There's plenty of affordable housing outside of areas like the Bay area (or Hong Kong, Vienna, London, etc.). Why in the world would someone want to destroy what makes those areas desirable in the name of "affordability"?
The fact that these areas are highly competitive is what keeps them desireable.
When I was in Cali, I lived in Tracy, Stockton, and outside Sacremento because while I was a tech worker, I wasn't a top 1% tech worker. Not everyone needs to live in the Bay.
> Why in the world would someone want to destroy what makes those areas desirable
If low density is the crucial factor in determining desirability, why aren't Manhattan apartments basically free and tiny houses in rural Montana being sold for tens of millions?
> When I was in Cali, I lived in Tracy, Stockton, and outside Sacremento because while I was a tech worker, I wasn't a top 1% tech worker. Not everyone needs to live in the Bay.
Did you commute into the Bay?
Because by my count, Stockton to SF or Stockton to Menlo Park is a 3-hours/day commute. 3 hours/day on the highway may be surviving, but it sure as shit isn't living (just in case anyone from outside the US thinks this is an extreme outlier, I worked with a number of QA folks in the Bay who had commutes this bad, or worse)
Stockton to Cupertino... Tracy to SF and Cupertino. I also commuted to Sacremento for a while.
I made about half as much as my co-workers (I was contract) but I took home more due to the difference in living expenses. Also, I had a house instead of an apartment.
Well when I was much younger (19) and lived in North Hollywood but worked in downtown LA, I walked as I didn't own a car. I was considered a freak because everyone in LA at that time drove everywhere... even to the end of the block.
Now, decades later, I have no desire to be anywhere "trendy" or "hip". I want affordability, stability, space, and quiet.
