[cheath]

SF has a population density of 18,679 per square mile. NYC has 27,000. There is plenty of room, you'd just have to scale everything along with it.

Also, for what it's worth, > population density = < net pollution. mass transit etc. are great optimizations of resources. these humans already exist - it's just a matter of where they exist.

[stcredzero]

SF has a population density of 18,679 per square mile. NYC has 27,000. There is plenty of room, you'd just have to scale everything along with it.

The problem isn't space. It's NIMBY. It's groupthink disconnected from reality.

[throwawaysea]

NIMBY is a pejorative, and I think this sort of labeling is not conducive to honest conversation.

The truth is that people have different wants/needs. Not everyone wants to live in a high-density megalopolis. Many want a smaller, slower-paced life, with more breathing room. And those who have that and prefer it, don't want to lose it in favor of accommodating others - which is a very rational viewpoint. As such I don't think it is fair to paint it as 'disconnected from reality'.

[stcredzero]

don't want to lose it in favor of accommodating others - which is a very rational viewpoint. As such I don't think it is fair to paint it as 'disconnected from reality'.

When one's "wanting things to be chill" is interfering with society's transferring the reins to the next generation, it is 'disconnected from reality'.

[throwawaysea]

But it's not interfering with a "transfer of the reins". The "next generation" that you're referring to has options - they can certainly make a life in numerous other locations. Instead they are coveting one of the most desirable places in the world, and want that location and its people to change in significant ways to accommodate them. I don't think that's the prior generation interfering as much as the next generation exhibiting entitlement - the entitlement of wanting scarce, highly-valued things, without creating the necessary value to earn it (that is, possessing the necessary wealth).

Moreover, I don't know that your perspective is uniform across any generation.

[stcredzero]

The "next generation" that you're referring to has options - they can certainly make a life in numerous other locations.

Hey that's just too bad you've been priced out of the place you grew up. That's just the market. That's the breaks. Hey, you have options in other places. Quit being entitled!

Instead they are coveting one of the most desirable places in the world, and want that location and its people to change in significant ways to accommodate them.

Instead techies moving there for the sweet, sweet high paying jobs are coveting the most desirable places in the world, and want that location and its people to change in significant ways to accommodate them. The big difference is that they have the money, so they're the ones that get their way. The golden rule: he who has the gold, writes the rules. Again, it's all well and good. It's all legal and within the letter of the law. In an overall view, is such an approach really that smart and benevolent? If you look at it a certain way, no, I don't think that's benevolent and wise.

I don't think that's the prior generation interfering as much as the next generation exhibiting entitlement - the entitlement of wanting scarce, highly-valued things, without creating the necessary value to earn it

Living where you grew up is now entitlement. If you want to live where you grew up, you're going to have to create the necessary value. What, are you entitled!? Again, that's the market reality. That's all technically legal, technically correct. It's still kinda crappy if you look at it from a different point of view.

If it weren't for a certain California law, nearly all of the easily accessible beaches would be owned or indirectly access-controlled by rich people. If it weren't for a certain California law, that condition would be simply market reality. It would be technically legal. It would be technically correct. It would definitely be kinda crappy, though.

It's in the long term interest of us techies to act in ways that are good and benevolent, and show some forbearance in certain matters, even though our market power and money allow us to do it anyways. Social unrest is caused by perceived relative inequality. Wouldn't being forced out of your childhood home by richer people feel quite "unequal?" That said, the answer isn't to try and legislate equality, as that is shown to have the opposite effect. The answer is a market which creates enough housing for all segments of society to live in the "desirable places in the world." That's how they become and stay the "desirable places in the world."

Moreover, I don't know that your perspective is uniform across any generation.

Fair enough.

[cheath]

well, that I completely agree with. :)

[jelliclesfarm]

Reality is self interest.

[stcredzero]

Reality is self interest.

When self interest cuts the next generation off at the knees, it's no longer so well connected to reality.

[jelliclesfarm]

How does it cut the next generation off at the knees?

You are asking those who work hard to avail a certain standard of life to be altruistic? How is this logical?

Why do you think someone would work 10-12-14 hours a day? Spend 2 hours commuting..take no vacations..take enormous risks with low pay for a start up to maybe hit the big leagues? They are risk takers. Risk takers and A types are not altruistic.

And yet..these are the people who made Bay Area desirable.

And immigrants. These are people who were so unhappy with their native countries(not coincidentally, in the Bay Area..this is majority from high population countries) that they were willing to double down and work hard and deal with immigration and leave family, language and culture behind to start a new life in a strange country.

You are asking these immigrants to say YES IN MY BACKYARD? Do you see the irony and/or the humour in that expectation?

If one wants someone to unclench their fists and give up something, then there has to be an incentive for them to do it. You are looking for altruism amongst the crushed middle class. What do they get back in return?

Convert NIMBYs with community benefits or better roads or recreational spots in the city or better schools or just about anything that would make their quality of life better. What kind of negotiation is it to ask someone to sacrifice their deeply held beliefs and fond desires for the promise of WORSENING quality of life? How will this tactic even work?

[stcredzero]

How does it cut the next generation off at the knees?

Building new housing and modifying existing housing costs several orders of magnitude more than it did a half century ago.

Why do you think someone would work 10-12-14 hours a day?

My wife works like that. She's definitely a type A. She's also an immigrant.

They are risk takers. Risk takers and A types are not altruistic.

Calling leaving room for young people to make their way, "altruism?" Arranging society to allow for the next generation is "Altruism!?" Sorry, but that's just good governance. When a society transforms, such that about the only people who can gracefully afford being 20-something newlyweds are 40-something professionals, that society has become truly ossified. In most times and places throughout history, there are places where young lower and working class people can be thrifty and make their way. It's disappearing from a lot of California.

You are asking these immigrants to say YES IN MY BACKYARD? Do you see the irony and/or the humour in that expectation?

My parents are immigrants and my wife is an immigrant. If one cares about the next generation, if one cares about upward social mobility, then "yes in my backyard" is the answer.

We went to a real estate meetup of my wife's alma mater. There was a young man who was with a project building shipping container mother-in-law units, with the goal of increasing density and reducing the cost of housing. Literally, "yes in my backyard" manifested in actual hardware.

[jelliclesfarm]

“Calling leaving room for young people to make their way, "altruism?" Arranging society to allow for the next generation is "Altruism!?" Sorry, but that's just good governance. When a society transforms, such that about the only people who can gracefully afford being 20-something newlyweds are 40-something professionals, that society has become truly ossified. In most times and places throughout history, there are places where young lower and working class people can be thrifty and make their way. It's disappearing from a lot of California.”

Altruism : altruism noun al· tru· ism | \ ˈal-trü-ˌi-zəm \ Definition of altruism 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others charitable acts motivated purely by altruism 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species[..]

governance noun gov· er· nance | \ ˈgə-vər-nən(t)s \ Definition of governance : GOVERNMENT the challenges of national governance [..]

I am not saying no one should care about the next generation. I am saying that even ‘caring for the next generation’ has to be sensible and rational. How is overcrowded schools ‘caring for the next generation?” Or being away from your child due to long commutes? How is worsening air quality and high cost of living and increasing pollution..all attributes of high density cities...’better for the next generation’?

You are saying a child raised in Visalia is worse off than a child raised in Palo Alto. It’s not because of housing density. It’s because of governance that doesn’t provide for good schools in Visalia and not enough support to alleviate school pressure in Palo Alto.

High density housing does NOTHING except generate taxes for the government that spends most of it for the care and feeding of employees and to cover unfunded pension liabilities.

For what it’s worth, CA will not allow container mother in law units in the backyards. It won’t bring in as much property tax as building a three story 2400 sq ft matchbox home on a 3000 sq ft lot for a million dollars price tag to get $12k property tax per annum.

This..THIS..is the reality of California.

[cheath]

I see your perspective - however, the irony to me is that the alternative to urban density is to price out the people who are already there (decreasing their quality of life).

Increasing demand while keeping supply constant will (continue to) be bad news for lower and middle income people.