For many residents, building more housing and letting more people in would irreparably change the “character” of the neighborhood. This can mean more crime, traffic, and pollution.
Past a certain density automotive transportation becomes unfeasable and people will be forced to rely on public or other alternative forms of transportation like walking or riding a bike.
Reducing housing costs would mean changing the way we build cities,shifting to a European or Asian model. Whereas most Californians are very attached to their way of living.
Rising housing prices are already dramatically changing SF. If you want to let residents maintain their way of living, I don't see how thats achieved by pricing poorer residents out of the city entirely. I'm sure most residents would prefer to live in apartments in SF than move to another city entirely.
As for transport, cars are already pretty unfeasable in SF with the population as is. Whats so bad about investing more in public transit and biking?
As for crime and traffic, most larger cities in Europe are much cleaner and safer than SF. More residents means city hall has more money to play with, which it can re-invest into schools, parks, the police, public transit and other things. Cheaper accomodation makes it easier to re-house homeless people and it makes homeless shelters more affordable for the city.
>As for transport, cars are already pretty unfeasable in SF with the population as is. Whats so bad about investing more in public transit and biking?
Simple: Americans hate public transit and biking, and want to stick with cars no matter how infeasible it is. They'd rather commute two hours, each way, in gridlocked traffic than get on a train. And they don't mind becoming fat because of this lifestyle.
>As for crime and traffic, most larger cities in Europe are much cleaner and safer than SF.
That's true, but I will point out that because of Europe's use of diesel, most European cities reek of diesel fumes, and this is bad for public health there.
I'm not fond of the slippery slope argument, particularly when it comes from NIMBY's that bought their houses when markets were at a low because nobody wanted to live in these cities.
Bay area residents, Seattle residents, etc need to get over themselves and accept reality for what it is. They aren't protecting anything but their own sense of self-worth and the "theory" that bad things will happen if a 3 story apartment complex comes into the neighborhood.
The reality is, most of them want their property values insanely high, for when they are ready to sell and move to cheaper cities.
Reality is what we choose to make it through government. Higher density is not inevitable - it is a choice made by urban planning. That applies to employment as well as housing. I see no problem with a new 3 story apartment complex in my neighborhood, and I find the crime argument silly. On the other hand, if we continue to increase the density and population without corresponding improvements to infrastructure (particularly transportation), then the quality of life will decline for those who live here already. That has already been observed by those of us who have lived in the bay area for a long time. The commute time in San Jose has gone from 51.6 minutes in 2008 to 67.6 minutes this year (https://sf.curbed.com/2019/8/16/20808814/san-francisco-commu...). This was in spite of a 6.3% drop in employment in 2009.
Increasing density will actually benefit homeowners more than the status quo, because then their land becomes even more valuable. If you tear down a million dollar house and put up a four unit condo complex each costing $500K, then you essentially double the value. Holding onto a house that nobody can afford has less investment value than converting your land to higher density. The fact of the matter is that people are more motivated by preserving a lifestyle than they are by money.
Of course not everyone agrees on what an ideal lifestyle is, and some people strongly desire higher density. Ultimately voters will decide what type of growth is desirable.
Higher density is inevitable in mega-cities. Geographic boundaries are just a apart of reality. I agree that transportation is key to this expansion, but the Palo Alto's and Seattle's of the US only have way way to go and that's up.
While a lot of people complain about "NIMBY" in the bay area, it's never been clear to me why I have an obligation to rearrange the area I live in to accommodate others who want to live here. People speak about a "shortage of housing", but another way of saying this is that there is a "surplus of high paying jobs". If someone can't afford to live here, then economic forces should make it more attractive to live elsewhere. Employers should see this as well, and relocate their business elsewhere. That's what happened with Intel, and many companies are now focusing their growth outside the bay area.
Just increasing housing density without solving transportation problems will result in a seriously changed lifestyle here, and that is what many people fear. Moreover, efforts to build better transportation in the bay area have been very ineffective. The light rail in Santa Clara County is a good example of this - it crawls through downtown San Jose, has very little ridership, and recovers only a small fraction of operating costs from fares. The jobs have almost always showed up in areas where there is an existing shortage of transit and housing - e.g., Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. At this point the only feasible solution is to turn 101 and 85 into bus-only roads. No more single occupancy vehicles. Then let the market sort out how to provide transit for employers. That would be massively disruptive to existing lifestyles, but probably the only feasible way to increase transportation throughput in the face of increased housing density.
Most of the readership on hacker news is in the tech industry, but I think the biggest problem with housing in the bay area is for non-tech workers.
Depends how you count regrowing from the roots though. Trees can't be too much older because that's around the end of the Ice Age. ;-)
My personal preference is not for a single tall or big tree as much as a sprawling area full of many huge trees. If you're ever in the far-Northern-California area, this hike is amazing:
Not quite. I’ve heard of even older than the following quote but it’s in the Longevity book and I don’t have a direct quote handy:
“
Researchers at the Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research Group then announced the age of another P. longaeva also located in the White Mountains — this one 5,062 years old
Lead used tp be a very common additive in gasoline. In the US there was no legislation to reduce it's use until the 1973 and it wasn't fully banned until 1996.
It can be assumed that any well-trafficked road during or before this period has substantial lead contamination.
It's still allowed in general aviation. Let your lawmakers know if that bothers you. The stakeholders in this case happen to be a small, wealthy minority.
Wealthy on a global level definitely, but as far as Americans go there are lots of relatively normal middle-income hobbyists in GA. You can buy and operate a plane for less than a used car if you're frugal about flying.
You'll find luck with more classic styles. Older generations really appreciated things that lasted a while and were repairable when broken. Rancourt, Quoddy, Redwing Heritage, and many other heritage brands can be found for a decent price and are resoleable when the bottoms wear out.
You'll also have a lot of luck with clothes meant for serious outdoors use. The prices can be seriously inflated but are often found 30-60% off on season end clearance. There are too many brands to list but I'm very happy with my Salomon, La Sportiva, and Inov-8 shoes.
Inov-8 has recently pioneered the use of graphene rubber in the outsoles of their running shoes doubling or even tripling their longevity.
Also keep an eye out for Vibram rubber outsoles. They're an Italian rubber brand known for being more durable. They're a bit more common to find.
Not to get too bleak, but I could imagine a future where people upload their consciences to some server to continue work indefinitely. Your conscience could move from code base to code base ad infinitum.
But why bother with some average Joe's consciousness if you can clone a couple Carmacks, patch them to remove copy protection / willpower / whatever, and get "10x output"
You could even get them to do boring grunt work by telling them it will lead to a promotion, then reset their memory so they don't realize the promotion never comes...
For many residents, building more housing and letting more people in would irreparably change the “character” of the neighborhood. This can mean more crime, traffic, and pollution.
Past a certain density automotive transportation becomes unfeasable and people will be forced to rely on public or other alternative forms of transportation like walking or riding a bike.
Reducing housing costs would mean changing the way we build cities,shifting to a European or Asian model. Whereas most Californians are very attached to their way of living.