[HN Gopher] Tech booms fuelled liveability busts in Silicon Vall...
___________________________________________________________________
Tech booms fuelled liveability busts in Silicon Valley and
Bengaluru
Author : venkatananth
Score : 89 points
Date : 2022-07-24 10:37 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (daily.thesignal.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (daily.thesignal.co)
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| Wow! I had been to a few of the offices in the place mentioned in
| the article and in 2018 I had to visit the home (a Villa inside
| APR) of a potential big customer. As I drove in with my co-
| founder through the checks and meandered toward the Villa, the
| first thing that escaped from my lips were, "Did we just landed
| somewhere in California?" It looked extremely close to the place
| of my long-time late business partner's home in South Pasadena --
| kid's bike on the patio, manicured lawns, garages with seagull
| cars parked.
|
| Of course, there are the usual well-boxed apartment complex
| within the massive compound but these Villas are the epitome of a
| self-contained bubble in Bangalore. The entrance to the place
| from the main road is even not easy to navigate for first-timers.
|
| However, the biggest dread now in Bangalore is stepping out of
| our home or the complexes. Many of the roads remind me of final
| destination every time I drove out.
|
| Disclosure: I'm also hiding in another community where my
| neighbors are the founders, and similar suites in many Indian
| Startups, including quite a few expats transplanted by Indian
| Company acquisitions of International Companies. And yes, the
| Third Wave co-founder is one and I got his home-made coffee
| during the Pandemic delivered at my doorstep (cool guy). Also, I
| find that the term "Third-Wave Coffee" and "Peak Bengaluru"
| always tend to go hand-in-hand. ;-)
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Bengaluru's unlivability is entirely due to the failure of the
| public administration and widespread corruption.
|
| There is no public transport. The metro that was supposed to be
| completed years ago is in a perpetual state of delay. The roads
| are always dug up for some random construction project that
| never gets done on time.
|
| The airport is a source of woe for everyone since its at least
| an hour away from all offices and residential areas. The only
| reason it was made so far from the main city is because
| politicians owned a lot of land in that area and wanted to
| appreciate its value.
|
| Bengaluru will continue to remain unlivable because India's
| educated technocrat class is too tiny to have any real say in
| the state or even the city's politics.
|
| At least the weather is nice and crime isn't all that bad.
| Delhi can't even boast of that.
| samarthr1 wrote:
| BMTC says hello. I live in South Bengaluru, near nice road
| and Hosur road... I get a bus to majestic every 5 minutes all
| hours of the day, and am air-conditioned bus every 15 minutes
| or so.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Buses are okay but a city of Bengaluru's size needs a
| metro.
|
| Delhi is awful but its awfulness is improved greatly by the
| metro.
| samarthr1 wrote:
| Fair enough. I too long for the day the metro crosses
| jaydeva hospital... The folks at BMRCL are building a 5
| layer system there (1 underpass, 1 flyover, 1 street
| level, 2 levels of metro as there is a changeover at
| jaydeva).
|
| The fun part is that the part of the line after silk
| board (down south, towards hosur) is done, and is billed
| to start operations this year.
| saimiam wrote:
| > educated technocrat class is too tiny
|
| We (the Indian technocrat cohort) need to get into politics.
| gopalv wrote:
| > We (the Indian technocrat cohort) need to get into
| politics
|
| This could be lifted out of Plato's Republic and it would
| be exactly as relevant.
|
| But the counter-point is that politicians run very close to
| their electorate's ideas (or selectorate's) - most
| politicians are not stupid people, so when you see them
| pushing stupid ideas, it is their commentary on the
| audience they are pandering to.
|
| I met Sam Pitroda in the late 90s. His commentary on C-DOT
| was a complete wet blanket on my theories of how the world
| is changing through technology.
|
| The theory is sort of the opposite of a "resource curse" -
| a "human resource curse" if you will. If what you end up
| exporting are humans, not things you dig out of the ground.
| mindentropy wrote:
| >His commentary on C-DOT was a complete wet blanket on my
| theories of how the world is changing through technology.
|
| Could you expand on this? I am interested to know what
| were his opinions.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I would object, The Indian technocrat cohort is giant, and
| makes most of high grade ICS officials. Tons of engineers
| there, an irrefutable fact.
|
| On other hand, I would say civil service in India is
| horrifically elitist, and values degrees, over competency,
| and real experience.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| It always boggles my mind how much bureaucrats are
| venerated in India. IAS/IPS officers become legit
| celebrities.
|
| Part of my bear thesis on India is that no country can
| progress that venerates the bureaucracy.
| [deleted]
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| You can put all the investment in the world, but you cannot
| take the mindset of corruption from Indians. Given a chance, on
| average, they will take the easy way out. The biggest curse of
| India was Infosys and the "IT boom" which brought in thousands
| of low level jobs to India, bolstered the economy but killed
| any innovation in the country. All the thinking and innovation
| was done in the west and cheap bodies were provided by India.
| That's why Java was so popular in India. It allows for very
| little creativity. Leaving India's reputation as a place for
| cheap, dumb labour with low quality code or scammers. Only
| recently a tiny subset are trying to break out of this mold.
| kwatsonafter wrote:
| [deleted]
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| Ah! You forgot to mention why you have that opinion, Mr.
| Kishore Krishna Das.
| kwatsonafter wrote:
| baybal2 wrote:
| Americans are prone to "projection," not learning, but using
| their closest experiences to explain new things, even when most
| obvious rational explanation stands against it. "Everything must
| be like in America."
|
| I have tons of Indian friends, and spent months on assignments in
| South Asia.
|
| _There is absolutely no contest to the idea that IT been
| overwhelmingly, massively beneficial for South India, far
| exceeding all maladies._ Anybody coming with an idea like "lets
| bulldoze Bengaluru because hipsters say so," or punitively tax IT
| will be skinned alive there.
|
| Anti-development agenda does resonate within the country at all
| sans few communist holdout areas. It is universally outside party
| discourse, nationalists are for the IT, congress are for IT, even
| communists are for IT lately, and whomever says otherwise will be
| voted out faster that you can blink.
|
| Similarly, people pooing on manufacturing relocating to South
| Asia have zero idea how damn glad people are for new factories
| coming there. Valley hipsters coming to "save oppressed workers"
| are surprised when the same workers, and union leaders come to
| violently lash out at them.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Bringing outside money into somewhat impoverished area is
| massively beneficial for it area. It might have some negative
| externalities. But on average it is likely to improve
| everyone's living conditions. Economic activity is what drives
| development. Give it a few decades and the once expensive will
| be affordable for average people.
|
| On other hand overheating a existing developed market might not
| be so great for anyone but early investors moving out from the
| market.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| None of this is antithetical to simple ideas of creating better
| public transport, public spaces, and more affordable housing.
| baybal2 wrote:
| yunohn wrote:
| > punitively tax IT will be skinned alive there.
|
| If anything, IT (software) employees are the most diligent
| white-collar taxpayers. They have no option and are paying an
| outsized share if you ask me.
|
| What gives you the idea that the average IT worker needs to be
| taxed even more?
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| [..]Mohandas Pai, the former Infosys director and poster boy of
| Bengaluru's tech boom, feels the rot runs deep. "There's a high
| degree of corruption in every wing: roads, governance and
| garbage," Pai tells The Intersection. "The government collects
| taxes from urban areas, but invests them in rural regions." He
| nevertheless thinks the city's un-livability is an exaggeration.
| Mohandas Pai, the former Infosys director and poster boy of
| Bengaluru's tech boom, feels the rot runs deep. "There's a high
| degree of corruption in every wing: roads, governance and
| garbage," Pai tells The Intersection. "The government collects
| taxes from urban areas, but invests them in rural regions." He
| nevertheless thinks the city's un-livability is an exaggeration.
| [..]
|
| He hit the nail on the head. This is exactly the same with Bay
| Area governance. No local govt..everything is regionally governed
| and distributed statewide.
| xony wrote:
| mouzogu wrote:
| is there such thing as peak "unliveability". where a place
| becomes a hellish nightmare for all but the 1%.
|
| or does the gap get wider forever and we are heading toward some
| kind of real dystopia.
|
| i mean what eventually happens to over-saturated markets, be it
| housing, jobs or whatever else. when demand vs supply reaches
| peak disequilibrium (cant think of a better word..)
| ben_w wrote:
| The worst it can get is people starving to death, which has
| happened several times even since the agricultural revolution
| thanks to political decisions.
|
| I don't really expect the situation to get that bad in this
| case, however.
| timst4 wrote:
| Speaking of disequilibrium, this is almost the same question
| that is plaguing the American Southwest regarding water. Is
| there a point that Las Vegas becomes unlivable? Is it when the
| lake runs dry? Is it when water has to be pipelined from
| desalination plants? Is it when water costs more than oil? In
| my opinion there is a fail point here; however, many in the 1%
| do not believe it's will happen. The perpetual growth train is
| still on the tracks and steaming away.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| > Is it when water has to be pipelined from desalination
| plants?
|
| You say that like it's impossible, or even cost prohibitive.
| Maybe for farming, but Las Vegas isn't known for farming.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| This is an interesting question, one I've pondered for a while.
|
| This is speculation, but here's what I believe: Let's assume
| wealth follows a Pareto distribution, with the single parameter
| alpha determining the shape of that curve, and thus the
| resulting income inequality.
|
| I think that growth of real economic output / GDP probably has
| a maximum for some alpha, above which, increased inequality
| slows down growth. I suspect it also declines BELOW a certain
| alpha since it offers fewer people with extreme capital to the
| market capable of making moonshots.
|
| However, that doesn't mean growth stops, and I suspect the
| people high on the curve have little incentive to change. I'm
| not sure though. Is it better to have ownership of X percent of
| wealth, and greater relative wealth, or X-e percent of wealth,
| less relative wealth but more growth?
|
| Now... ostensibly, I don't think there's likely to be a 'peak'.
| It would defy the assumptions of a market. If housing prices
| rise so high there aren't enough buyers, prices would fall.
| However... famously, certain billionaires have been known to
| buy up all the houses around theirs at exorbitant prices to
| enhance privacy. So I suppose you could still see vacant
| housing, but no fall in prices.
|
| That said, in general, quality of life would decline for lots
| of people. We'd see a lot more roommates and extended family
| groups living together to make it affordable. People in US
| cities used to do that a lot actually, and we might see a
| return to that.
|
| There has historically been a floor though, where below that,
| things are so bad that people don't have much to lose by taking
| up arms, dragging rich people into the street and cutting their
| heads off.
|
| Another angle in modern times is that we are seeing such a
| precipitous drop in birth rates in the West, that I suspect
| we'll start to see countries compete for people interested in
| having children by creating financial incentives and friendlier
| conditions to do so.
| lumost wrote:
| I suspect that beyond a certain point on the wealth curve
| your wealth or growth of that wealth stops mattering to you.
| I'm sure their are those who continue working at it as it
| makes them feel valued- but it's difficult to spend more than
| a few million dollars a year without being frivolous to the
| point of stupidity.
|
| Which means you'll have a lot of unmotivated money, or money
| that's only interested in preserving a relative position on
| the economic latter - far from the meritocratic capitalist
| dream.
| ushakov wrote:
| i'd say Bali (Indonesia) is a good example of "a hellish
| nightmare for all but the 1%"
| tellmelies wrote:
| Yes, but you too can be a part of that 1% if only for a few
| weeks.
| deepdriver wrote:
| Key West, Florida is what peak unliveability looks like:
|
| https://www.keywestislandnews.com/2022/02/can-real-people-li...
|
| Comment from "SixGenFam:"
|
| >As a conch family, with generations buried in the local
| graveyard and my whole life here, we have to leave kw. There's
| no potential for security anymore. The only other average
| conchs my age I know who are planning to stay have housing
| assistance. They can only stay because of govt assistance that
| I'll never qualify for. And the number of homes available to
| people with housing assistance is very limited. The only others
| I know that can stay are inheritors. Kids who's parents owned
| nice homes or businesses on Duval etc and they were blessed
| with the hand me downs.
|
| >Thing is we have way too many tourists on average here now and
| nobody will be here to serve them. And beyond the frivolous
| ways of serving them, (drinks, food and clean rooms) what of
| the safety and community? Nurses, teachers, cops.. None of them
| qualify for the affordable housing income restrictions. They
| never fit the bracket, but they barely make enough to pay
| market rents. Without a properly staffed hospital, how is it
| safe to host thousands of tourists? We always say "well now
| who's going to clean your rooms??" as if only housecleaning are
| being run out of town. But no, it's the entire foundation of
| what makes a city run, and it's crumbling, rapidly.
| xbar wrote:
| I believe it. I am sad about. It is a form of cultural
| destruction.
|
| My very poorly founded opinion is that Travelvlogs, Airbnb,
| TripAdvisor, and similar attacks on the obscurity of such
| locations coupled with the permissive treatment of housing as
| markets for out-of-region investment have erased livability
| almost everywhere.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The root cause is explosion of number of people with the
| capability to travel and travel far for leisure.
|
| 8B people on this planet and only so many tropical resorts
| and beaches, accessible snow capped mountain hikes, and
| grand waterfalls.
| xbar wrote:
| Population growth is a localized problem.
|
| Isn't it is the policies that permit mobility from
| population-exploding locations into slow-growth locations
| that cause cultural destruction?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Sure, but restriction of people's movement, especially
| within a nation, is not going to be a popular political
| position.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Tropical resorts and beaches likely can be build to
| service enough of them. Ofc, they will be very
| manufactured, but I think they could be viable. Just
| already look to some destinations like Canary Islands.
| Where most of build area is some type of resort...
| Building areas for pure tourism might be wasteful, but
| might also be least bad option in general.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| > Thing is we have way too many tourists on average here now
| and nobody will be here to serve them
|
| One thing I've been pondering lately is why we had such a
| spike in tourism. I think the usual economic variables come
| into play but social media (especially Instagram) takes much
| of the blame in my mind.
|
| The problem I see is popularity gets clustered into several
| locations based on what is popular. So a place that looks
| pretty on Instagram and gets tons of likes and shares gets
| overrun with tourist, whereas an equally beautiful place gets
| zero attention because it didn't get massive attention on
| social media.
|
| I live in Colorado and we have a bunch of "outdoor
| influencers" here and many of the locations they have
| recommended have become overrun with tourists and locals
| alike. It's gotten to the point where I will browse their IG
| profiles to see where not to go.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > One thing I've been pondering lately is why we had such a
| spike in tourism.
|
| A lot of it is likely a spike in tourism in general. There
| are plenty of affluent young people and air travel is
| cheaper than ever, so it isn't usual for people in my
| social circle to take 2 big trips and 4-8 smaller trips a
| year. To my Dad, the idea of travelling across a continent
| for a weekend is nuts (and he was also among the affluent
| young growing up). For me, that's a perfectly normal thing
| to casually do.
|
| For him, the thing was road trips, so he was limited to a
| certain geographic area. With air travel, weekends are only
| limited to North America with a bit of the East off the
| table because of the messy connections required to get
| there from Western Canada.
|
| He went camping to the local park and went to museums a few
| hours away. I visit museums thousands of Km away instead.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > nobody will be here to serve them
|
| Has this ever happened? I have heard this prediction about
| everything from Toronto to New York to Los Angeles to Hong
| Kong for years and it has never seemed to come true.
|
| There are people willing to make extreme sacrifices to live
| in certain places. People will live 5 to a room in cockroach
| infested 100 year old apartments to stay in certain places.
|
| In Toronto, labour is no more expensive to purchase than the
| rest of Canada (minimum wage laws aside). Toronto is worth it
| to enough people to have a bunk in a bunk bed over a room to
| oneself while working in fast food.
|
| People can also commute. Vancouver is notorious for having
| teachers commute from Abbotsford. In Toronto, people will
| commute 2.5 hours each way from Barrie or London.
|
| A lot just may be that the older people get replaced with
| less resource intensive young people who don't have kids,
| need less medical care, and are happier in less space.
| solarmist wrote:
| Not yet to my knowledge. This is new territory which is why
| you have theses claims being unfulfilled.
|
| I expect we'll see it in a smallish community like key west
| first where bussing in service people will become
| impossible. But maybe they'll start building employee dorms
| and bus people in for their shifts (x days on, y days off).
| Who knows.
|
| No one knows where the breaking point is, only that there
| is one.
| klipt wrote:
| > employee dorms
|
| If you look at feudal England this is basically what
| happened - the rich landowner class provided servants'
| quarters for their employees.
|
| Of course that crushes job mobility, because you can't
| leave your job without losing your housing...
| treespace8 wrote:
| Employee dorms are a real thing here in North America.
|
| After college I had a friend working at in the town of
| Lake Louise Alberta. This is located in a national park
| and the number of homes are extremely limited and very
| expensive.
|
| Visiting my friend they game me the tour of the house. It
| was a three bedroom 2 bath townhouse with 15 people
| living in it. 4 beds per room upstairs, and 3 people in
| the basement.
|
| All the people worked at various retail shops in the
| village. (Not at the chateau) Making minimum wage.
| vijucat wrote:
| The downvotes on this comment are odious and don't help :
| downvote comments that are not well-written, not merely
| because you disagree with the content.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I don't understand why this is downvoted. I, too, have
| heard this and what happens is wages rise and people make
| do. It doesn't actually end up that folks are no longer
| there.
|
| I would expect to easily find occupation data at census
| tract level but no luck. Should help easily verify if this
| is happening.
| georgeburdell wrote:
| As a non-Indian, what does this mean?
|
| "Sunnyvale is an apt name for a city in the heart of Silicon
| Valley, at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay Area, where
| the sky is always blue and largely cloudless. The burgeoning
| population of Indian techies has earned the city its new moniker
| 'Sooraj Nagari', much the way neighbouring Mountain View--home to
| Google's global headquarters--goes by the name 'Pahar Ganj'."
|
| Also, uh what? The 1960s were dominated by hippies, which are
| more like Luddites outside of drug use, if you consider LSD
| "technology". The 1950s and the early Space Age much more align
| with a tech utopian vision
|
| "Silicon Valley owes its ideals of technological utopianism to
| the culture of the 1960s-a heady belief that tech is inherently a
| force for good in the world. "
| pjc50 wrote:
| The overlap was through culture like
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WELL
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| Many of the early tech pioneers in SV were hippies, who sought
| utopia via information sharing, which meant computers
| accessible by all.
| edgyquant wrote:
| No they weren't most were military contractors until 70s.
| This is a romanticized notion based on a few famous
| individuals.
| georgeburdell wrote:
| What is early, and who besides Steve Jobs (who I would not
| consider an early silicon valley pioneer anyway) fits that
| mold? Most were straight-laced tie-wearing scientist-engineer
| types until the dotcom era.
| tauwauwau wrote:
| Richard Stallman still looks like one to me :), I know its
| from late Internet era, but see following
|
| https://youtu.be/4Q7FTjhvZ7Y?t=705
| chrsig wrote:
| richard stallman has always operated out of cambridge, ma
| afaik
| ROTMetro wrote:
| Ummm, while not 'Silicon Valley' the Santa Cruz tech scene
| from the 70s until the early 2000s very much looked like
| this. Maybe not the big guys, but the hundreds of 10-150
| people shops trying to make a more technological world for
| sure. All the industry events I went to over the hill
| seemed fairly well representative of this as well. It had a
| lot more hardware elements so a ton of super hippie stoner
| hardware technicians that don't seem to be part of the
| current monoculture there. Larger name examples being
| Borland, Seagate, EMU, SCO.
|
| And ties? Jean/dress shirt in the 70, polo shirt khakis
| 80-early 2000s was 'formal'. I never saw anyone wearing
| ties other than visiting sale people or visiting 'money
| guys' pre 2000s, not even our AIX repair guys. Not like the
| people when I go back to the Bay Area now, where even their
| 'casual' dress scream of financial excess.
| jogjayr wrote:
| I am Indian, lived in Mountain View and Sunnyvale for nearly a
| decade, and never heard of either of those nicknames for those
| cities.
| tauwauwau wrote:
| Sooraj Nagari == Sun City ~= Sunnyvale
|
| Pahar Ganj == Mountain Neighborhood ~= Mountain View
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| w0mbat wrote:
| The article drags in Sunnyvale, where I live, but can't really
| find one negative thing to say about it. The population reduction
| is purely related to COVID WFH leading some people to work from
| elsewhere, and is temporary. It's a very nice place to live. Low
| crime, good schools, great weather, plenty of jobs. Very
| liveable.
|
| This lazy tendency to lump SF in with Silicon Valley is dumb. SF
| is a peninsula, it's not in the valley. It has a few niche
| companies but the huge bulk of the tech industry is down in the
| valley, which does not have SFs problems.
| andbberger wrote:
| horrible public transit, low density/poor walkability, little
| to no bike infrastructure
|
| the whole penninsula is like that, it's awful. night and day
| between the penninsula and SF, which doesn't even rank that
| highly on the world stage
| w0mbat wrote:
| It's very driveable, traffic is fine and parking is easy.
| Neighborhoods like downtown Mtn View and downtown Sunnyvale
| (where I live) are very walkable but you don't have to walk.
|
| Public transport is not the way to go in the valley, but if
| you do use it it's much safer than public transport in SF.
| andbberger wrote:
| a liveable city, this does not make.
|
| and public transport in SF is perfectly safe.
| jfim wrote:
| High cost of living, the most exciting thing happening in town
| is the farmer's market, good schools doesn't apply to all of
| Sunnyvale, lack of diversity, everything that's moderately
| interesting is closing down (we lost weird stuff warehouse,
| fry's, etc.), the list goes on and on.
|
| It's liveable if one's idea of living is going to their tech
| job and maybe hiking on the weekends, but otherwise it's really
| boring.
| w0mbat wrote:
| The big thing recently was the Obon Festival in San Jose
| Japantown, we had a great time. The valley is very Asian, if
| you don't make any asian friends you are missing out.
|
| The fact you say "lack of diversity" when many parts of the
| south bay are more than 50% Asian, makes you sound like the
| kind of racist who just does not see Asian people. Similarly,
| San Jose is 40% Hispanic and it's a big part of the culture
| down here.
| pts_ wrote:
| Tech's obsession with real estate is oxymoronic and dumb.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| The (elected) Indian city council member of my Bay Area City took
| others to Bangalore for a show and tell using tax dollars. This
| trip was later used to defend the high density housing plans. And
| then there was another trip to Shanghai. (None to Singapore
| interestingly where high density actually works because the govt
| is efficient and provides state housing to more than 70% of pop).
|
| It was appalling for all immigrants who did come from their over
| populated high density failed urban centers. In the end, more
| housing. But our PD has been slashed(more crime now), road
| diet(more cycle lanes but traffic jams), over crowded schools,
| higher water and power bills(14hour power disruption yesterday in
| adjacent neighborhood...
|
| Looks like there is a toxic exchange of energy between two
| corrupt govts that are learning from each other after burping all
| the tax dollars from the burgeoning tech sector. They have
| effectively made the tech sector as the villain so the people can
| fight amongst each other while they can march towards their
| higher political goals. Many city officials have gone on to state
| senate.
|
| The elected official who organized the Bangalore trip was picked
| up by one of the FAANG's billion dollar affordable housing
| initiatives after their term was over. Hmmm...this feels
| familiar. Where have I seen this before I moved to the Bay Area?
| immigrantheart wrote:
| Putting my "Game Theory" hat and "Systems Thinking" hat.
|
| Given the "Law of Induced Demand", can anyone here explain to me
| why cheap housing is possible?
|
| I would think that all these systems (as in, systems thinking)
| are functioning the way it supposed to be.
|
| Overpopulation will eventually result in population decline.
| Because it is too expensive, not enough space/resource, everyone
| wants the same location, jobs, etc. System oscillates.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Because SV and Vancouver housing shortage is exacerbated by
| NIMBY zoning crap restricted by politics outside of your so-
| called capitalistic forces.
|
| Even if the system works as you say it would, is the outrageous
| human cost it entails just a detail for you? We are not trading
| transistors or currency notes, we are trading people. "Pricing
| a demographic out" means dislocating vulnerable families again
| and again as they desperately try to sustain and make an honest
| living. If we can devise a better system than this abattoir you
| describe, we owe it to any existing conscience to try and
| implement it.
|
| It's only natural to feel like the system is working because
| you've been successful. It takes a better person than natural
| to think beyond how things have worked for them and try to
| think of the whole system and it's participants.
| nradov wrote:
| A better system would be to create incentives for economic
| growth in other areas rather than trying to cram ever
| increasing numbers into a few limited existing urban areas.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Yes, if the goal is to bring prices of SF/NYC down, then
| make more SF/NYC.
|
| Of course, that type of dense land development is
| impossible in today's legal/political/voting system.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| [deleted]
| immigrantheart wrote:
| When I mentioned "system is working" I mean system as in
| systems thinking. I edit my post to clarify. Please refer to
| that.
|
| I don't live in SF or Bangalore. I also don't own a property.
|
| I'm interested in this discussion, as I say, from Game Theory
| and Systems Thinking perspective. Lets refer to that.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| I still gave my answer nonetheless. Capitalism and related
| "systems" don't always (or ever?) work perfectly in human
| society. Because human nature is unnatural, driven by
| greed/emotions and illogical. See this great article
| explaining it in an engineering company sense:
| https://danluu.com/nothing-works/
| immigrantheart wrote:
| My friend, you are exactly describing systems thinking...
|
| Greed is part of systems.
| solarmist wrote:
| Humans are not in fact rational actors which means most of
| our understanding of economics is deeply flawed.
| jollybean wrote:
| Vancouver has built tower after tower after tower, it's not
| recognizable from 25 years go. Also - it's not the
| responsibility of local residents to demolish their homes and
| move into flats 'so you can live there'. The NIMBYism
| argument is rubbish as you have no right to influence or
| dictate the terms by which some other community wants to
| live.
|
| If people want to live in homes instead of jammed into
| skyscrapers Hong Kong pr NY style - which many would view as
| a horribly reduced quality of living - it's their choice.
|
| NY, HK - two of the most densely urban place in he world
| _have not_ solved the 'housing crisis' - they're among the
| most expensive places in the world to live.
|
| That said, cost of living has skyrocketed far beyond what can
| be attributed to that - fairly high migration, a lot of
| foreign buyers (only 4% directly, but 'kids with citizenship
| using parents money' amounts to a big other cohort) and that
| is very easily enough to drive prices. Combined with low
| interest rates, an aging population with incredible voting
| power/influence, a booming economy and there you have it.
|
| 'Globalization' means SF and Van. basically are 'up for
| grabs' by everyone on the planet, not just locals.
|
| 1/2 of the real estate in the most posh parts of London are
| owned by foreigners for he very same reason.
|
| There needs to be a total rethink on how taxation works in
| those parameters.
|
| That said, it's rational: if a lot of talent wants in, prices
| will be higher. I don't know if 'artists' are going to be
| able to live there without some kind of very specific
| interventions.
|
| Other things, such as public transport can have a huge effect
| - if SF Bay were to be amalgamated into at least some kind of
| 'mega city' you might see high speed commuter trains.
|
| Imagine a very fast train from Stockton, Pleasanton, Gilroy,
| Santa Rosa - getting you to 'wherever' in the Bay area within
| 25 minutes?
|
| There's tons of real estate around the Bay Area, for artists,
| working class, middle class, regular folks, people who want
| 'big houses' etc.. it just not 'accessible' to the core.
|
| Or even micro/satellite offices as a civic mandate: building
| out offices that can be adjusted in size quickly, so that
| Salesforce, FB, Snap etc. will all have offices in San Jose,
| SF, Sacramento and bounce back and forth as needed.
| klipt wrote:
| Vancouver has crazy low property tax which explains the
| rampant speculation and unaffordability. And capital gains
| - without limit - aren't taxed for primary residences.
| favflam wrote:
| Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
|
| The government fails in its mission if it lets a handful of
| people hold the most valuable land hostage. At least Nimbys
| should pay much higher property taxes to make up for the
| economic damage they cause the rest of the country, so they
| can live in a single family home next to a major city
| downtown.
|
| Free up zoning, get rid lopsided tax breaks like prop 13.
| Or end up with a revolution like in France in 1700s. Or
| lose to China.
|
| I painted with some broad strokes here, but the picture is
| clear.
| jollybean wrote:
| "The government fails in its mission if it lets a handful
| of people hold the most valuable land hostage."
|
| ? This is upside down.
|
| It's _only valuable because you want it_. It 's not
| 'intrinsically valuable'.
|
| The great thing about America as opposed to most parts of
| the world is that there is _plenty of land_.
|
| Go 100Km out of SF Bay and land is very cheap.
|
| 'Life Liberty and Pursuit of Hapniness' means a bunch of
| angry people cannot arbitrarily force you out of your
| home, because they want to 'move in'.
|
| If this were a perverse issue of resource hoarding - i.e.
| everyone in SF was living on 30 acres of land and not
| willing to budge, then this would be a different
| discussion.
|
| The 'American Dream' is not the right to live in the most
| choice plot in the US, it's just to have a nice spot,
| safe, secure etc..
|
| If SF/Valley is where the jobs are, and you can't afford
| to live there - that's very fair. Push the companies to
| get some kind of good transport in place. Or adapt in
| some other way.
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| > Or adapt in some other way.
|
| Like, you know, by building more housing. Government
| restrictions is what put us in this mess in the first
| place.
| jollybean wrote:
| I don't think you're getting it.
|
| It's not in any way your right to tell some people living
| in a community that they need to build more (or anything
| else).
|
| It's incredibly selfish and petty, and oddly people are
| trying to couch this in some kine of 'liberation'
| language?
|
| 'The government' isn't really restricting, so much as
| community members.
|
| Parts of SF (or wherever) don't want to build skyscrapers
| - it's their choice - and none of your business, unless
| you're a resident.
|
| There's _tons_ of land in the US, and a lot of it is very
| inexpensive.
| SR2Z wrote:
| This assumes that there are no people in SF who would
| like to densify their land, which is OBVIOUSLY not true.
|
| It's not outsiders vs SF residents, it's SF residents vs
| SF residents.
| SR2Z wrote:
| The American Dream is not when some NIMBY tells me I
| can't bulldoze my SFH to put up a six story apartment
| building.
|
| Your framing of this issue is frankly ridiculous - it's
| SF homeowners vs other residents and property owners in
| SF who would like to densify their land.
|
| It's not about people's right to live anywhere, it's
| about people's right to do as they wish with their
| property.
| jollybean wrote:
| I wasn't framing it as the 'American Dream' I was
| responding to the OP's comment talking about 'Life
| Liberty etc.'.
|
| Your framing of 'I can do whatever I want' is what's
| 'ridiculous'.
|
| You can't build a skyscraper on your property arbitrarily
| because it affects others in the immediate vicinity.
|
| If the community doesn't want skyscrapers - you can't
| have skyscrapers.
|
| There are infinity locations to build in the USA, which
| means can whatever you want on the whole.
|
| Go away from the community that doesn't want the things
| you want to build, to one that does.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| I think you just used a few hundred words to still spell
| out "not in my backyard."
|
| I've lived in NY. Many of my friends are people who moved
| from SF to NY. The housing in ny is much better than SF.
| For the same rent you get a place with 3x better commute,
| and 100x less syringes and feces. This is just for the
| skilled workers. Even a commute from Staten Island is
| nothing compared to the horrendous commuting conditions
| I've heard from some of the less fortunate folks still
| trying to make it in the Bay Area.
|
| All because a bunch of rich privileged people keep
| insisting some grass in front of their house will make them
| happy and nothing else will so screw everyone else.
| jollybean wrote:
| This is brutally selfish populism, totally lacking self
| awareness.
|
| It's none of your business what other people want to do
| within their communities, and it's ridiculous that you
| think you have the right to tell them - but worse - to
| disparage and gaslight others for not wanting to change
| their lives dramatically to suit your little agenda and
| lifestyle choices?
|
| Of course - SF vs. NY is mostly a matter of choice.
|
| From my purview - NY is a giant pile of hot concrete and
| garbage, I would never live there for any reason. It's
| laughable that anyone would contemplate spending such
| vast sums to live in a 'tiny box' even for a shorter
| 'shorter commute'. But that's just me.
|
| In my (previous) years of living in SF, I've never come
| across a 'syringe' or 'shit' - moreover, that's entirely
| a function of civic break down and kind of besides the
| point - it's another, separate issue.
|
| SF is otherwise a lovely city that I have no interest in
| living in anymore, but if they don't want to build
| skyscrapers it's entirely their prerogative.
|
| I probably could not afford to live there now, much like
| I can't afford to live many places, that's just reality.
| Other, richer people want to live there. Oh well. There
| are innumerable nice places where I, and others, can live
| and be just as prosperous.
| marcinzm wrote:
| I think the point is that this possibly doesn't really matter
| and there is no level of building that will keep up. It's
| cheaper to move to SF than it is to build a house in SF and
| always will be. Allowing more housing won't help until you
| get to an very massive number of units as you'll simply have
| even more people moving in which will fuel the crisis even
| more until construction cannot keep up. Worse construction
| prices will skyrocket which will impact anyone wanting to do
| any renovation or maintenance (including existing landlords)
| which will drive rents up even more.
| jt2190 wrote:
| > It's cheaper to move to [city] than it is to build a
| house in SF and always will be.
|
| This is exactly it. Further, attempts to preserve the
| current population size of a city and keep things the same
| as they are can only try to deprive newcomers of the
| infrastructure needed to support themselves (housing,
| transit, etc.), but not actually make it illegal for people
| to move in. And quite clearly, they will move in anyway.
| Even cities that try to adapt can only grow so quickly, as
| it takes time to build new infrastructure, but new arrivals
| can come at any time.
|
| In some ways I expect this problem will get worse, as the
| population of people who are decoupled from a particular
| location increases. "Work from home" is nearly the same
| thing as "work from anywhere", and I expect that a lot of
| people will want their "anywhere" to be the currently
| trendy locale, and will throng from place to place.
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| > housing shortage is exacerbated by NIMBY zoning crap
| restricted by politics outside of your so-called capitalistic
| forces.
|
| I mean, there is a cultural aspect to it. I remember a few of
| my white American friends being shocked at the idea of
| raising kids in a condo, because << having a house and a yard
| >> is the only way to have kids. Those people, I'm sure, will
| turn into nimbys in the future because << this housing is not
| for us >>.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| Disclosure: I am a NIMBY.
|
| There is definitely a cultural gap here. Most immigrants
| value stable housing they can own and like minded
| community. Diversity occurs between different communities
| and not expected between every individual we interact
| with..
|
| Social status is important. This is the Old World. Most
| immigrants start out as stateless or on uncertain visas
| with far away homes. The psychological need to own a home
| where it is your castle is very deep. Immigrants are almost
| always NIMBYs in America.
|
| I have examined the reasons why I am a NIMBY. And I am ok
| with it. Moving to another country and culture for economic
| reasons is rewarding on one hand but requires painful
| sacrifices.
|
| I have tried to explain this to Americans and those who
| didn't have to leave their home countries and rebuild their
| identity and lives...some say they understand, but most
| don't get it.
|
| That's ok. There is nothing wrong with being YIMBY or
| NIMBY. Market forces will decide. I have also observed that
| most self declared YIMBYs become NIMBYs when they sign
| their first 30 year mortgage. The weight of a mortgage is
| heavy. Home ownership is not for everyone and it's not a
| walk in the park. Those who willingly bear it will hedge
| their bets and fight for their investment. This is normal.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| The issue with NIMBYism is it often builds structures
| around itself to insulate from change in the practices
| (local government incentives). Only top down mandates can
| break the cycle, but places like the US are not socialist
| enough to do that.
|
| Incidentally all my immigrant friends and relatives who
| do NIMBY arguments also vote republican and supported
| Trump. For what it's worth.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| Yes. I have considered that.
|
| At the end of the day, we elect politicians based on
| which areas of our daily lives we want to be screwed
| over..it seems like... There are no winners amongst the
| voting, tax paying public.
| TheGigaChad wrote:
| fragmede wrote:
| The problem is that due to regulatory capture, it won't
| be the free market that decides. House building is a
| highly regulated activity, so the deck is stacked against
| the YIMBYs. Hence the political fights to change laws to
| make the system a more fair than it is currently.
| renewiltord wrote:
| The answer, I think, is that given sufficient numbers sheer
| volumes can provide counteracting political power to rich
| minorities and their vassals.
|
| So cheap housing will arrive when those who do not benefit from
| economic rent seeking or exceptions to having rent extracted
| from them outnumber the rest.
|
| With high population growth, I think that's possible. It's also
| possible with economic collapse but I think the Bay Area is
| here to stay.
|
| Places have subcultures and SF's tech subculture is novelty.
| Even startup culture in NYC is mostly about industrializing the
| process of copying novelty: mostly the China approach.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Cheap housing is either substandard (see the phrase "Tofu dreg
| project" used in China [0]), or located in places that aren't
| very attractive (you can buy a whole house in a semi-abandoned
| Italian village for 1 euro [1]), or available during a certain
| time-limited period when some place started to grow rapidly
| (say, the Silicon Valley in the early 1980s), but not everyone
| realized it yet, so there is a window of opportunity there.
| People who bought property in San Francisco of the 19th century
| definitely bought them cheaply.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu-dreg_project
|
| [1] https://1eurohouses.com/
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| You're treating this as a system which changes states
| instantly. It does not. You can progressively build housing and
| expand a city such that you can keep prices stable, at least in
| theory, and 'affordable' (not a well defined word). In that
| sense 'overpopulation' is a deficient state which would not
| exist if not for heavy intervention against the natural
| response which would be to build at, more or less, the rate at
| which new residents are wanting to come. I'm not sure if
| there's a known limit to this, although I admit populations
| might oscillate a bit if SF with 100 million people is too
| unpleasant...
|
| That's not to say it's always bad to keep prices higher. Basic
| regulations do that (e.g. safety) and place a floor on the
| extent to which housing can truly be affordable without
| governments just forcing rent control and denying others the
| chance to live in a particular place entirely.
| wilde wrote:
| Tokyo. It requires building way, way more units in more compact
| ways than Americans would currently be comfortable with.
| neural_thing wrote:
| There's a big gap between SV and Tokyo.
|
| SF has half the population density of Brooklyn, not even
| close to Manhattan.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I'm afraid it's slightly different. Many Americans are not
| comfortable with fellow Americans living that way near them.
| They have a strong in-group bias. You'll see that in the
| surveys about "want to live near people like me".
|
| It's why SF has transplant as a pejorative. Personally, I am
| comfortable living around people not like me or who have
| chosen a different path. And I think there are many Americans
| who do and that the thrust of progress here comes from those
| people: the ones who are comfortable with change.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| People don't like high density because it sucks. I want a
| yard, not a tragedy of the commons communal space. I want
| to be able to remodel without having to get a commities
| approval. I want to have lavender flowers in my garden
| because they remind me of my mom. I want to sit on my porch
| and drink coffee in peace, not have communal tables. I
| don't want to come home and not deal with vomit in my entry
| way/elevator. I don't want an HOA/COOP Board gatekeeping
| and policing me.
|
| People don't leave college and move into dorms of 'in-
| groups' that meet their bias.
|
| Do you make up in your head your partners movitions,
| frustrations, wants in your head too? Or do you just
| dehumanize motivations for people who don't hold your
| 'correct' opinion?
|
| EDIT: Anyone who wants to force high density housing on
| others should ONLY be allowed to take vacations on
| community loving cruise ships. I mean, there is no valid
| reason to not want to vacation on cruise ships, and by
| putting all vacationers together it improves efficient,
| maximizes space, and reduced impact, right? That is the
| only acceptable vacation. There can be no valid reason to
| not require all vacations be via cruise ship.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Some Americans are certainly comfortable living in such
| situations (there's no shortage of people creatively making
| it work in Manhattan, for instance, and tiny homes have a
| following and even TV shows)
|
| The problems are with pearl-clutching neighbors.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| You mean the problems are with people who bought their
| homes because of XYZ, which you now want to change out from
| under them, even though a PROMISE was made to those people
| by the Government in the form of the zoning rules in place.
| But rules that destroy what made a person's MOST VALUABLE
| asset VALUABLE to them shouldn't matter if that gets in the
| way of what YOU WANT, right? Their entire lives should be
| able to be disrupted, they should be forced from their
| home, because you no longer want to keep the promise made
| when they invested THEIR ENTIRE LIFE into their home. You
| want to move in and change the rules, just like the guy who
| guy who buys the house next to the airport then tries to
| get the airport shut down. You do know that you can, like,
| move to Manhattan, right?
|
| Sorry the little people are getting in the way of this
| great leap forward you wish to make at their expense.
|
| EDIT: Anyone who wants to force high density housing on
| others should ONLY be allowed to take vacations on
| community loving cruise ships. I mean, there is no valid
| reason to not want to vacation on cruise ships, and by
| putting all vacationers together it improves efficient,
| maximizes space, and reduced impact, right? That is the
| only acceptable vacation.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| All of these rules were put into place in the later half
| of the 20th century. This is a really recent development
| in the country's history.
|
| These high density areas, and even many low density
| areas, have a housing shortage. A lot of the current
| inflation is being driven by rent. Now grown ups cannot
| buy homes in communities they've grown up in. Is the
| alternative supposed to be abandoning social networks or
| living in the streets?
| kwatsonafter wrote:
| ...and then this happens.
|
| https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bhopal/madhya-prade...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-24 23:02 UTC)