undefined | Better HN

0 pointszamfi6y ago0 comments

There's a whole spectrum between single family homes and "Manhattan". It's not a binary!

The Bay Area's population has grown by 8.5% in the last 10 years. [0] Please, that's not "Manhattan". That's one person on your block converting their garage into a rentable unit.

Those "existing homeowners" are really messing things up for everyone because they don't want Bob to turn his garage into a rental? Somehow I think there's more to it than that.

[0]: https://www.kqed.org/news/11741275/map-the-bay-area-leads-ca...

0 comments

pacala6y ago

Full quote: The population of the nine-county region grew by over 600,000 people since 2010 — a nearly 8.5% increase — outpacing the growth rate in any other part of California, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Thursday.

600k people is about as much as Seattle proper. Which happens to span 83.94 sq mi. In less than 10 years. That's _a lot_ of construction.

zamfiOP6y ago

Huh? 600,000 people in the Bay Area's 7,000 square miles -- I don't see how the Seattle comparison of "83.94" square miles is related.

No residential neighborhood in the Bay Area needs to turn into "Manhattan" to house 600,000 extra people. If every block added a house we'd have extra housing to spare. Zoning prevents a ton of development, and everyone pretends they're fighting "Manhattan".

At Manhattan densities, the Bay Area would house 468 million people. That's not what's happening, and no one is advocating for that.

We don't need to build Seattle in the Bay to house everyone. We just need cities to stop dragging permits out years and every planning committee to stop saying "no" to any small increases in density.

How much construction it is isn't super relevant -- if it's profitable, it will happen!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse