I'm not terribly surprised. In my experience the calls for more housing from the wealthy and business class are disingenuous; more often really a call for more apartments to be built exclusively in neighbourhoods dominated by the poor and working class and a continued ban of apartments in the low density single family home areas that the wealthy business owning class live in.
Often this is called the "Grand Bargain," that new housing can be allowed, but only if it is constrained to a tiny area (which becomes increasingly dense), while the bulk of single family homes are left untouched.
The challenge for voters is to discern between those that are calling for more housing that are genuine YIMBYs, that want to build more housing for everyone more equitably, everywhere in all neighbourhoods, and those like Andreessen, which merely want to continue on with Grand Bargain thinking, and want to continue the status quo by which the poors live as far as possible away from him.
Honestly, having had lived in mixed-income neighborhoods, the wealthy are missing out. Dense mixed-income neighborhoods, pockets of which are holding on for dear life in parts of New York for example, are an absolute delight.
We need to find a way to rebrand the American dream to be this.
I recently discovered the very very wealthy neighborhood of SF in the north west corner of the city and boy, that sure is a low density use and I would LOVE to see that area turned in to high density affordable housing. But then, those people must control the city so it doesn’t seem like that would ever happen.
And hey, I honestly want all low density parts of the city densified. But it’s striking how big those houses are in that neighborhood and how low density it must be.
EDIT: I think what bothers me about this neighborhood is what it represents. While so many people in the city are struggling to get by, these people have these huge homes with elaborate finishing work, huge gardens, fountains, the works. It feels gratuitous to me. And if you know anything about the history of red lining in this country, this would have been one of those areas with racial covenants in the deeds to their homes. All the power brokers of the city past and present must have lived here, and all manner of political maneuvering and disenfranchisement would have come from this place. I’d rather see it torn down, and used to build affordable housing for those in need. I just can’t find myself sympathizing with people who feel they need this much for themselves while so many people struggle for the basic necessities. I wouldn’t mind if no one had that. It doesn’t seem justified to me.
EDIT2: Someone asked me what neighborhood so I looked on google maps (it's Sea Cliff) and was reminded that they also have THEIR OWN GOLF COURSE adjacent to this neighborhood. Yikes.
"calls for more housing from the wealthy and business class are disingenuous; more often really a call for more apartments to be built exclusively in neighbourhoods dominated by the poor and working class and a continued ban of apartments in the low density single family home areas that the wealthy business owning class live in."
That's the case with a lot of the initiatives coming from wealthy people. Le'ts reduce carbon footprint but we still need private jets and multiple huge houses for ourselves. We need privacy but obviously we still need to mine our users' data for profit as much as possible. We need to do something about homelessness but certainly not close to where we are living. The free market is better than government as long as the government protects our IP so we can make profits.
There's different kinds of NIMBYs and they all have different motivations.
There's ones like Marc that are pretty classical.
There's also ones that will push back on the kinds of property people can own, but fully support saturating an area with rentals.
I don't think there's a challenge for voters here either. As the author points out, the real problem is listening to community feedback at all. It's undemocratic. Someone else needs to be in charge of how to fulfill the demands of the community at a higher level.
Which is ironic because no matter how much money I have I would want to live in a location with dense population of people from all strata - it just means shops and food of all levels are just a walk away the moment you leave your house. One of the benefits of living in many places in india, and in some locations in New York City.
> more apartments to be built exclusively in neighbourhoods dominated by the poor
Specifically, apartments to be built in poor neighbourhoods exclusively next to busy highways, where the residents can enjoy chronic exposure to toxic gases, tire dust, and car honking sounds.
The community that lives and pay taxes will not have a voice about what gets built in their community? Then HOA s should not exist either and neither should business and first class in airplanes. City planners need to thoughtfully rezone as needed and strike a balance to preserve the interest of the tax payers of a neighborhood as well as allow new population housing needs. But to simply demonize a set of residents who live in a particular place for voicing their opinions is middle age witch burning mentality.
Looking for a modern apartment in SF recently it was annoying that 95% of them are only allowed to be built on busy noisy dirty streets. Market, Gough, Franklin, Octavia, etc... If they're not on a busy street then they're within ear distance of a freeway like all the complexes near the design district and any of them near the 280 in the Dogpatch. The only big exception is some of the complexes in Mission Bay, but even there, many of them are on 3rd.
There are very few allowed to be built on quieter streets
Fun fact: the town of Atherton is also singlehandedly responsible for delaying and almost derailing Caltrain's electrification project, because the electric poles needed would, and I quote, "compromise the quaint character of our neighborhood" (shock horror).
And of course: "Other speakers protested the aesthetic and safety impacts of the taller, and heavier, poles, saying they would also reduce property values."
The town also voted to close their own Caltrain station, because they clearly don't want the kind of riff-raff who use public transport there.
Oh yeah that's Atherton. Taller heavier poles like what are they going to tell Caltrain what the neighborhood requires the impedance and resistance be such-and-so?
I lived there, they hate pedestrians, hate new construction, hate public transport (never saw anybody at the Atherton Station, nobodoy getting on, nobody getting off, nothing, it's on for decoration), to diffuse NIMBY accusations. Nothing there, not one business, it's only utility is a discrete place to jump into the tracks.
Yeah Atherton is that place. Atherton is the spirit of NIMBY, the spirit of Landlord, the spirit of all those things.
Looking at these complaints, how did the government ever get all the land needed for major infrastructure projects in the past - like the interstate network?
I've served on a city Planning Commission, and I can say categorically that you never truly know who someone is until the city tries to re-zone the property around their house.
Being fair to Andreessen and his family, they likely bought their house knowing that the property was zoned single-family residential, as was the entire neighborhood, and that it's relatively difficult to change land use policy. That is, until the Legislature of the State of California decided it knew better than every incorporated city, and wrote a housing density law that superseded local zoning regulations.
I've always been surprised that tech billionaires don't spend money influencing State Senate/Assembly races. Maybe that will change.
I don't think anyone really has much difficulty understanding his argument or why he's making it; the rank hypocrisy of his long-standing and consistent statements around building more housing is at issue.
[Bilal Mahmood](https://www.bilalforassembly.com/) (ClearBrain founder, YC alum and former Amplitude Head of Product) recently ran for state assembly. Some tech people are getting involved in politics, but most do not.
Sadly, most tech folks don't vote or have zero interest in local politics.
At least the random couple with low income that lucked into a house 40 years ago is semi sympathetic. They don't travel the world and may not be able to move somewhere else as nice after selling (especially with prop 13 tax lock ins)
In my experience a lot of YIMBYs are actually NIMBY but YIYBYs - Not in my back yard, but yes in YOUR back yard. A classic example is so-called progressive Robert Reich who has many times opined about the lack of affordable housing, eg,
Throwing in my few pennies regarding my experiences living in cities.
Having lived in a few well known places, with different urban planning characteristics:
- Tokyo. Very praised for its successes, and there are quite a few: extremely liberal zoning (it seems), based around mass transit rather than cars (great!). Despite the small living space sizes for some, reportedly still very affordable, wide low/med/high density options for at various price-points spread all over. On the other hand, rarely worth having more than prefab buildings (earthquakes), masssssive sprawl, and legendarily horrendous commutes for those living in the suburbs. More than half the city is really quite ugly, grey and concrete.
- Berlin. Lots to like based on good previous planning decisions, and that war-time destruction and reunification somewhat provided opportunities to modernise. The city centre is mostly medium-density 5/6 storey apartment buildings. This seems to be a great sweet-spot that packs in a lot of people, but still leads to a strong community feeling in neighbourhoods. Even in the city centre, extremely green, and very accessible nature thanks to effective public transport. On the other hand, the last few decades of success may have had a lot to do with its historical anomalies, and now that it's normalising in lines with other similar cities, feels like these benefits have been drying up.
- London. Creaking under the legacy of its historical city centre. Planned under the assumption that of course everyone is living in multi-million Pound townhouses in Zone 1. Everyone else is SOL; the rest is low density suburbs with transit that forces most journeys to be via the centre, since there is no outer ring line (great in Berlin, not so great in Tokyo). Seems hardly any medium density: endless neighbourhoods of single family homes, or skyscrapers.
Anyway, none of this is new. It seems pretty clear that the political inability to fix these issues are a massive drain on economies already, and this will only get worse in the future with increasing urbanisation. Frankly, seems the only solution is building entire new cities. Asia has certainly benefited from this in the 20th century...
Well, this is terribly disappointing. I always liked Marc's Is Time to Build essay, it felt like the right sort of spirit. And now it feels like utter hypocrisy.
Ah, the classic guy writes about how to solve a problem, said problem shows up on his doorstep, guy decides not to solve it, problem continues to exist and guy continues to wonder why.
Waiting for the follow up "It's time to build in places where people allow it"
Honestly, Andreesen's understanding of the underlying cause for new housing is really poor, I'm not surprised that he is also a hypocrite, or his ignorance has lead him, perhaps unintentionally, to a hypocritical act.
This probably sounds harsh, but if anyone doubts me, I urge you to actually read Andreessen's “It’s Time to Build”. It's shockingly naive. An entire essay written to convince us of "the need to build", without the awareness that the obstacle to building is not the lack of a SV visionary pointing out the obvious, but the tangle of policy and political incentives. Read Ezra Klein's rebuttal for a more comprehensive review of why Andreesen's essay misses the mark completely[1].
I do want to highlight one positive attribute about him though. He actually had the courage, and intellectual sensibility to write out his argument and publish it in a public forum for others to read. That's the first step towards getting your ideas challenged, and, in the back-and-forth of criticism, strengthening your ideas. As far as I know he didn't engage with the more robust criticism of his ideas (i.e. Ezra Klein) and so that second step is missing, but I at least admire that he took the first step. It's frustrating to me how much society idolizes wealthy "visionaries" who don't actively publish or debate their ideas, like Musk, or Thiel (with regards to his political activity), giving them the benefit of doubt that there's nuance and intentionality behind their actions without any evidence of such.
It's interesting that 'decreased home value' is considered a coherent argument.
Imagine I come to you and say you need to stop making positive changes in your life because others compare you to me and I don't like my 'value' being decreased by your improved lifestyle.
Also, can you move out of my neighbourhood? You're causing noise pollution and traffic.
I live in a townhome in a street single family homes on a street with apartment buildings and duplexes, and it's amazing. My children's friends live in homes ranging from 4000sqft palaces to 800sqft apartments, all within a few blocks. Mixed housing types in a community can be great. Too bad Atherton will never know the benefits.
I just want to say, one great democratizing thing about the internet is that is lets every one spout off their mouth and be discovered, even the supremely rich.
In an age where people can hire shills to act for them, create fake companies, lobbying firms, etc. at least we still are able to rely on someone's inability to control their temper and expose themselves for who they really are. No more having to guess whether under the do-gooder curated front, you're being taken for a ride underneath. Now you can know.
Dude's Dad was a property tycoon. Quoting wikipedia:
Arrillaga established his career as a real estate developer starting in the 1960s, partnering with Richard Peery in acquiring California farmland which they converted into office space. Their partnership took off with the growth of the semiconductor industry and other high-tech businesses, such as Intel,[2] in what became known as Silicon Valley.[6] Arrillaga and Peery converted thousands of acres of farmland into office space in cities such as Mountain View, San Jose, and Sunnyvale to meet the industry's needs.[2] Over a period of 50 years, their partnership, Peery Arrillaga, built over 20 million square feet of commercial real estate, becoming one of Silicon Valley's biggest commercial landlords.[9][5][8] In 2006, he sold over five million square feet of his real estate holdings for roughly $1.1 billion to the real estate division of Deutsche Bank.[6][2] In 2020 Arrillaga ranked No. 339 on the Forbes 400 list of the richest people in America.[6] In October 2020, his net worth was $2.5 billion.[6]
Marc may personally feel one way, and credit to him for writing that essay; his wife and family may have a different opinion, and in families, we "disagree but commit" all the time
The letter was signed first by Laura, who did not co-author the essay.
If you actually viewed NIMBY-ism as a major societal problem you don't just "disagree but commit", and if you do, you deserve to be called out as a hypocrite.
If I moved into a neighborhood with a culture that I liked, and developers threatened to build a sub-neighborhood that changes that culture while making my property less valuable and harder to get out of, I would be pissed as well, especially if they can build on empty space elsewhere nearby
This outrage happens all of the time at HOA-run neighborhoods
[+] [-] Tiktaalik|3 years ago|reply
Often this is called the "Grand Bargain," that new housing can be allowed, but only if it is constrained to a tiny area (which becomes increasingly dense), while the bulk of single family homes are left untouched.
The challenge for voters is to discern between those that are calling for more housing that are genuine YIMBYs, that want to build more housing for everyone more equitably, everywhere in all neighbourhoods, and those like Andreessen, which merely want to continue on with Grand Bargain thinking, and want to continue the status quo by which the poors live as far as possible away from him.
[+] [-] pj_mukh|3 years ago|reply
We need to find a way to rebrand the American dream to be this.
[+] [-] TaylorAlexander|3 years ago|reply
And hey, I honestly want all low density parts of the city densified. But it’s striking how big those houses are in that neighborhood and how low density it must be.
EDIT: I think what bothers me about this neighborhood is what it represents. While so many people in the city are struggling to get by, these people have these huge homes with elaborate finishing work, huge gardens, fountains, the works. It feels gratuitous to me. And if you know anything about the history of red lining in this country, this would have been one of those areas with racial covenants in the deeds to their homes. All the power brokers of the city past and present must have lived here, and all manner of political maneuvering and disenfranchisement would have come from this place. I’d rather see it torn down, and used to build affordable housing for those in need. I just can’t find myself sympathizing with people who feel they need this much for themselves while so many people struggle for the basic necessities. I wouldn’t mind if no one had that. It doesn’t seem justified to me.
EDIT2: Someone asked me what neighborhood so I looked on google maps (it's Sea Cliff) and was reminded that they also have THEIR OWN GOLF COURSE adjacent to this neighborhood. Yikes.
[+] [-] spaetzleesser|3 years ago|reply
That's the case with a lot of the initiatives coming from wealthy people. Le'ts reduce carbon footprint but we still need private jets and multiple huge houses for ourselves. We need privacy but obviously we still need to mine our users' data for profit as much as possible. We need to do something about homelessness but certainly not close to where we are living. The free market is better than government as long as the government protects our IP so we can make profits.
[+] [-] kodah|3 years ago|reply
There's ones like Marc that are pretty classical.
There's also ones that will push back on the kinds of property people can own, but fully support saturating an area with rentals.
I don't think there's a challenge for voters here either. As the author points out, the real problem is listening to community feedback at all. It's undemocratic. Someone else needs to be in charge of how to fulfill the demands of the community at a higher level.
[+] [-] ramraj07|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackerlight|3 years ago|reply
Specifically, apartments to be built in poor neighbourhoods exclusively next to busy highways, where the residents can enjoy chronic exposure to toxic gases, tire dust, and car honking sounds.
[+] [-] la64710|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asiachick|3 years ago|reply
There are very few allowed to be built on quieter streets
[+] [-] jjav|3 years ago|reply
You seem to say that in a negative tone? Isn't increasingly dense exactly what most housing advocates wish for?
[+] [-] thematrixturtle|3 years ago|reply
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2017/12/21/atherton-battlin...
And of course: "Other speakers protested the aesthetic and safety impacts of the taller, and heavier, poles, saying they would also reduce property values."
The town also voted to close their own Caltrain station, because they clearly don't want the kind of riff-raff who use public transport there.
[+] [-] daniel-cussen|3 years ago|reply
I lived there, they hate pedestrians, hate new construction, hate public transport (never saw anybody at the Atherton Station, nobodoy getting on, nobody getting off, nothing, it's on for decoration), to diffuse NIMBY accusations. Nothing there, not one business, it's only utility is a discrete place to jump into the tracks.
Yeah Atherton is that place. Atherton is the spirit of NIMBY, the spirit of Landlord, the spirit of all those things.
[+] [-] spaceman_2020|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RichardCNormos|3 years ago|reply
Being fair to Andreessen and his family, they likely bought their house knowing that the property was zoned single-family residential, as was the entire neighborhood, and that it's relatively difficult to change land use policy. That is, until the Legislature of the State of California decided it knew better than every incorporated city, and wrote a housing density law that superseded local zoning regulations.
I've always been surprised that tech billionaires don't spend money influencing State Senate/Assembly races. Maybe that will change.
[+] [-] tptacek|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lalaland1125|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exogeny|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheesy_luigi|3 years ago|reply
Sadly, most tech folks don't vote or have zero interest in local politics.
[+] [-] fasthands9|3 years ago|reply
At least the random couple with low income that lucked into a house 40 years ago is semi sympathetic. They don't travel the world and may not be able to move somewhere else as nice after selling (especially with prop 13 tax lock ins)
But Marc can live anywhere and travel anywhere.
[+] [-] bodono|3 years ago|reply
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/07/22/time-invest-af...
But strongly objected to a plan to build affordable housing in his own neighbourhood:
https://www.johnlocke.org/good-for-thee-not-for-me-robert-re...
[+] [-] itsthejb|3 years ago|reply
Having lived in a few well known places, with different urban planning characteristics:
- Tokyo. Very praised for its successes, and there are quite a few: extremely liberal zoning (it seems), based around mass transit rather than cars (great!). Despite the small living space sizes for some, reportedly still very affordable, wide low/med/high density options for at various price-points spread all over. On the other hand, rarely worth having more than prefab buildings (earthquakes), masssssive sprawl, and legendarily horrendous commutes for those living in the suburbs. More than half the city is really quite ugly, grey and concrete.
- Berlin. Lots to like based on good previous planning decisions, and that war-time destruction and reunification somewhat provided opportunities to modernise. The city centre is mostly medium-density 5/6 storey apartment buildings. This seems to be a great sweet-spot that packs in a lot of people, but still leads to a strong community feeling in neighbourhoods. Even in the city centre, extremely green, and very accessible nature thanks to effective public transport. On the other hand, the last few decades of success may have had a lot to do with its historical anomalies, and now that it's normalising in lines with other similar cities, feels like these benefits have been drying up.
- London. Creaking under the legacy of its historical city centre. Planned under the assumption that of course everyone is living in multi-million Pound townhouses in Zone 1. Everyone else is SOL; the rest is low density suburbs with transit that forces most journeys to be via the centre, since there is no outer ring line (great in Berlin, not so great in Tokyo). Seems hardly any medium density: endless neighbourhoods of single family homes, or skyscrapers.
Anyway, none of this is new. It seems pretty clear that the political inability to fix these issues are a massive drain on economies already, and this will only get worse in the future with increasing urbanisation. Frankly, seems the only solution is building entire new cities. Asia has certainly benefited from this in the 20th century...
My thoughts
[+] [-] huevosabio|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] motoxpro|3 years ago|reply
Waiting for the follow up "It's time to build in places where people allow it"
[+] [-] saeranv|3 years ago|reply
This probably sounds harsh, but if anyone doubts me, I urge you to actually read Andreessen's “It’s Time to Build”. It's shockingly naive. An entire essay written to convince us of "the need to build", without the awareness that the obstacle to building is not the lack of a SV visionary pointing out the obvious, but the tangle of policy and political incentives. Read Ezra Klein's rebuttal for a more comprehensive review of why Andreesen's essay misses the mark completely[1].
I do want to highlight one positive attribute about him though. He actually had the courage, and intellectual sensibility to write out his argument and publish it in a public forum for others to read. That's the first step towards getting your ideas challenged, and, in the back-and-forth of criticism, strengthening your ideas. As far as I know he didn't engage with the more robust criticism of his ideas (i.e. Ezra Klein) and so that second step is missing, but I at least admire that he took the first step. It's frustrating to me how much society idolizes wealthy "visionaries" who don't actively publish or debate their ideas, like Musk, or Thiel (with regards to his political activity), giving them the benefit of doubt that there's nuance and intentionality behind their actions without any evidence of such.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build...
[+] [-] wyre|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mupuff1234|3 years ago|reply
Doesn't get any more SV than that.
[+] [-] gammarator|3 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22913262
[+] [-] alexashka|3 years ago|reply
Imagine I come to you and say you need to stop making positive changes in your life because others compare you to me and I don't like my 'value' being decreased by your improved lifestyle.
Also, can you move out of my neighbourhood? You're causing noise pollution and traffic.
[+] [-] helen___keller|3 years ago|reply
Second rule of housing discussions, nobody agrees on what is the "right" housing and what is the "right" location
[+] [-] civilized|3 years ago|reply
Specifically, in any given location, the people whose voices are considered agree that their location is not the right location.
[+] [-] lalaland1125|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gcampos|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waldothedog|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danans|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kepler1|3 years ago|reply
In an age where people can hire shills to act for them, create fake companies, lobbying firms, etc. at least we still are able to rely on someone's inability to control their temper and expose themselves for who they really are. No more having to guess whether under the do-gooder curated front, you're being taken for a ride underneath. Now you can know.
[+] [-] rcpt|3 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Arrillaga
[+] [-] LilBytes|3 years ago|reply
Arrillaga established his career as a real estate developer starting in the 1960s, partnering with Richard Peery in acquiring California farmland which they converted into office space. Their partnership took off with the growth of the semiconductor industry and other high-tech businesses, such as Intel,[2] in what became known as Silicon Valley.[6] Arrillaga and Peery converted thousands of acres of farmland into office space in cities such as Mountain View, San Jose, and Sunnyvale to meet the industry's needs.[2] Over a period of 50 years, their partnership, Peery Arrillaga, built over 20 million square feet of commercial real estate, becoming one of Silicon Valley's biggest commercial landlords.[9][5][8] In 2006, he sold over five million square feet of his real estate holdings for roughly $1.1 billion to the real estate division of Deutsche Bank.[6][2] In 2020 Arrillaga ranked No. 339 on the Forbes 400 list of the richest people in America.[6] In October 2020, his net worth was $2.5 billion.[6]
[+] [-] abhv|3 years ago|reply
The letter was signed first by Laura, who did not co-author the essay.
[+] [-] mupuff1234|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buzzy_hacker|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nunez|3 years ago|reply
This outrage happens all of the time at HOA-run neighborhoods
[+] [-] nerdawson|3 years ago|reply