Not really possible. Apple had to get a special waiver from Santa Clara to build the 6 4 story buildings... Santa Clara and San Jose don't want tall buildings.
That was my point, and why I asked "Who influences the zoning regulations?" That's no just a rhetorical question. I'm seriously interested if anyone has an answer (I don't know enough about SV politics to say).
You're talking about zoning in SF and South SF. I'm talking about the far more severe restrictions in SV. When SV regs allow as much urbanization as in SF, you'll have more of a point.
You move to SF because you want to live in the hip fun place.
All over the world there are places people want to live, but drive down SV prices enough and they'll consider a shorter commute to work and a longer commute to entertainment. We're talking about people who have good jobs - not people who are so rich they don't care.
Being young, they like being able to walk from their apartments to the hottest clubs or concerts or whatever.
True, but if the price of living in SV came down substantially, a lot more would consider the premium of living in SF too high.
Also, if SV became more urbanized, there would be more clubs and whatnot. When Manhattan got expensive enough, you started seeing trendier and more desirable parts of Brooklyn.
If it's not Google or Apple employees, somebody else is going to want to live there. Popular living destinations always attract high costs of living...
It's popular in part because of the tech employees. You're not looking at this quantitatively. While SF has never been cheap, the tech employees increase demand and hence price. Regardless of whether you agree with the protestors, they do understand supply and demand.
Do you think there is some central planning sky fairy that decides to screw with people by "setting housing prices"?
Not directly, but there is a central planning sky fairy that's responsible for restrictive Silicon Valley zoning regulations that keep the place from urbanizing.
P.S. Don't jump to the conclusion that I'm a libertarian. I'm not (though I'm sure they'd agree with me on this point). There is such a thing as going too far with government regulation.
there is a big housing shortage all across San Francisco
Apparently there's a bigger housing shortage in SV, otherwise most of these techies wouldn't move to SF. Why isn't SV more urbanized? Who influences the zoning regulations? An SV filled with 10+ story apartment buildings would go a long way towards increasing housing availability.
Technological improvements have been "engulf[ing] more and more low-skill jobs" since the start of the industrial revolution in the mid to late 18th century.
Despite all the complaints about a lack of housing, SV hasn't become more urbanized. Is there any reason for that other than zoning and other government imposed limits? If SV companies really wanted more housing in the area, they'd pressure the local governments to change that. It's absurd to complain about lack of housing when you don't see 10 story apartment buildings everywhere.
The tech industry in SV does a lot of complaining about high salaries and a "shortage" of people. They also use that excuse to claim they need more H-1B's. SV is, ironically, incredibly provincial. Maybe they should check Google maps - there are many places besides the Bay Area and Bangalore. Some of them are even in US. That includes tech hubs where you can get talent cheaper and more easily that SV.
There's a tendency to protest, doing violence and property damage first , figuring out appropriate targets to effect actual change later, that's unique to CA.
First, the idea that it's unique to California is preposterous (full disclaimer: I've never lived in California and never had any desire to). Second, there was no violence and the property damage was limited to one broken window. I don't particularly agree with these protestors, but the protests seem reasonable. Of course it's going to get publicity when you obstruct things - that's the idea.
I went to Berkeley
If that's the only place in CA you've ever lived, you have an extremely biased experience. When it comes to "frequent overblown and misguided 'political correctness'", Berkeley is a national joke.
As TFSummary explains, in the 1960s, the image of the Earth floating in the vastness of space had a profound psychological impact on a people who "unlike us today" had never seen at it that way.
The TFS is regurgitating hype. I was around when that picture came out, and despite the poetic pronouncements of people whose wont is to hype, most people just thought it was a great picture.
Slashdot Mirror
carjacking
They stole the buses?
That the great unwashed masses get a say in their government?
Not really possible. Apple had to get a special waiver from Santa Clara to build the 6 4 story buildings ... Santa Clara and San Jose don't want tall buildings.
That was my point, and why I asked "Who influences the zoning regulations?" That's no just a rhetorical question. I'm seriously interested if anyone has an answer (I don't know enough about SV politics to say).
They don't understand diddly.
And you know this how?
they want to "live in the big city"
So what are they doing in a cow town like SF? (sorry, sometimes my NY snobbery gets the better of me).
You're talking about zoning in SF and South SF. I'm talking about the far more severe restrictions in SV. When SV regs allow as much urbanization as in SF, you'll have more of a point.
Americans have lost about 7\8ths of the purchasing power the they had since 1990.
Cite? I'm sympathetic with groups like OWS, but I don't believe in statistics unless they can be backed up. "Lost 7/8" is a preposterous number.
You move to SF because you want to live in the hip fun place.
All over the world there are places people want to live, but drive down SV prices enough and they'll consider a shorter commute to work and a longer commute to entertainment. We're talking about people who have good jobs - not people who are so rich they don't care.
Being young, they like being able to walk from their apartments to the hottest clubs or concerts or whatever.
True, but if the price of living in SV came down substantially, a lot more would consider the premium of living in SF too high.
Also, if SV became more urbanized, there would be more clubs and whatnot. When Manhattan got expensive enough, you started seeing trendier and more desirable parts of Brooklyn.
If it's not Google or Apple employees, somebody else is going to want to live there. Popular living destinations always attract high costs of living...
It's popular in part because of the tech employees. You're not looking at this quantitatively. While SF has never been cheap, the tech employees increase demand and hence price. Regardless of whether you agree with the protestors, they do understand supply and demand.
Do you think there is some central planning sky fairy that decides to screw with people by "setting housing prices"?
Not directly, but there is a central planning sky fairy that's responsible for restrictive Silicon Valley zoning regulations that keep the place from urbanizing.
P.S. Don't jump to the conclusion that I'm a libertarian. I'm not (though I'm sure they'd agree with me on this point). There is such a thing as going too far with government regulation.
Unlawful restraint and intimidation are forms of violence.
Aww, those poor victims. Do you think they'll be scarred for life?
there is a big housing shortage all across San Francisco
Apparently there's a bigger housing shortage in SV, otherwise most of these techies wouldn't move to SF. Why isn't SV more urbanized? Who influences the zoning regulations? An SV filled with 10+ story apartment buildings would go a long way towards increasing housing availability.
Technological improvements have been "engulf[ing] more and more low-skill jobs" since the start of the industrial revolution in the mid to late 18th century.
Despite all the complaints about a lack of housing, SV hasn't become more urbanized. Is there any reason for that other than zoning and other government imposed limits? If SV companies really wanted more housing in the area, they'd pressure the local governments to change that. It's absurd to complain about lack of housing when you don't see 10 story apartment buildings everywhere.
A company can open facilities in places other than SV, or start out someplace else.
Or do you think they'll stop with the techies?
For the most part, yes. There wasn't nearly as much of this before the techie invasion. If you disagree with me, please explain your reasoning.
When housing prices don't go down after they've been driven off
You don't believe in supply and demand?
I sense irony that those companies won't use their own technology to expand outside of the Bay Area.
Restricting someones freedom to travel is kidnapping not a protest.
Hyperbole much? Unlike kidnapping, making somebody late for work is not a federal crime.
Mod to +5.
The tech industry in SV does a lot of complaining about high salaries and a "shortage" of people. They also use that excuse to claim they need more H-1B's. SV is, ironically, incredibly provincial. Maybe they should check Google maps - there are many places besides the Bay Area and Bangalore. Some of them are even in US. That includes tech hubs where you can get talent cheaper and more easily that SV.
They want them to move away from San Fran, so that the whole place will become a slum that they can afford to live in.
Really? Was the whole place a slum before it became a popular place for SV techies to live in?
There's a tendency to protest, doing violence and property damage first , figuring out appropriate targets to effect actual change later, that's unique to CA.
First, the idea that it's unique to California is preposterous (full disclaimer: I've never lived in California and never had any desire to). Second, there was no violence and the property damage was limited to one broken window. I don't particularly agree with these protestors, but the protests seem reasonable. Of course it's going to get publicity when you obstruct things - that's the idea.
I went to Berkeley
If that's the only place in CA you've ever lived, you have an extremely biased experience. When it comes to "frequent overblown and misguided 'political correctness'", Berkeley is a national joke.
As TFSummary explains, in the 1960s, the image of the Earth floating in the vastness of space had a profound psychological impact on a people who "unlike us today" had never seen at it that way.
The TFS is regurgitating hype. I was around when that picture came out, and despite the poetic pronouncements of people whose wont is to hype, most people just thought it was a great picture.
First you mean the Germans the Americans took were ahead of the Germans the Russians took?
Yes, and that speaks well of America. Which side do you think von Braun and company went out of their way to surrender to?
You mean the lying liars who lie for a living... lied?
I'm waiting for someone from the NSA to say "everything I say is a lie". How can you not use a classic like that?