|
|
|
|
|
|
by lsc
2347 days ago
|
|
|
>The bay area is such an outlier that I almost feel like it should be exempt from broader 'housing cost' discussions. Fixing the bay area housing crisis is a whole other set of concerns. I think it's pretty similar to most other places that were built low density that now have high demand. We need to change the rules to allow high density, and we need public transit. >No one in our area wants more office space. I don't know that there's much of a demand for new office space, the buildings we have are full of vacancies. I... kinda do? back in the days after the crash, I would rent industrial spaces as workshops for my business. I had 1/4 of an industrial condo down the way from the hacker dojo at one point. It was a lot of fun, and only possible 'cause there was a lot of space and it was cheap. I mean, yes, yes, I should have bought. but my point is just that having space is... pretty nice. That, and at work I'm crammed into this open office; they allocate more space to my car in the parking lot than they allocate to me - I think we'd all enjoy a few more sqft. |
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/business/economy/reno-gro...
Both of these cities (and metros) are low density (1,049.64 people per sq. km). They're filled with complaints about traffic and growth.
NIMBYs don't want to build up. In Boise, condos are almost exclusively limited to 6 stories, max. Three quarters of downtown is parking lots or roads.
Folks from outer burbs (Meridian and Eagle) don't want to lose parking, and transit is terrible. A bus runs the 5km between Downtown Boise and the airport every 40 minutes.
I think the housing crisis is uniquely painful in the States because of the weird confluence between investing and culture around urban cores, inner burbs, and outer burbs.