There’s a serious problem brewing in the Western world, it’s not exclusive to San Francisco, with the wide disparity in disposable income between “ordinary” people and those few in moneyed careers, be it banking, tech or even medicine and the law.
From the bottom up a lot of sinkholes for employment are being quietly and efficiently replaced by machines or technology of one stripe or another. In many communities those call center jobs, deadend work that is often all that’s available, are being out-sourced not just to India but to India where one man can run several calls at once thanks to chatbots.
The wealth gap has one logical answer and that’s for wealthy people to adopt the poor, like pets. The mega-wealthy could comfortably look after hundreds of families, and it would be seen as a status symbol. All it needs is for one bold billionaire to take the first step.
Why the fuck should the people on a Google bus feel obligated to volunteer their time? Why the fuck should they then need to demonstrate this and somehow earn the right to ride a bus to work.
Well, clearly a lot of people are pissed about these corporate buses, and demonstrating a little good will goes a long way towards greater acceptance by the San Francisco community, which, presumably, these people want.
And mind you, the issue isn’t with people riding buses to work, the issue is with a system that’s enabling a huge group of people to live in San Francisco while working very far away. Without these buses, far far far fewer of these Silicon Valley workers would live in SF. This is a new practice, and its having a really devastating effect on the culture of San Francisco.
A more basic question: Why is “affordable” housing always subsidized ?
If it was actually “affordable”, no subsidy would be needed.
Hint: look at European or Japanese housing: it tends to be a LOT smaller than American housing, even given comparable economic status.
Given all the tech know-how in Silicon Valley, why isn’t someone designing genuinely affordable manufactured housing, and cranking it out in volume. Or doing an IKEA-Type Affordable Home Kit, that could be assembled in a day or two with just a few people, no special training, and simple tools (including the inevitable Allen Wrench. . )
And, as we’ve seen demonstrated in this very thread and elsewhere, antisocial and sociopathic tendencies are not limited to any particular economic status. It amuses me when those who dream of communities where no one needs to lock their doors because crime is nonexistent call that “a thing of the past”, because the reality is such communities never really existed.
I think you’re basically on the same page as most of us - the idea behind affordable housing is not to subsidize - as that just drives the bidding war even higher - but rather to simply build more housing to meet demand.
Clever technology can be part of the fix - earthquake resistant buildings have come a long way since the building height limits were set up.
But the major obstacle to building housing more densely is city zoning. This is a political problem, and it has no good technical fix that I can think of. Even if someone invented a completely free self-assembling house, you’d still need somewhere to put it. And if you wanted to put it in San Francisco, you’d be out of luck
The Googleplex is out on the waterfront and so you have to get from Mountain View center. That hop can double the journey time. I tried it once when we had an office on Shorebird and I was staying in Downtown SF for another meeting without a car.
An extra half hour on both ends of a commute means another hour away from the family.
I think it’s a dull life when filled with glittery things that you show off to others who have glittery things, but you avoid the true riches of experiencing and knowing different kinds of people. If you hold fast in those beliefs, that you limit yourself to only others of your station, you will miss out on masterpieces of art, new inventions, different food, music and a million other things. And if you are that type of person, no one will miss you beyond the gated community. My perspective is that’s a good idea to keep them locked up beyond the fray. It keeps real people safe from being robbed of humanity.
What I don’t get, however, is why someone who WORKS in Mountain View would want to do the commute to and from San Francisco on a daily basis.
Mind you, I haven’t lived in California since the mid-80s, AND am more of a Suburban/Rural sort than an Urban sort, but I’d be living SOUTH of Mountain View, San Jose or further down the 101, where there is at least some space. No idea if the hills are built up at all: I remember that being mostly parkland, between the Valley and the Coast. . .
I don’t disagree. The last two times that I changed cities & jobs, I quite deliberately chose to live somewhere within walking distance from work. I am not a huge fan of the long commutes.
I wonder if Google could tackle this from the other end - making Mountain View a more appealing place to live, thereby taking some pressure off SF. Google grants for microbreweries and art galleries in Mountain View or something
When oil was first discovered in the North Sea ( north of Scotland, that is) the small fishing town of Aberdeen went through the same turmoil. Large multinational companies with lots of cash , thousands of workers migrating in from all over to take up high paying jobs. House prices went through the roof and the locals found themselves financially marginalised. Large estates of low cost council-owned housing were built on the outskirts of the town along with other equally large estates in the surrounding countryside of high cost family homes and luxury apartment developments for the singletons. The same must have happened in Dallas and Calgary although I don’t know so much about how they were before the oil boom of the 70s. In Aberdeen it was a seismic event. The locals ( who owned their own properties) now found they could rent their small flats for sizeable amounts or open guest houses. The big difference I guess between this and SF is that the oil industry brought thousands of jobs for all ranges of skills. Those who found their rent going up were able to pick up well-paying work quite easily as a knock on effect. Is there a corresponding job market in SF?
Slipping back to my origins as a geologist. . .beyond Google, extending into the Bay, are the Sloughs. Basically, built-up and dumped sediments. That will effectively liquify under shock, i.e. an Earthquake. So not a good place to build residences.
BUT. . .drive some steel piles down to bedrock, and build modular platforms with housing out over the South Bay. . . Not zapping anyone else’s property, sustainable, AND much more tolerant of seismic events. . . and then make it mixed-use residential space.
So being unfamiliar with the situation outside of news bites and living on the east coast; Google is actively hiring people to live in San Francisco and busing them to Mountain View? Or are they just providing transportation for their employees in that location? Is this because it’s even more expensive to live in San Jose or other nearby towns/cities or is it the cultural cachet of living there?
European and Japanese housing is also expensive. Smaller units more likely reflect high cost per square foot than affordable housing. That’s certainly the case in NYC - we’re not exactly sprawling, but we have our own affordable housing issues. This is from 2011, but still good for a ballpark. I did, however, look up San Francisco’s numbers. They’ve gone up to $779/sq ft.
Ideally, subsidies come in to guarantee that housing (or a portion of the units) will be remain affordable (at least for a period of time) regardless of the market.
I recently moved out of SF, for reasons mostly unrelated to this issue, but un-affordability was floating around telling me I had to move eventually.
It’s a great place to live, if money is no problem. In SF that is true at… well something like $250k family income.
IMO the “solution” to the extent that there is one would be:
A) Undo some of the stuff that makes it not increase density. Prop 13, slow approvals, some building restrictions. However SF is very small really, it won’t be cheap no matter what but it would help marginally over time.
B) Vastly improve rapid transit in the city and region. It has some, but really its very limited and pretty much maxed out without some major building (because the downtown tunnels are a congested choke point). SF’s bus system is awful. Ridiculously slow. Mostly they just need to eliminate about 3/4 of the stops. Bart and muni trains need like $100 billion in construction.
C) Loosen zoning rules in the nearby suburbs. The dirty little secret of zoning in the US is that it isn’t the cities that are restrictive, it really is the suburbs which basically only allow single family houses on large lots. Cities have lots of rules, but this is mostly because they let you build lots of stuff and define how you can build it. In the suburbs the rules are short because you can basically only build one thing. (i’d bet the zoning in mountainview, and most of south bay fits the general pattern)
D) Vastly increase public school funding in California so it’s public schools don’t suck. Pre-‘tax revolt’ california’s public schools were near the top, now they are near the bottom. This is not a coincidence.
In the end SF would still be a place for the rich. It’s just too small and too nice. Sorry. However the region could be a lot more affordable to a lot more people.
Indeed. It is the same argument you’d probably get from any sociopathic 1%'er. “Why should I care about them? Do they care about me?”
On the other hand, this is hardly the first time a population has suffered economic displacement. I’m surprised we didn’t see wine cellars being smashed by the millionaires that were displaced from Aspen after the billionaires moved in.
“why do all these tech companies need private busses”
I’d say there are two primary reasons.
Rapid transit in the region is inadequate.
Tech companies usually do not consider access to rapid transit very important when locating their offices. After locating their offices it becomes a problem they can partially address via private buses.
The reason for 1 is mostly low public investment due to tax revolt.
The reason for 2, imo, is mostly that the executives that make these decisions want to live in that place (mostly because they already do) and have drivers, etc to get them to work.
