7 ms·

I may or may not meet your definition as a nimby 28 year old. I am all for housing, just not the type being built in my area. Dozens of “luxury” units built che

I may or may not meet your definition as a nimby 28 year old. I am all for housing, just not the type being built in my area. Dozens of “luxury” units built cheaply, selling for 4,000$ for a 1 bedroom. They get subsidized by the local government for including maybe 5 units that are “low income” and probably still cost 2k - and those low income units go away as soon as the building gets sold to another corporation. I want lots of high quality, dignified housing for myself and my community, not wealth extraction pods. I want real public housing. Housing should be a human right. As it stands now the land is being squatted by mega corporations seeking to extract as much profit from the community as possible.

toomuchtodo 2mo ago
Please consider running for local office to be an advocate for non market social housing in a position of leverage.
ProfessorLayton 2mo ago
Almost everything you said is a typical NIMBY talking point: > Dozens of “luxury” units built cheaply, selling for 4,000$ for a 1 bedroom A nebulous definition of "luxury", and totally ignores the fact that people with money can get what they want anyway, pushing those with less out. So yes, more "luxury" builds help. > They get subsidized by the local government for including maybe 5 units that are “low income” and probably still cost 2k Many purportedly want more low income housing, often at absurd rates like "100% affordable" knowing that projects like that will never pencil out. It's a way of saying "No" without actually saying it. > I want lots of high quality, dignified housing for myself and my community, not wealth extraction pods. Okay, so build some? If you can't build what you want then why stop others from building what they can with the budget they have? >As it stands now the land is being squatted by mega corporations seeking to extract as much profit from the community as possible. It's literally illegal in most places to build more densely due to height, parking requirements, discretionary reviews, etc. impacting everyone interested in building more units (Like for a multigenerational household as seen in elsewhere in the world). This is not just impacting corporations seeking to extract profit.
- rurp 2mo ago
  It's all talking points on both sides. "Build more housing" being the one true solution has become a religious tenant in a lot of wonkish circles. I see it repeated uncritically every single time this topic comes up on HN and similar spaces. The reality is that demand is always going to far outstrip supply in certain areas. You can only cram so many houses into a place like San Franciso, even if you raze the city to the ground and replace it with some yimby paradise that houses 25% more people. The extra supply might lower costs to some degree in the short term but the induced demand will ensure they stay above what someone on an average salary can afford. Everyone seems to understand this when the topic is freeway expansion, but not with housing. The actual solution for housing costs is a lot more complicated and multi-pronged, but that doesn't fit neatly on a bumper sticker. There actually is a ton of affordable housing in the US, but it's mostly in areas that people in influential industries like tech and media tend to sneer at, so it gets dismissed; and suggesting someone move there is practically treated as a human rights abuse. Dramatically increasing housing density does have adverse affects for existing residents. It's fine to say the tradeoffs are worth it, I'm not saying it's never the answer, but even acknowledging that it's a tradeoff usually gets met with dismissive insults from the yimby crowd.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Isn't SF infamously a SFH zone that makes no sense? If you razed the whole city and rebuilt it like Manhattan, you wouldn't have 25% more inhabitants, you'd have 25000% more. And if you improve public transit (I heard BART is some that's pretty good by American standards but not by European standards?) you can drastically widen the area that feels like the core city (just take a look at Berlin which I'm familiar with) giving maybe another 1000% multiplicative increase. Every time I'm in Berlin I love the public transit system there. I think that's because they have a relatively dense network of lines through the city center, and the trains run every 4-5 minutes which means you don't have to check the timetable before going to the station, you can just show up. I haven't visited London or NYC though. I know some cities with more modern train signaling have trains every 1-2 minutes so there is basically always a train at every metro station.
ironman1478 2mo ago
That is all that is allowed due to local and state zoning codes. Loosening restrictions on what can be built will bring down costs and all for more types of buildings. The bland housing is all that pencils out for builders at the moment.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  They did this in New Zealand under Jacinda Ardern's government and house prices have started to fall, but only slightly so far. IIRC the rules were something like, lots in a certain radius of a train station or town center are mandatory mixed-use zoning, overriding any city rules to the contrary. It was very controversial for the national government to override city governments like that.
  - bell-cot 2mo ago
    > In several opinion polls, Ardern's domestic popularity had reached all-time lows by 19 January 2023...[when] Ardern announced she would resign as Labour leader and prime minister by 7 February. -Wikipedia Other political leaders might hesitate to follow such footsteps.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      It was during the coronavirus pandemic. New Zealand successfully avoided the virus completely for a few years, but conspiracy theorists thought she was just being a Nazi.
  - lovich 2mo ago
    Is getting the prices to fall at all not a massive success when they are rising everywhere else? Wouldn’t even just arresting the price increases at 0 while other countries/regions deal with rapidly increasing prices be a win?
- 8note 2mo ago
  i think making it more restrictive would be better? "affordable housing" is the same thing as "luxury housing" asides from the rent sure, you could allow less restrictive builds so that you only get a room with no bathroom or kitchen for $4k but thats not actually better
slibhb 2mo ago
I realize I'm not going to convince you but I just want to say...it's good that companies/individuals make a profit from building housing. Building housing is a pro-social activity that should be rewarded, like farming and healthcare.

toomuchtodo 2mo ago

Please consider running for local office to be an advocate for non market social housing in a position of leverage.

ProfessorLayton 2mo ago

Almost everything you said is a typical NIMBY talking point: > Dozens of “luxury” units built cheaply, selling for 4,000$ for a 1 bedroom A nebulous definition of "luxury", and totally ignores the fact that people with money can get what they want anyway, pushing those with less out. So yes, more "luxury" builds help. > They get subsidized by the local government for including maybe 5 units that are “low income” and probably still cost 2k Many purportedly want more low income housing, often at absurd rates like "100% affordable" knowing that projects like that will never pencil out. It's a way of saying "No" without actually saying it. > I want lots of high quality, dignified housing for myself and my community, not wealth extraction pods. Okay, so build some? If you can't build what you want then why stop others from building what they can with the budget they have? >As it stands now the land is being squatted by mega corporations seeking to extract as much profit from the community as possible. It's literally illegal in most places to build more densely due to height, parking requirements, discretionary reviews, etc. impacting everyone interested in building more units (Like for a multigenerational household as seen in elsewhere in the world). This is not just impacting corporations seeking to extract profit.

rurp 2mo ago
It's all talking points on both sides. "Build more housing" being the one true solution has become a religious tenant in a lot of wonkish circles. I see it repeated uncritically every single time this topic comes up on HN and similar spaces. The reality is that demand is always going to far outstrip supply in certain areas. You can only cram so many houses into a place like San Franciso, even if you raze the city to the ground and replace it with some yimby paradise that houses 25% more people. The extra supply might lower costs to some degree in the short term but the induced demand will ensure they stay above what someone on an average salary can afford. Everyone seems to understand this when the topic is freeway expansion, but not with housing. The actual solution for housing costs is a lot more complicated and multi-pronged, but that doesn't fit neatly on a bumper sticker. There actually is a ton of affordable housing in the US, but it's mostly in areas that people in influential industries like tech and media tend to sneer at, so it gets dismissed; and suggesting someone move there is practically treated as a human rights abuse. Dramatically increasing housing density does have adverse affects for existing residents. It's fine to say the tradeoffs are worth it, I'm not saying it's never the answer, but even acknowledging that it's a tradeoff usually gets met with dismissive insults from the yimby crowd.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Isn't SF infamously a SFH zone that makes no sense? If you razed the whole city and rebuilt it like Manhattan, you wouldn't have 25% more inhabitants, you'd have 25000% more. And if you improve public transit (I heard BART is some that's pretty good by American standards but not by European standards?) you can drastically widen the area that feels like the core city (just take a look at Berlin which I'm familiar with) giving maybe another 1000% multiplicative increase. Every time I'm in Berlin I love the public transit system there. I think that's because they have a relatively dense network of lines through the city center, and the trains run every 4-5 minutes which means you don't have to check the timetable before going to the station, you can just show up. I haven't visited London or NYC though. I know some cities with more modern train signaling have trains every 1-2 minutes so there is basically always a train at every metro station.

ironman1478 2mo ago

That is all that is allowed due to local and state zoning codes. Loosening restrictions on what can be built will bring down costs and all for more types of buildings. The bland housing is all that pencils out for builders at the moment.

inigyou 2mo ago
They did this in New Zealand under Jacinda Ardern's government and house prices have started to fall, but only slightly so far. IIRC the rules were something like, lots in a certain radius of a train station or town center are mandatory mixed-use zoning, overriding any city rules to the contrary. It was very controversial for the national government to override city governments like that.
- bell-cot 2mo ago
  > In several opinion polls, Ardern's domestic popularity had reached all-time lows by 19 January 2023...[when] Ardern announced she would resign as Labour leader and prime minister by 7 February. -Wikipedia Other political leaders might hesitate to follow such footsteps.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    It was during the coronavirus pandemic. New Zealand successfully avoided the virus completely for a few years, but conspiracy theorists thought she was just being a Nazi.
- lovich 2mo ago
  Is getting the prices to fall at all not a massive success when they are rising everywhere else? Wouldn’t even just arresting the price increases at 0 while other countries/regions deal with rapidly increasing prices be a win?
8note 2mo ago
i think making it more restrictive would be better? "affordable housing" is the same thing as "luxury housing" asides from the rent sure, you could allow less restrictive builds so that you only get a room with no bathroom or kitchen for $4k but thats not actually better

slibhb 2mo ago

I realize I'm not going to convince you but I just want to say...it's good that companies/individuals make a profit from building housing. Building housing is a pro-social activity that should be rewarded, like farming and healthcare.