4 ms·
As Marc Andreessen recently noted, “They are attacking the demand for housing [whereas the discussion should be] around the supply of housing,” Andreessen said
by wes-exp 13y ago
As Marc Andreessen recently noted,
“They are attacking the demand for housing [whereas the discussion should be] around the supply of housing,” Andreessen said. “Market forces want the Valley to expand; if our politicians show leadership, we have decades of growth ahead of us.”
- fidotron 13y agoI've always had the suspicion that in SV proper no one, and I mean no one, wants any more people near them, as it would destroy the place utterly. Yes, it's sprawl, but at least there's some greenery remaining. If the entire peninsula urbanised it would destroy the quality of life for many in the upper levels of SV. They're all NIMBYs, and to some degree justifiably. The other problem is who wants to live somewhere where so many people are technologists? There's a bad enough bubble around the place already, this would just make it worse. On top of the growing mass of lonely single dudes.
- kqr2 13y agoBut how does one determine the right amount of development? When is a place "destroyed"? Keep in mind that Silicon Valley was once a bunch of orchards. One could have argued that we shouldn't have built any industry here and kept it "pristine". But wait, even the orchards are man-made. Maybe things were better before agriculture... NIMBYs are just picking one point in time and declaring it "optimal".
- wes-exp 13y agoOn top of the growing mass of lonely single dudes If housing were actually affordable to anyone other than (predominantly male) tech engineers, this would be less of a problem. Hence, suppressing growth in housing makes the problem worse, not better.