|
Cicero posted:Oh look: Good luck getting those zoning regulations loosened. One of the biggest issues, which gets said repeatedly, is rabid opposition to high-density construction. Yeah you can put up apartments quickly but, well, where do you build them? Every potential location has some excuse or another. It would block my view! I don't want those people in my neighborhood! Low-income housing increases crime rates! My land value would go down! I can't sell this house, it's been in the family for 150 years!
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1QHgLDRqBI
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/house-flipping-skyrockets-sparks-concern-over-housing-bubble-n530866quote:House flipping - buying and reselling a home to make a quick buck - has risen in some hot housing markets, prompting concerns that local housing bubbles could be developing, according to a report published on Thursday. I see we've learned nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
on the left posted:Why should society subsidize what is essentially your lifestyle preferences? Society subsidizes ALL lifestyles to some degree, its just massively skewed to favor particular classes/races/subsets depending on its guiding dogma, policies/laws, and inherited inertia. When conservative dogshits poo-poo in their usual rhetorical vomit about "liberal social engineering" what they are really protesting is "changing the current social engineering to favor someone else rather than ME."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
http://fusion.net/story/285858/san-francisco-man-lives-in-tiny-box/ Peter Berkowitz is an illustrator, cook, and—most notably as of today—a 25-year-old man who pays $408 a month to live in a box in a San Francisco living room. Berkowitz calls it a pod, but it is a wooden box. Here it is: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Monomythian posted:http://fusion.net/story/285858/san-francisco-man-lives-in-tiny-box/
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:He has access to the bathroom and kitchen and living room. This is not really a bad or desperate situation for a few years for someone young and single and who doesn't own a ton of poo poo yet. he's living in a box.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
a literal shamecube
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:He has access to the bathroom and kitchen and living room. This is not really a bad or desperate situation for a few years for someone young and single and who doesn't own a ton of poo poo yet. What the gently caress are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:he's living in a box.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:He sleeps in a box. Surely he has access to the rest of the house. And is probably deliberately trying to get some SF tech weirdo street by coming up with something more sterile than vans in parking lots or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
The logical next step is boxsharing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
32 slot boxbartment 1 shift 2 vacancy $4000/mo, 1 shift 3 vacancy $3200/mo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
"Hey, baby, want to come back to my box so I can get in your box?" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Monomythian posted:http://fusion.net/story/285858/san-francisco-man-lives-in-tiny-box/ He's living in a box in his friends living room. It's basically the same situation as sharing with a friend and sleeping on a bed in their living room. If the box was built by a landlord and rented out to a prospective tenant then it might be a bit more indicative of the dire housing situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:He's living in a box in his friends living room. It's basically the same situation as sharing with a friend and sleeping on a bed in their living room. It's basically crashing on his buddy's couch, but he gets to masturbate feet away from where people eat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
How could you not post the best part of that article?quote:Okay, but—what about when he has sex?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
that almost certainly violates some renters code
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
That guy certainly needs a two story box, or a rancher box in a sitting room, if he wants to attract the ladies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:If the box was built by a landlord and rented out to a prospective tenant then it might be a bit more indicative of the dire housing situation. Ok. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/in-pod-based-community-living-rent-is-cheap-but-sex-is-banned?trk_source=popular Here are some of choice bites from this article. Pod life sharing economy pod culture nomadic freelancers access not ownership Podestrians open-floor model social travelers pod share live-work community future of work startup world PodSex
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Well, at least they're not living in cages like people do in Hong Kong. Yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
We need to focus less on 'things' and more on 'being', and that's not just because there's no room in my pod for 'things' or 'movement.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Well, at least they're not living in cages like people do in Hong Kong. Yet. Cage would probably be more comfortable, doesn't look like that pod gets good airflow
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:If the box was built by a landlord and rented out to a prospective tenant then it might be a bit more indicative of the dire housing situation. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/london-rental-opportunity-of-the-week-a-loving-shed-a-shed-in-someones-front-room-987
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Monomythian posted:Ok. It's serfdom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
I have no idea how anyone could stand living in a "pod"style hostel, or living in a living-room shed, for any kind of extended period. I really don't understand how it's associated with living a "less tied down lifestyle," and I especially don't understand how it automatically translates to enabling people to be able to have the time and connections to "work on their startup." Forget the loving buzzwords. This is basically people living in living conditions below that of an average dorm room at a state university.. At least in a dorm you'll have only 1-2 roommates, an actual desk, storage space, and access to a space within a short distance that's guaranteed to be at least passably quiet (study rooms). But this is even worse because at $900 per month for that "pod" housing in Los Angeles you're paying more for housing than students would at the cheapest housing option at UCLA where you'd get a bedroom in an apartment to yourself. I mean I realize that housing at UCLA isn't available for everyone, but I'm just providing some perspective on this bullshit. We're effectively pushing people into the economy, giving them poo poo pay, giving them worse housing situations than the "freshman experience" dorms that most people view in America as some kind of right of passage that's looked back on as a bad experience but you're better off for it, and then browbeaten about how dare they not bootstrap themselves into being middle class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I have no idea how anyone could stand living in a "pod"style hostel, or living in a living-room shed, for any kind of extended period. I really don't understand how it's associated with living a "less tied down lifestyle," and I especially don't understand how it automatically translates to enabling people to be able to have the time and connections to "work on their startup." I have the impression they are just trying to make a steaming turd appealing to millenials with buzzwords they think millenials will appreciate. The list of which has kindly been provided by Monomythian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
Monomythian posted:http://motherboard.vice.com/read/in-pod-based-community-living-rent-is-cheap-but-sex-is-banned?trk_source=popular “We built the pods facing each other so the community polices itself,” said Beck. What an opportunity. Pay a grand per month to live in the panopticon barracks and find a sense of community born from sharing an inadequate toilet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Yeah but imagine the orgies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I have no idea how anyone could stand living in a "pod"style hostel, or living in a living-room shed, for any kind of extended period. I really don't understand how it's associated with living a "less tied down lifestyle," and I especially don't understand how it automatically translates to enabling people to be able to have the time and connections to "work on their startup." I'm all for "buying less things" and conscious consumerism (to the degree that sort of thing is really possible), but a movement to tiny homes/residences/mobile living is born from low wages, and nothing else. There have always been people that want to live like that, but it's not because they had to. The number of people doing it now, they're doing it because they have to. Jacobin had a nice piece about this a while back: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/tiny-house-movement-nation-tumbleweed-environment-consumerism/
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:It's a response to understanding that they can't afford to rent a decent place, own a home, spend money on "things," and generally participate in buying like has been the case for 60+ years. There's a big difference between putting a tiny house up on a piece of land somewhere, or buying a tiny apartment that's been optimized with fancy multi-purpose shape-shifting furniture...and living in a "pod" that costs $900 a month to feel connected to buzzwords. At some point reality has to come home to roost that you can't afford to live in that place anymore. That LA, San Fran, Boston, NYC, Miami, and others are just not places someone has any hope of bootstrapping anymore. This "pod" thing especially underscores this as they push the concept that the beds become desks during the day...which means these people are independent contractors working online. They could be doing that anywhere they had reliable high-speed internet access. Because while they may not be the "cool" place we all dreamed of living in when we, and others, grew up. I know when I was sitting in a town no one has ever heard of in school looking at posters on the wall of fancy houses and cars that basically boiled down to "don't be stupid, don't do drugs, and study hard = becoming rich" that we didn't dream of living in some suburb no one has ever heard of in a n average house with an average car eating average food cooked in an average kitchen...but that's the poo poo sandwich reality dealt us regardless of how well we did educationally and/or how clean we kept our noses. If people want to embrace the individualist "frontier" ownership mindset while lacking a means of extracting surplus value from others - indeed finding themselves mostly on the losing end of the surplus value equation - then maybe dropping $900 on a "pod" to be able to feel connected to some pop-culture buzzwords is no better than a drug addiction in terms not only of financial stability, but of mental health, and in the long run the ability to rage against the machine that hosed you into that position to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:I'm all for "buying less things" and conscious consumerism (to the degree that sort of thing is really possible), but a movement to tiny homes/residences/mobile living is born from low wages, and nothing else. There have always been people that want to live like that, but it's not because they had to. The number of people doing it now, they're doing it because they have to. In San Francisco though, it's probably very likely that there's a huuuuge shortage of occupiable rooms compared to the number of people who want to live in San Francisco. No single entity is making San Francisco expensive except for the individual snowflakes who are convinced they play no part in the blizzard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
on the left posted:In San Francisco though, it's probably very likely that there's a huuuuge shortage of occupiable rooms compared to the number of people who want to live in San Francisco. No single entity is making San Francisco expensive except for the individual snowflakes who are convinced they play no part in the blizzard. And there's the very obvious FYGM issue shown by regulations on things like height. A very compact X axis, and land owners who more or less don't want things to change beyond the intro of Full House, and thus the Y axis ends up limited to something like 8 floors. So even if you managed to somehow buy a ton of property you can't really build it out to the point that would make it usable and cost-sustainable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Isn't some substantial portion of San Francisco real estate owned by vulture investors who rent it out on AirBnB?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Isn't some substantial portion of San Francisco real estate owned by vulture investors who rent it out on AirBnB? Yyyyup. San Francisco's real estate situation is basically a perfect poo poo storm right now in a bajillion different ways. The people who actually own all the land and buildings love it because they can just raise the rent every year and watch their land values go up for no effort beyond "all development is evil, we must destroy it at all costs."
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
 I think the best part about this is that the sign isn't even posted in some flamboyant way as if pricing starting at $1mil is really just the sort of cheap ad. Checked the company's website and their starting units are 1547 sqft, 3bd, 2b and are about 3 blocks from SF State.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
So I've been reading Naomi Klein's Capitalism vs Climate novel for my economy minor all week, and I've noticed that the free market fundamentalist-controlled global economy appears to be absolutely opposed to adapting to climate change. WTO, EU, UN, I'm looking at you for the poo poo in Ontario. Apparently the WTO hates it when renewable energy firms try to localize, as it would 'disrupt free market trade.' These fuckers are going to get us all killed I swear. How much of this poo poo is true? And what might happen in the nearer future that could permanently upset the monopoly of free trade fundamentalism and the WTO, if anything?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:I have the impression they are just trying to make a steaming turd appealing to millenials with buzzwords they think millenials will appreciate. The list of which has kindly been provided by Monomythian. If you view group housing as such "a steaming turd" for young professionals, why is it not so for gerontological individuals? Perhaps the issue is that your perception of the housing environment you feel entitled to is not accurate for the reality in which you live.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Yyyyup. San Francisco's real estate situation is basically a perfect poo poo storm right now in a bajillion different ways. The people who actually own all the land and buildings love it because they can just raise the rent every year and watch their land values go up for no effort beyond "all development is evil, we must destroy it at all costs." If you turned all the interstates in San Francisco into market-rate mixed-used housing and commercial zones, you wouldn't have the pricing crunch San Fran finds itself in now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:If you view group housing as such "a steaming turd" for young professionals, why is it not so for gerontological individuals? Did you just say "gerontological individuals"? On purpose? My Imaginary GF posted:If you turned all the interstates in San Francisco into market-rate mixed-used housing and commercial zones, you wouldn't have the pricing crunch San Fran finds itself in now. There is very little real estate in SF used by interstates. A little bit of 280, and 101 which mostly becomes surface streets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 03:00
|
|
