older_guy

Reality is what we choose to make it through government. Higher density is not inevitable - it is a choice made by urban planning. That applies to employment as well as housing. I see no problem with a new 3 story apartment complex in my neighborhood, and I find the crime argument silly. On the other hand, if we continue to increase the density and population without corresponding improvements to infrastructure (particularly transportation), then the quality of life will decline for those who live here already. That has already been observed by those of us who have lived in the bay area for a long time. The commute time in San Jose has gone from 51.6 minutes in 2008 to 67.6 minutes this year (https://sf.curbed.com/2019/8/16/20808814/san-francisco-commu...). This was in spite of a 6.3% drop in employment in 2009.

Increasing density will actually benefit homeowners more than the status quo, because then their land becomes even more valuable. If you tear down a million dollar house and put up a four unit condo complex each costing $500K, then you essentially double the value. Holding onto a house that nobody can afford has less investment value than converting your land to higher density. The fact of the matter is that people are more motivated by preserving a lifestyle than they are by money.

Of course not everyone agrees on what an ideal lifestyle is, and some people strongly desire higher density. Ultimately voters will decide what type of growth is desirable.

While a lot of people complain about "NIMBY" in the bay area, it's never been clear to me why I have an obligation to rearrange the area I live in to accommodate others who want to live here. People speak about a "shortage of housing", but another way of saying this is that there is a "surplus of high paying jobs". If someone can't afford to live here, then economic forces should make it more attractive to live elsewhere. Employers should see this as well, and relocate their business elsewhere. That's what happened with Intel, and many companies are now focusing their growth outside the bay area.

Just increasing housing density without solving transportation problems will result in a seriously changed lifestyle here, and that is what many people fear. Moreover, efforts to build better transportation in the bay area have been very ineffective. The light rail in Santa Clara County is a good example of this - it crawls through downtown San Jose, has very little ridership, and recovers only a small fraction of operating costs from fares. The jobs have almost always showed up in areas where there is an existing shortage of transit and housing - e.g., Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. At this point the only feasible solution is to turn 101 and 85 into bus-only roads. No more single occupancy vehicles. Then let the market sort out how to provide transit for employers. That would be massively disruptive to existing lifestyles, but probably the only feasible way to increase transportation throughput in the face of increased housing density.

Most of the readership on hacker news is in the tech industry, but I think the biggest problem with housing in the bay area is for non-tech workers.