First builder’s remedy plan for Bay Area revealed in Los Altos Hills(sfyimby.com)
sfyimby.com
First builder’s remedy plan for Bay Area revealed in Los Altos Hills
https://sfyimby.com/2023/02/yimby-exclusive-first-builders-remedy-plan-for-bay-area-revealed-in-los-altos-hills.html
14 comments
Relatedly, YIMBY Law also launched another fusillade of a dozen lawsuits against jurisdictions that failed to adopt plans by the ABAG deadline. https://twitter.com/Yimby_Law/status/1622994623613358082
This is very refreshing to see. One of the faux-leftist points that NIMBYs use to block housing in California is to say that developers only want to build in communities with lower rents, and displace existing residents, and therefore all development should be stopped to prevent gentrification.
However, the past year has shown the opposite, and completely disproven this line of argument. What causes gentrification is that city planning forces all development into the communities with the lowest rents. And the bills that would have broadly upzoned, and included protections for at risk communities, would have accomplished more housing affordability without displacing the most at-risk tenants.
Seeing where builder's remedy projects have gone should be a mask-off moment for those that opposed SB50 and SB827, two bills that would have allowed a ton of new development that enables transit. Projects like this one in Los Altos Hills are good for increasing economic integration of the Bay Area, but they do it at a cost of reinforcing car-dependent living.
However, the past year has shown the opposite, and completely disproven this line of argument. What causes gentrification is that city planning forces all development into the communities with the lowest rents. And the bills that would have broadly upzoned, and included protections for at risk communities, would have accomplished more housing affordability without displacing the most at-risk tenants.
Seeing where builder's remedy projects have gone should be a mask-off moment for those that opposed SB50 and SB827, two bills that would have allowed a ton of new development that enables transit. Projects like this one in Los Altos Hills are good for increasing economic integration of the Bay Area, but they do it at a cost of reinforcing car-dependent living.
[deleted]
> The vehicular capacity [28 spaces] is far below the city’s required zoning for 80 spaces.
Holy cow, mandating that many parking spaces is outrageous. That's four parking spaces per unit.
Holy cow, mandating that many parking spaces is outrageous. That's four parking spaces per unit.
Yep, you'll find this all over California.
I don't have the numbers handy, but the way the math works out ... the only way the economics make sense in a number of different neighborhoods is if lux condos/highrises are built. Otherwise developers don't have a way to recoup the ~$200k/door cost requirement of building that much parking (I think it was $200k, someone correct me if I'm wrong).
I don't have the numbers handy, but the way the math works out ... the only way the economics make sense in a number of different neighborhoods is if lux condos/highrises are built. Otherwise developers don't have a way to recoup the ~$200k/door cost requirement of building that much parking (I think it was $200k, someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Yep minimum parking mandates are wild. Imagine how few buildings you'd have in Manhattan with those kinds of mandates.
Manhattan isn't the bay area, which has better transit than most places but cars are still needed to go many places. 4 spots is very reasonable for a midside+ single family home if you consider two adults and a child or two of driving age, or visitors.
Given that this appears to be basically 5 single family townhomes, and 15 apartments, its probably going to cause real parking nightmares for people who live there if any of those single bedroom units have two adults living in them. Its going to require a hard cap of 1 car per apartment unit and 2 cars per townhome which leaves 3 spots for visitors. I hope the people who live there enjoy walking to the closest public transport because some number of them aren't going to have any choice unless the place is full of single adults who never have live in friends. Except its the bay area, 800sf apartment will probably be full of couples, invariably with kids.
So that isn't to say 80 is the right number either, but i'm guessing anything below 1.5 spots per apartment and 3 spots per townhome (~40 total) is legitimately too few.
Given that this appears to be basically 5 single family townhomes, and 15 apartments, its probably going to cause real parking nightmares for people who live there if any of those single bedroom units have two adults living in them. Its going to require a hard cap of 1 car per apartment unit and 2 cars per townhome which leaves 3 spots for visitors. I hope the people who live there enjoy walking to the closest public transport because some number of them aren't going to have any choice unless the place is full of single adults who never have live in friends. Except its the bay area, 800sf apartment will probably be full of couples, invariably with kids.
So that isn't to say 80 is the right number either, but i'm guessing anything below 1.5 spots per apartment and 3 spots per townhome (~40 total) is legitimately too few.
Surely the developers would know how many spaces are going to be demanded. They wouldn't be able to rent out/sell the units if they build too few.
Mandating that no one is allowed to live with less than 3 parking spots per house is utterly absurd. Not every single house is going to have two adults and a teenager who all have their own car.
Mandating that no one is allowed to live with less than 3 parking spots per house is utterly absurd. Not every single house is going to have two adults and a teenager who all have their own car.
I lived in a townhouse complex in Sunnyvale which had either 1 or 2 spots per ~1500 sqft unit, and it was totally fine. Most homes were occupied by couples, most whose kids had long since moved out and a few who had small children. I lived in a two-spot unit and had either one (when I lived alone) or two (when my girlfriend moved in) cars during the ten years I lived there.
One for your car, one for your wife's car, one for your weekend sports car and one for the maid.
[deleted]
Interestingly, that address is blurred on Google Street view.
The roads to access the property (Summit Wood as well as Rhus Ridge and especially Bassett Lane) are at most a car and a half wide in some places. Quadrupling the number of cars that come and go is going to be catastrophicly hilarious for those of us who don't live there.
Probably a little less funny when a wildfire rips through there.
The roads to access the property (Summit Wood as well as Rhus Ridge and especially Bassett Lane) are at most a car and a half wide in some places. Quadrupling the number of cars that come and go is going to be catastrophicly hilarious for those of us who don't live there.
Probably a little less funny when a wildfire rips through there.
This is going to be so fun to watch
A breath of fresh air. The biggest consequence of locking people out of wealth-building opportunities like homeownership is the terminal state of such decisions leaves us looking more like Mexico than Switzerland. Shouldn't we have all have a shared desire to lift society up? It's the same argument for how I'd prefer the average person in society to have more education than not. When people have no opportunity to get ahead, they have nothing to lose, which is net loss for society at large. We want to encourage people to live in good areas.
"...looking more like Mexico than Switzerland."
Also, the idea that homeownership is about wealth-building is not true in many highly advanced countries, including Germany, France, and Japan. They don't have the "housing casino" that exists in US, Canada, UK, and Australia.
OK but let's be clear: in any future steady state that actually works, nobody will have a rational expectation of building wealth through homeownership.
Homeownership should be like a piggy-bank, not like a stock. Because let's be clear, any other homeownership wealth building scheme is a pyramid scheme.
And I don't know how you could say this will stop homeownership being a wealth building scheme, because it certainly allows that to continue.
And I don't know how you could say this will stop homeownership being a wealth building scheme, because it certainly allows that to continue.
Homeownership shouldn't be about building wealth. It should be about having a place for your family to live while you grow old. The best thing about the rate hike is that it has banished real estate investors and others who drive prices high and are only there to get rich.
Unless perhaps your home is on a rural property with enough acres.
[deleted]
Thank god.
I read through the article and couldn't tell whether these are rentals or whether the units are for sale. The vast majority of duplexes I saw in the Bay were rentals, which doesn't really solve the wealth building side of the equation. A lot of YIMBYs are focused on more housing but at least the ones I've talked to on here seem unconcerned with home ownership.
Here's to hoping the residents can own them.
Here's to hoping the residents can own them.
In expensive California cities, it's common for multiple unrelated (by romance or blood) adults to share a house. These situations outcompete homeowners in the market because they have two or more incomes and no dependents. So in the current market climate, increased multi-unit rental housing also increases opportunities for homeownership.
It's good to give people the opportunity to own a home, but it's also important to recognize that some people simply aren't in a place in life where that's practical — such as me, for instance, doing a residency, where I'll likely move away afterwards.
It's good to give people the opportunity to own a home, but it's also important to recognize that some people simply aren't in a place in life where that's practical — such as me, for instance, doing a residency, where I'll likely move away afterwards.
As I said in another thread, what makes this dubious is that YIMBYs are already home owners. Sure, the rental stock needs to get up to an acceptable level where renting one side of a two bedroom duplex isn't $3.5k/month, but I'm understandably more concerned with helping people build generational wealth. At the very least, I'd expect YIMBYs to be championing both, but many of them are specifically against home ownership while owning homes.
Getting a condo map is hard, so I didn't bother trying. That forces these into being rentals.
[deleted]
The great thing is that this is good for everyone. The value of the land will go up because its value can be realized and amortized across many units. The per mile per capita cost of roads will go down because it is amortized across more people.
This is just good policy in action.
This is just good policy in action.
Bad for people who want to buy single-family houses, because the price of land will go up and a bunch of the stock will be converted to apartments, bad for people who own apartment buildings because now they have competition, good for pretty much everyone else.
It definitely has to happen, but thinking this is good for everyone is lying to yourself.
If, for example, you live in an expensive second-rate suburb, a proliferation of affordable homes in first rate suburbs will eventually drive your home's value into the gutter.
If, for example, you live in an expensive second-rate suburb, a proliferation of affordable homes in first rate suburbs will eventually drive your home's value into the gutter.
I love the builders remedy. I feel like it doesn’t go far enough though. All local zoning should be removed without any “affordable housing” requirements at all.
Just build high density. That’s it.
Just build high density. That’s it.
Amen - the solution to affordable housing is lots and lots of housing.
Nah the affordable housing stipulation is needed so there's not a glut of luxe homes where builders and sellers collude to prop prices.
At least with that requirement, some people will get into homes sooner. And frankly it's for the best; it'll enable service staff etc. to live closer to the cities that need them.
At least with that requirement, some people will get into homes sooner. And frankly it's for the best; it'll enable service staff etc. to live closer to the cities that need them.
Developers build what the market will pay for. If they overbuild luxury houses, they'll go down in price. All new supply is good supply, period. We need everything from SROs to luxury penthouses. That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy.
That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy.
Yes, I agree with your main point: "All new supply is good supply, period." Japan is very fair about this: The cities look visually sh-tty (during the daytime) -- architectural eyesore / concreted mess... but the prices are reasonable for middle class people. Noah Smith wrote about it:
Japanese cities like Tokyo have managed to build enough housing to make housing costs fall
> Developers build what the market will pay for.
Developers build for whatever profits the most, and they'll avoid taking a loss just as an entrepreneur will do what they can to avoid a down round. That's why we're short millions of housing units but no one's addressing the need; developers would rather create market at the top than address low margin markets at the bottom.
> If they overbuild luxury houses, they'll go down in price.
Tons of overbuilt supply isn't doing much against new build pricing (not enough to make it affordable. 10% tops when we instead need homes that are 50+% discounted relative to market). In fact, many developers are instead subsidizing points on mortgages through preferred lenders so they can justify that original pricing, and the points are often cheaper than a market adjustment on a home.
> All new supply is good supply, period.
That's not the case when developers would rather hold than sell at a loss. See my first point and the homes going off the market waiting for housing to pick up steam again.
> We need everything from SROs to luxury penthouses. That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy.
Lol. That's the extent of my rebuttal. I'm not here to debate, I apologize. But I'd advise you sit down with a few local builders to understand their strategies to maximize gain in this market; quite a few are prepared to hold as long as needed rather than build cheap and sell to lower-margin markets. And that does exactly nothing to address today's housing problem; if it was a simple matter of supply and demand, it'd have already been addressed with the vast swaths of land we've got.
Developers build for whatever profits the most, and they'll avoid taking a loss just as an entrepreneur will do what they can to avoid a down round. That's why we're short millions of housing units but no one's addressing the need; developers would rather create market at the top than address low margin markets at the bottom.
> If they overbuild luxury houses, they'll go down in price.
Tons of overbuilt supply isn't doing much against new build pricing (not enough to make it affordable. 10% tops when we instead need homes that are 50+% discounted relative to market). In fact, many developers are instead subsidizing points on mortgages through preferred lenders so they can justify that original pricing, and the points are often cheaper than a market adjustment on a home.
> All new supply is good supply, period.
That's not the case when developers would rather hold than sell at a loss. See my first point and the homes going off the market waiting for housing to pick up steam again.
> We need everything from SROs to luxury penthouses. That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy.
Lol. That's the extent of my rebuttal. I'm not here to debate, I apologize. But I'd advise you sit down with a few local builders to understand their strategies to maximize gain in this market; quite a few are prepared to hold as long as needed rather than build cheap and sell to lower-margin markets. And that does exactly nothing to address today's housing problem; if it was a simple matter of supply and demand, it'd have already been addressed with the vast swaths of land we've got.
Nothing in America is overbuilt, the nation is short about 6,000,000 housing units. That’s a huge part of why house prices aren’t going down in spite of high interest rates.
> Lol. That's the extent of my rebuttal. I'm not here to debate, I apologize.
Very eloquent. I'm sure you're right and this is the only market on earth supply and demand just doesn't work.
> Lol. That's the extent of my rebuttal. I'm not here to debate, I apologize.
Very eloquent. I'm sure you're right and this is the only market on earth supply and demand just doesn't work.
It has been shown that such gluts eventually lower prices in all cheaper tiers of housing. High end owners trade up for discounted luxury creating a market surplus, then midrange owners trade to high end, and finally, the low end houses become more affordable.
In other words, capitalism actually works at setting prices.
Put another way, would you rather live in a new house that was meant to be sold way below market, and has all sorts of structural shortcuts, or in an older house that was mid- to high-end when it was built a few decades ago?
In other words, capitalism actually works at setting prices.
Put another way, would you rather live in a new house that was meant to be sold way below market, and has all sorts of structural shortcuts, or in an older house that was mid- to high-end when it was built a few decades ago?
I see that your comment was downvoted, but I want to upvote this part:
it'll enable service staff etc. to live closer to the cities that need them.
Thanks. Yeah, HN could benefit from more empathy for non-STEM and non-entrepreneurial folks. Lots of idle discussion about "trickle-down" economics that miss the actual market drivers we've seen in the last 15 years.
Unless developers and trusts etc. are overleveraged, they've got no incentive to dump luxe properties at below market when they know they can sell at a profit whenever the boom times come back — and this'll always be the case because impulsive or desperate buyers generally won't wait out a market. And a lot of them learned how to leverage safely after the great recession. So long as they're willing and able to attrit buyers, they'll win.
Hence why we need affordable housing mandates for the people who need and can't wait for homes — the discounts free-market proponents are projecting simply won't show up unless there's a systemic liquidity issue. And that might not happen for another 20 years now that the CRE matter is being solved with large enterprises bringing their employees back into offices.
Unless developers and trusts etc. are overleveraged, they've got no incentive to dump luxe properties at below market when they know they can sell at a profit whenever the boom times come back — and this'll always be the case because impulsive or desperate buyers generally won't wait out a market. And a lot of them learned how to leverage safely after the great recession. So long as they're willing and able to attrit buyers, they'll win.
Hence why we need affordable housing mandates for the people who need and can't wait for homes — the discounts free-market proponents are projecting simply won't show up unless there's a systemic liquidity issue. And that might not happen for another 20 years now that the CRE matter is being solved with large enterprises bringing their employees back into offices.
Otherwise you end up like Atherton, where schools are building on-site dorms for teachers, because no teacher can afford to live in Atherton (or really anywhere close to it).
And then when someone does try to improve the situation by building medium density housing in Atherton (hah, I jest, by naively trying to suggest maybe building, I mean)... you get people like Steph Curry filing objections because he might have to increase the height of his fence for privacy.
And then when someone does try to improve the situation by building medium density housing in Atherton (hah, I jest, by naively trying to suggest maybe building, I mean)... you get people like Steph Curry filing objections because he might have to increase the height of his fence for privacy.
[deleted]
Oh hey, I didn't expect my submission would make the front page of HN.
Have you received any complaints yet?
Nope!
Thanks for answering. Are you building with a demographic in mind?
Not really, tbh. There's a mix of unit types and the depth of the shortage is so extreme that I'm not worried at all about finding takers for pretty much anything.
[deleted]
Money quote:
> The developer hazards to guess construction will take at least five years to start
> The developer hazards to guess construction will take at least five years to start
Agree. They will need to win some court cases that will set precedent. That will be brutally hard. After, it will be much simpler going forward. Ten years from now, there will be plenty of precedent in California courts to wave away most objections. Plus, I expect cities will try to enact all kinds of sneaky, unfair legislation to create as many delays and hurdles as possible. Again, these will need to be challenged in local courts as (state-wise) unconstitutional and discarded. This will take time.
[deleted]
I think it's so funny how almost all new housing is incredibly ugly. You could convert a lot of NIMBYs to MIMBYs (Maybe In My Back Yard) if developers picked a style to build other than "box with cheap siding that juts right up to the edge of the lot".
I am aware that many currently-loved styles were considered atrocious when they were invented, and I direct your attention to the thousands of disgusting strip malls, regular malls, and faux-brutalist office buildings from the 50s-70s that the public is at best apathetic towards as proof that simply because some styles became loved, not all styles will do so.
I am aware that many currently-loved styles were considered atrocious when they were invented, and I direct your attention to the thousands of disgusting strip malls, regular malls, and faux-brutalist office buildings from the 50s-70s that the public is at best apathetic towards as proof that simply because some styles became loved, not all styles will do so.
People always complain about the contemporary building style, just as they did about all those ticky tacky Victorian homes built here on the west coast, or the ugly repetitive brown stones in Brooklyn.
Personally, I don't think there would be any less opposition to these homes, no matter the visual appearance. People simply hate change, until they experience it, after which they quickly adjust and forget there was a problem to begin with.
And towards that end, I think that any visual standard should be completely disqualified from evaluation of building plans; that is, unless there is a pre-approved, and affordable, style of building that will always be approved no matter what. Otherwise, quibbling over appearances will always be a veto point that will be used regardless of appearances.
Personally, I don't think there would be any less opposition to these homes, no matter the visual appearance. People simply hate change, until they experience it, after which they quickly adjust and forget there was a problem to begin with.
And towards that end, I think that any visual standard should be completely disqualified from evaluation of building plans; that is, unless there is a pre-approved, and affordable, style of building that will always be approved no matter what. Otherwise, quibbling over appearances will always be a veto point that will be used regardless of appearances.
> People always complain about the contemporary building style
This is always mentioned, and it's just not true. If it were true that people always "quickly adjust and forget there was a problem" then those all-concrete freeway plaza towns would be "beloved" instead of reviled, and the "all highways all the time" city remodeling would be considered perfectly acceptable by everyone.
It is actually possible to build an ugly city that remains ugly after the contemporary ethos has passed. No one's buying plane tickets to visit the architecture in Columbus, OH.
This is always mentioned, and it's just not true. If it were true that people always "quickly adjust and forget there was a problem" then those all-concrete freeway plaza towns would be "beloved" instead of reviled, and the "all highways all the time" city remodeling would be considered perfectly acceptable by everyone.
It is actually possible to build an ugly city that remains ugly after the contemporary ethos has passed. No one's buying plane tickets to visit the architecture in Columbus, OH.
> This is always mentioned, and it's just not true
Are you saying there's a building style that's not criticized while it's being built? Could you give an example?
The rest of the paragraph instead focused on people not living Colombus, OH, which I'm not sure how you got to. The primary reason people aren't flocking to Colombus OH is because of the lack of jobs. People tend to flock places because of economic opportunity, not because of architecture.
Are you saying there's a building style that's not criticized while it's being built? Could you give an example?
The rest of the paragraph instead focused on people not living Colombus, OH, which I'm not sure how you got to. The primary reason people aren't flocking to Colombus OH is because of the lack of jobs. People tend to flock places because of economic opportunity, not because of architecture.
Umm, people are definitely are flocking to Columbus OH and it's probably because of jobs, it's one of the fastest growing cities in the US. GP was saying they're not going because of architecture, orthogonal to whether they're net migrating or not...
Automoderator was on me for posting too quickly last night.
No, I'm saying that the fact that new styles are always criticized is not implicit proof that all styles eventually become accepted.
I will clarify that by "flocking" I meant "visiting". Some people live in cities and towns that are so nice other people want to visit those cities--New York, Paris, Florence, Aix-en-Provence, whatever. This effect is not limited to large cities--there are also smaller towns that people deliberately go and spend vacation time in just to feel a sense of actually appreciating the buildings and paths they're surrounded by. When they're not spending their PTO touring actually nice places, they live in the Modern American City, which is a place to exist while you drive between your apartment box, your job box, and your preferred entertainment center.
No, I'm saying that the fact that new styles are always criticized is not implicit proof that all styles eventually become accepted.
I will clarify that by "flocking" I meant "visiting". Some people live in cities and towns that are so nice other people want to visit those cities--New York, Paris, Florence, Aix-en-Provence, whatever. This effect is not limited to large cities--there are also smaller towns that people deliberately go and spend vacation time in just to feel a sense of actually appreciating the buildings and paths they're surrounded by. When they're not spending their PTO touring actually nice places, they live in the Modern American City, which is a place to exist while you drive between your apartment box, your job box, and your preferred entertainment center.
No, they're the worst of both worlds. It's design review than makes them look ugly. If it were true that people just don't like change then people would love brutalism by now.
I actually really like it haha. But either way my opinion is their property, their call. So long as it's safe.
[edit] It's NIMBY's own fault if they don't like what gets built. They had their chance to participate in the process by designing a reasonable and fair housing element. They said no, and chose violence. It's time to enter the 'find-out' phase.
[edit] It's NIMBY's own fault if they don't like what gets built. They had their chance to participate in the process by designing a reasonable and fair housing element. They said no, and chose violence. It's time to enter the 'find-out' phase.
There is of course no accounting for taste. My most recent comment that wasn't this was similar denouncement of the most contemporary UI design trend--I just can't stand flat, rectangular black-grey-beige minimalism, especially when it's compared to the past 10,000 years of colorful, angular ornamentation from thousands of cultures both alive and extinct.
As for the "find-out" phase--many cities are going into that phase, including my beloved hometown. I'm founding out that what The People want is 5-over-1 stick frame buildings owned by out-of-state development companies. I don't even know what I could possibly do in order to motivate my city to take itself seriously architecturally and build some new housing that doesn't scream "warehouse". Perhaps I should become a housing developer and propagandist and do it myself.
As for the "find-out" phase--many cities are going into that phase, including my beloved hometown. I'm founding out that what The People want is 5-over-1 stick frame buildings owned by out-of-state development companies. I don't even know what I could possibly do in order to motivate my city to take itself seriously architecturally and build some new housing that doesn't scream "warehouse". Perhaps I should become a housing developer and propagandist and do it myself.
I kind of see where you’re coming from but I would look around the suburbs and note how many houses were constructed on the grounds of “hey, it’s cheap!” — and people generally didn’t mind if it was reasonably built. They probably planted something in front anyway and got on with life.
Given the number of people desperate for housing, I’m content leaving this for the rich people who want custom builds. The NIMBYs aren’t going to relax even if the entire project is designed by a who’s who of architecture.
Given the number of people desperate for housing, I’m content leaving this for the rich people who want custom builds. The NIMBYs aren’t going to relax even if the entire project is designed by a who’s who of architecture.
I get upset that people pay thousands of dollars to go abroad to look at nice, dense towns with pretty buildings and then come back to the US and say "anyone who wants to live in a nice town like the one I just visited needs to get out of the way of Progress, we need cheap people warehouses and we need them now".
I'd happily raze several square miles of land in my hometown and build nothing but housing if what came after was something like Copenhagen, instead of Houston (which is what's currently happening).
I'd happily raze several square miles of land in my hometown and build nothing but housing if what came after was something like Copenhagen, instead of Houston (which is what's currently happening).
How much of Copenhagen and the other Euro cities you’ve been to have you really toured though?
There’s absolutely no doubt that those cities are just generally better designed and their core areas are far more aesthetic and well tended to than most American cities. But with that said the vast middle class areas of those cities where people actually live are a lot more generic and cookie-cutter than the parts people tend to see when traveling.
They have plenty of boring new construction too.
There’s absolutely no doubt that those cities are just generally better designed and their core areas are far more aesthetic and well tended to than most American cities. But with that said the vast middle class areas of those cities where people actually live are a lot more generic and cookie-cutter than the parts people tend to see when traveling.
They have plenty of boring new construction too.
I like to take explore the living areas of most Euro cities I've been to--Paris, Glasgow, Rome, Florence, etc. I spent a semester abroad in Paris about ten years ago and spent most of my time in one of the recently-built satellite towns, which was a mess of concrete and cheap modern buildings. The actual generic middle class areas are usually several steps above the American generic middle class areas, but I concur that most of the new builds are the same cheap, boring, new-right-now approach.
It's quite depressing to me that so many people unthinkingly accept the premise that there's no time to build society to any standards that someone would be proud of or pleased about. It builds an apathy and almost a resentment to any sense of time or place within its residence. It's a lack of culture enforced by architecture.
A good example is advertisements. They clutter every public space and make people simply ignore what they're seeing. "Just an ad." People will go hours through a city and never look up because they already know what's there.
It's quite depressing to me that so many people unthinkingly accept the premise that there's no time to build society to any standards that someone would be proud of or pleased about. It builds an apathy and almost a resentment to any sense of time or place within its residence. It's a lack of culture enforced by architecture.
A good example is advertisements. They clutter every public space and make people simply ignore what they're seeing. "Just an ad." People will go hours through a city and never look up because they already know what's there.
I mean, yes, I do like nice things but I think it’s also important to remember that in many cases you’re touring things which were built by rich and powerful people – many of Europe’s most famous buildings are basically monuments to how profitable slavery & colonialism were – and if you go outside of the historical zones you often end up with more familiar architecture.
I still preferred many of those neighborhoods but that’s because driving wasn’t as heavily subsidized and so the neighborhoods have a more human scale and were safer to walk in. Looking at the neighborhood where this property is, the biggest problem I see is that there’s nothing to do. No corner markets or bars - I loved the neighborhood coffee shop/bars in Portugal and Spain, no parks, not even a bike lane or often sidewalks.
I still preferred many of those neighborhoods but that’s because driving wasn’t as heavily subsidized and so the neighborhoods have a more human scale and were safer to walk in. Looking at the neighborhood where this property is, the biggest problem I see is that there’s nothing to do. No corner markets or bars - I loved the neighborhood coffee shop/bars in Portugal and Spain, no parks, not even a bike lane or often sidewalks.
I agree with your second paragraph. Do you have any idea how one might convince a city to build dense neighborhoods that are nice to be in? The only projects I see get green-lit are either warehouse stores, warehouse apartments, or road-widening.
> Many of Europe’s most famous buildings are basically monuments to how profitable slavery & colonialism were
I find this a confusing stance to take. Do you think that there's ever been a civilization that wasn't founded and maintained by incredible violence perpetrated by powerful people? You can go to South Dakota and see many monuments and markers to the Lakota--except the Lakota came into the area and slaughtered the Pawnee, forcing them out of their ancestral homelands and into less desirable land to the south. On every continent, in every country, if there's evidence of wealth there, someone died for it. I don't think that's a good reason to accept the inevitability of drab, ugly, cheap living conditions.
Furthermore, I can apply the same logic to anything that is the product of slavery or imperialism. The chip in my laptop is a monument to the profitability of artisan mining and the endless imperialist destabilization of African regimes. The fact that I can drive my car whenever I want is a monument to Saudi control over the middle eastern oil fields and Canadian imperialism over shale lands that used to belong to the natives. There are good reasons to give these things up, but if your governing principle is "I must live morally, and anything that relies on the conquering and subjugation of another people is immoral" your options are basically to either commit suicide or move to your ethnic homeland and live as a pauper.
> Many of Europe’s most famous buildings are basically monuments to how profitable slavery & colonialism were
I find this a confusing stance to take. Do you think that there's ever been a civilization that wasn't founded and maintained by incredible violence perpetrated by powerful people? You can go to South Dakota and see many monuments and markers to the Lakota--except the Lakota came into the area and slaughtered the Pawnee, forcing them out of their ancestral homelands and into less desirable land to the south. On every continent, in every country, if there's evidence of wealth there, someone died for it. I don't think that's a good reason to accept the inevitability of drab, ugly, cheap living conditions.
Furthermore, I can apply the same logic to anything that is the product of slavery or imperialism. The chip in my laptop is a monument to the profitability of artisan mining and the endless imperialist destabilization of African regimes. The fact that I can drive my car whenever I want is a monument to Saudi control over the middle eastern oil fields and Canadian imperialism over shale lands that used to belong to the natives. There are good reasons to give these things up, but if your governing principle is "I must live morally, and anything that relies on the conquering and subjugation of another people is immoral" your options are basically to either commit suicide or move to your ethnic homeland and live as a pauper.
> > Many of Europe’s most famous buildings are basically monuments to how profitable slavery & colonialism were
> I find this a confusing stance to take. Do you think that there's ever been a civilization that wasn't founded and maintained by incredible violence perpetrated by powerful people?
The point wasn't that this was unique in human history but that many of the buildings tourists love required historically-rare amounts of money and labor to create. We have better technology now but labor, especially from skilled artisans, is in much tighter supply and a lot of those classic building techniques aren't widely used because almost nobody likes them enough to be willing to pay current market rates.
> I find this a confusing stance to take. Do you think that there's ever been a civilization that wasn't founded and maintained by incredible violence perpetrated by powerful people?
The point wasn't that this was unique in human history but that many of the buildings tourists love required historically-rare amounts of money and labor to create. We have better technology now but labor, especially from skilled artisans, is in much tighter supply and a lot of those classic building techniques aren't widely used because almost nobody likes them enough to be willing to pay current market rates.
That could be true for some of the stone-built cathedrals, but a lot of buildings tourists like aren't particularly difficult to build or maintain, they're just not done due to cost. These buildings could also be imitated or "quoted" for a fraction of the cost of the source buildings, but they're just not done since development is really only done to turn a buck, whereas in the past a lot of people developed buildings out of a sense of grandness or splendor meant to inspire and show off.
It's a consequence of making housing incredibly expensive. When costs are mostly tied up in land and regulation, already too much on people, then housing prices are attempted to be lowered by reducing the construction cost. If you whack the land and regulation costs, so that everyone can easily afford housing, then you'll see luxury splurging on building design for aesthetic and status factors.
If someone is currently living on a forested hillside where everyone's on ~2 acre plots, I doubt they'll be happy about the density suddenly increasing 20x regardless of the architectural style. These people apparently have the money to live in the middle of San Francisco if that's what they wanted.
It is a kind of tyranny to override the democratic will of local communities regarding their land use preferences.
What about the land owner's will to build what they wish on their own land?
It's a greater kind of tyranny to monopolize land use and build walls to block the free association of people, and limit what a person can do with their own land.
If people want absolute control over the land in their town, they can buy the land and put a fence around it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Wow! 28 cars dumping onto a tiny road. Hard to see this idea ending well...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/11511+Summit+Wood+Rd,+Los+...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/11511+Summit+Wood+Rd,+Los+...
Thats not many cars, and it's a short road. If each car takes 5 seconds to pass a particular point, that's only a few minutes overall of cars in a day.
I would suggest that Los Altos Hills should start enabling transit if their roads are overloaded. Or even better, they should have done some planning.
I would suggest that Los Altos Hills should start enabling transit if their roads are overloaded. Or even better, they should have done some planning.
Funny to imagine all 28 people leaving for work everyday at the exact same time.
I guess. Like they all have the same length commute?
Pretty sure you could fill that entire place with people who would like the 10 minute bike commute to Foothill College. The weather will be fine for that like 360 days a year.
You know that these 28 cars are unlikely to be driving all at the same time right?
Most of these neighborhoods you could 10x the traffic without anyone noticing.
Most of these neighborhoods you could 10x the traffic without anyone noticing.
In CA there’s at least one or two cars per bedroom of housing. They’ll be parking all along the street.
But so what? This is a last ditch effort to beef up the critically low housing supply, not intended to be the ideal solution.
But so what? This is a last ditch effort to beef up the critically low housing supply, not intended to be the ideal solution.
Maybe we should stop overrelying on cars and build some public transport while we're at it?
The Bay Area has absolutely perfect weather for walking and cycling. Wish we would design more for that
In a suburban area far from a major city?
Not going to happen.
Even other countries with great public transit dont do have that.
Not going to happen.
Even other countries with great public transit dont do have that.
Have you ever tried to use public transport to get from Los Altos to San Jose? Any other developed country trumps public transport in the middle of the Bay. My wife, who loves public transport, gave up almost immediately when we moved here - I just Uber but would use public transport if available. Cycling just can't get you far enough sadly.
Thats my point. Its not reasonable to expect rapid public transit in a place like PA.
You could run buses, but youve just turned a 30 min commute by car into a 1.5hr bus ride with multiple bus changes.
Transit only works in medium to high density cities.
You could run buses, but youve just turned a 30 min commute by car into a 1.5hr bus ride with multiple bus changes.
Transit only works in medium to high density cities.
Visit Switzerland some time it’ll blow your mind.
Basically every square inch of that country is connected to convenient and frequent public transit. And it’s one of the most naturally inhospitable places for building anything you can imagine, we’re talking towns on the side of cliffs and so on.
But if you’re in a tiny village at minimum there’s a bus that connects to rail, frequently, and that rail is frequent and highly reliable and goes literally everywhere.
It’s possible and we have the resources to do it too we just don’t.
Basically every square inch of that country is connected to convenient and frequent public transit. And it’s one of the most naturally inhospitable places for building anything you can imagine, we’re talking towns on the side of cliffs and so on.
But if you’re in a tiny village at minimum there’s a bus that connects to rail, frequently, and that rail is frequent and highly reliable and goes literally everywhere.
It’s possible and we have the resources to do it too we just don’t.
My tiny village of 800 people in Central Europe has a train to the capital of the country - about one hour away - every thirty minutes. It also has one to the capital of a neighboring country every thirty minutes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34597507 1236 comments