want to keep their companies close to their houses, we are going to tear it all down? By all means, densify downtown San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. But I don’t understand the perverse desire to add density to far suburbs.
- cgy1 7y ago
  One big reason to densify the suburbs (speaking of the bay area in particular) is that they're in Silicon Valley and that's where most of the tech jobs are (e.g., Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.). These cities are willing to let companies come in and collect that sweet tax revenue but are not willing to allow sufficient housing to be built to house all of those workers.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    What sweet tax revenue are you talking about? Cities would make more from a car dealership or an Apple store than a mega office complex. Regardless, it is easier to move the office than build housing for the office. Incentivize companies to be downtown SF/SJ/Oak near transit if density is the goal. Building medium density mid-peninsula is a mess of an idea that will end up creating as many commuters as local workers.
- souprock 7y ago
  People also did that ~60 years ago right in the middle of San Francisco. There was plenty of cheap empty land. I have a relative there who bought her 4-bedroom house in 1963 for $9000. She likes her neighborhood. There is plenty of free parking. If there were still any kids, they could play in the street. Normally there is zero traffic of any kind. There is no trash and certainly no biohazard problem. I guess she votes to keep it that way. Wouldn't most people do so? She helped create the neighborhood that so many people envy. Anybody else who wants a similar neighborhood can go do the same thing: build a house in a cheap area with open land, then live there for 56 years. What people are demanding is to skip that effort. People don't want to build out on empty hills and then wait 56 years. They just want to take what people like her created, degrading it with excess traffic.

Alternately, if people want to exercise their “right” to not look at apartment buildings, they should move somewhere rural where land is cheap enough that no one builds them.

WillPostForFood 7y ago

That’s exactly what people did ~60 years ago. Bought some farmland way outside San Francisco, built houses and a community. No because a few billionaire execs want to keep their companies close to their houses, we are going to tear it all down? By all means, densify downtown San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. But I don’t understand the perverse desire to add density to far suburbs.

cgy1 7y ago
One big reason to densify the suburbs (speaking of the bay area in particular) is that they're in Silicon Valley and that's where most of the tech jobs are (e.g., Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.). These cities are willing to let companies come in and collect that sweet tax revenue but are not willing to allow sufficient housing to be built to house all of those workers.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  What sweet tax revenue are you talking about? Cities would make more from a car dealership or an Apple store than a mega office complex. Regardless, it is easier to move the office than build housing for the office. Incentivize companies to be downtown SF/SJ/Oak near transit if density is the goal. Building medium density mid-peninsula is a mess of an idea that will end up creating as many commuters as local workers.
souprock 7y ago
People also did that ~60 years ago right in the middle of San Francisco. There was plenty of cheap empty land. I have a relative there who bought her 4-bedroom house in 1963 for $9000. She likes her neighborhood. There is plenty of free parking. If there were still any kids, they could play in the street. Normally there is zero traffic of any kind. There is no trash and certainly no biohazard problem. I guess she votes to keep it that way. Wouldn't most people do so? She helped create the neighborhood that so many people envy. Anybody else who wants a similar neighborhood can go do the same thing: build a house in a cheap area with open land, then live there for 56 years. What people are demanding is to skip that effort. People don't want to build out on empty hills and then wait 56 years. They just want to take what people like her created, degrading it with excess traffic.