4 ms·

The way to make the bay sustainable is to build taller buildings for people to live in. This doesn’t seem to be the solution to the problem. People don’t want

The way to make the bay sustainable is to build taller buildings for people to live in. This doesn’t seem to be the solution to the problem. People don’t want to “buy” and raise families in high rise condos. I live in Berkeley and we have a shit ton of new condo units coming on the market every month and I can’t believe they’re anywhere near capacity and every one has low-income housing units. The greater Bay Area has a shit ton of available land that could fill a need for single family homes. Heck running Bart to Marin would bring a whole new world of commutable homes in range. Turn 92 into a 6-8 lane highway instead of 2 and the whole half moon bay side of San Mateo county comes in range. If the goal is affordable single family homes improving access to these areas from a commute perspective would do more.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> People don’t want to “buy” and raise families in high rise condos There are hundreds of millions if not billions of people happily doing this. Including in the U.S., e.g. New York, San Francisco and Boston. > improving access to these areas from a commute perspective would do more You're describing massive public works to sustain a low-density lifestyle. Those populations couldn't pay for that infrastructure. So it's asking, once again, cities to subsidize suburbs.
- mikeryan 5y ago
  There are hundreds of millions if not billions of people happily doing this. Let me be clear - I'm responding to a post about "Skyscrapers" in the Bay Area, which is a poorly defined term but if you say its 10 stories how many residential buildings of more that 10 stories do you believe exist in SF? I've lived in the Bay Area my entire life and literally zero people who have raised a family in a "Skyscraper" or high rise. New York is the only city I'm aware of where this is a common occurrence but even in those communities raising a family in a High-Rise is a sign of wealth. There are not hundreds of millions of people raising families in Skyscrapers and high rises, there's likely not even enough inventory in those types of buildings for that statement to event make sense.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    For the “in the US” section, you’re probably right. Perhaps he’s from abroad. I was raised in a superblock-style neighborhood. Lived on the 6th floor (which would be the 7th to Americans)! Honestly, only the mid wealthy lived in non-flats. Everyone else had a flat.
epistasis 5y ago
> People don’t want to “buy” and raise families in high rise condos. I live in Berkeley and we have a shit ton of new condo units coming on the market every month and I can’t believe they’re anywhere near capacity and every one has low-income housing units. Your feelings are not everyone's feelings, and not everyone wants the same things. I have two kids, and would love noooothing more in the word than being able to live some place where we could walk to our daily activities rather than piling into the damn car. That's only possible with high density and shared parks. That's exactly what I want. But even if I'm only 5% of families, there's still tooooooons of non-families that would love those condos. Much better than 6 unrelated people splitting rooms in a four bedroom detached house, plus that frees up the detached house for those that really want it for their families. Look around at all those single family neighborhoods in the Bay Area with seemingly inadequate street parking. That's because there are soooo many adults splitting up those homes. There's also all sorts of people that want to downsize as they age, and also get out of their cars to live their daily life. This doesn't have to be you. But there are tons if peol who feel this way, and their preferred way of life has been literally banned by law. There's only a very very few tiny areas where it's allowed, and it's in such ridiculous demand that it's often more expensive than much more spacious housing.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> People don’t want to “buy” and raise families in high rise condos There are hundreds of millions if not billions of people happily doing this. Including in the U.S., e.g. New York, San Francisco and Boston. > improving access to these areas from a commute perspective would do more You're describing massive public works to sustain a low-density lifestyle. Those populations couldn't pay for that infrastructure. So it's asking, once again, cities to subsidize suburbs.

mikeryan 5y ago
There are hundreds of millions if not billions of people happily doing this. Let me be clear - I'm responding to a post about "Skyscrapers" in the Bay Area, which is a poorly defined term but if you say its 10 stories how many residential buildings of more that 10 stories do you believe exist in SF? I've lived in the Bay Area my entire life and literally zero people who have raised a family in a "Skyscraper" or high rise. New York is the only city I'm aware of where this is a common occurrence but even in those communities raising a family in a High-Rise is a sign of wealth. There are not hundreds of millions of people raising families in Skyscrapers and high rises, there's likely not even enough inventory in those types of buildings for that statement to event make sense.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  For the “in the US” section, you’re probably right. Perhaps he’s from abroad. I was raised in a superblock-style neighborhood. Lived on the 6th floor (which would be the 7th to Americans)! Honestly, only the mid wealthy lived in non-flats. Everyone else had a flat.

epistasis 5y ago

> People don’t want to “buy” and raise families in high rise condos. I live in Berkeley and we have a shit ton of new condo units coming on the market every month and I can’t believe they’re anywhere near capacity and every one has low-income housing units. Your feelings are not everyone's feelings, and not everyone wants the same things. I have two kids, and would love noooothing more in the word than being able to live some place where we could walk to our daily activities rather than piling into the damn car. That's only possible with high density and shared parks. That's exactly what I want. But even if I'm only 5% of families, there's still tooooooons of non-families that would love those condos. Much better than 6 unrelated people splitting rooms in a four bedroom detached house, plus that frees up the detached house for those that really want it for their families. Look around at all those single family neighborhoods in the Bay Area with seemingly inadequate street parking. That's because there are soooo many adults splitting up those homes. There's also all sorts of people that want to downsize as they age, and also get out of their cars to live their daily life. This doesn't have to be you. But there are tons if peol who feel this way, and their preferred way of life has been literally banned by law. There's only a very very few tiny areas where it's allowed, and it's in such ridiculous demand that it's often more expensive than much more spacious housing.