6 ms·

San Francisco has 50% more land area than Manhattan, 15% more area than Paris. It has half the population of Manhattan, and roughly 1/3 of Paris. SF is mostly

San Francisco has 50% more land area than Manhattan, 15% more area than Paris. It has half the population of Manhattan, and roughly 1/3 of Paris. SF is mostly low-density houses, with a small mid-density area in the east 1/3. It could be easily converted to a mid-density city with widespread public transportation by opening west of Van Ness for development, while charging development fees to fund expansion of public transportation. But there are way too many entrenched interests preventing that. Guess that the only way out is to wait for the next big one.

nugget 11y ago
The market always corrects itself. San Francisco's high prices will continue to create an exodus of young talent which should help support a second Silicon Valley type nexus, whether that be in Seattle, Austin, New York, or elsewhere. It was interesting to hear Yelp call out high developer salaries on their last earnings call. Companies are starting to invest in satellite offices and this will have long term consequences.
- raldi 11y ago
  > The market always corrects itself. "In the long run, we're all dead." -Keynes It took generations for a second Motor City to emerge outside of Detroit. New York is still the unchallenged capital of the finance and fashion worlds. There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. There's a Reno and an Atlantic City, but neither holds a candle to Las Vegas. What makes you so certain tech will have an exodus from San Francisco between now and the year of your retirement?
  - nugget 11y ago
    It's hard for two kids in a garage to start a new car company or a new investment bank. Much easier for them to start the next big tech company.
  - Encosia 11y ago
    > There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. Look into what's been going on in Georgia for the past few years. Not a replacement for Hollywood yet, but it's a good example of how quickly alternatives can take off due almost entirely to geographic differences in the cost of doing business.
    - jacobolus 11y ago
      Where by “geographic differences in the cost of doing business” you mean “desperate politicians in a race to the bottom competing over who can waive the most taxes”. http://www.georgia.org/industries/entertainment/production-incentives/ http://www.georgia.org/industries/entertainment/production-i...
      - echelon 11y ago
        My rent for a two bedroom apartment in Inman Park is $700. The costs of doing business in Atlanta are significantly less than other regions.
    - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
      Georgia has had a presence at the Game Developers' Conference every year for as long back as I can remember. They've been wooing game developers with basically free money and other bonuses. And while they likely have convinced a few companies (they like to showcase a half dozen or so), it's not like it even was a measurable blip on the growth of game companies in Silicon Valley.
      - Encosia 11y ago
        That's interesting, but we (as far as I know) weren't talking about game development, but about TV/movie production. Most people don't realize it, but many recent high-budget movies were filmed in Georgia, e.g. Fast Five, Vacation, Ant-Man, all three Hunger Games movies, one of the recent X-Men movies, Flight, etc. After 2008, there was an abundance of empty warehouse space here available at deep discounts, not far from the highest volume airport in the world. As the economy rebounded, momentum in that industry seems to have remained even though there aren't many empty/cheap warehouses here anymore. A few developers are even working on purpose-built movie studios around town now. It has been interesting to watch, and certainly could parallel what could happen in the bay area if an exodus to somewhere like Austin began in earnest.
  - echelon 11y ago
    > There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. It's right here in Atlanta. It's been a decade and a half in the making, and the pace and scale of it increases with every passing year.
    - someear 11y ago
      If the "second hollywood" is in fact in Atlanta, I think you're validating the original point (i.e. there is no second hollywood). Being second miles and miles behind the leader doesn't actually mean you're close to winning, or even competing.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
      According to wikipedia, as a whole $617M was spent in Georgia in 2013 on production; this compares disfavorably with Louisiana ($674M), British Columbia ($778M), and New York State (1880M). Wiki doesn't even bother to list California. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry_in_Georgia_%28U.S._state%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry_in_Georgia_%28U....)
      - echelon 11y ago
        That list doesn't include all the new studios being built: Pinewood: http://m.pinewoodgroup.com/our-studios/usa/pinewood-atlanta-studios http://m.pinewoodgroup.com/our-studios/usa/pinewood-atlanta-... Third Rail: http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/04/07/film-and-tv-studio-to-anchor-former-doraville-gm-plant-site http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/04/07/film-and-tv-s... Tyler Perry's new facility: http://m.clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/06/29/tyler-perrys-fort-mcpherson-studio-dreams-to-become-a-reality http://m.clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/06/29/tyler-perry... This is just three of about ten studio facilities being built in the area. I believe three of the Marvel films have been filmed in Atlanta. These have been recent enough not to be in that list. I know this is anecdotal, but if you were living in Atlanta you'd get a sense of how much growth is occurring in our film industry.
  - cft 11y ago
    San Francisco is the second Hollywood. The new media capital.
    - raldi 11y ago
      And it only took, what, 90 years?
- gorkemyurt 11y ago
  Its kind of too late for that.. I expect record number companies to IPO in the next two years; uber, dropbox, airbnb, pinterest, stripe, lyft... A lot of people are going to be really liquid and will be looking to buy property.
  - nugget 11y ago
    No doubt, but as the gap between prices in SF and everywhere else widens, it will become much more appealing for them to move and enjoy a higher quality of life elsewhere.
- muzz 11y ago
  It's been 34 years since 1981, how much longer until the correction?
- rhino369 11y ago
  You'll probably see less profitable industries get out of dodge before tech companies do. Tech companies have more money, labor costs are less important to the bottom line, and young tech workers can and do spending way too much on rent.
- lsc 11y ago
  > It was interesting to hear Yelp call out high developer salaries on their last earnings call. Companies are starting to invest in satellite offices and this will have long term consequences. That's the thing... Technical people are still cheap. Really cheap, compared to the jobs where your asset is "knowing people" - our salaries haven't been increasing with the cost of living around here, unlike the real-estate agent example below. Look at what you pay a body shop for developer time. A lot of that goes to the body shop; the people who's main asset is the "relationship" with management. Heck, at 3%, become a real-estate agent. sell three or four houses around here a year, and you'll make more than your average developer or sysadmin. Yeah, wake me up when we make more than recruiters. Until then, I'm going to ignore all this noise about technical people being expensive, because it's obvious bullshit. All that said, while I don't think the cost of us is a problem for companies, the high cost of living is a problem for us. As a technical person, the bay area only really makes sense if you are the best of the best (or have those "relationship contacts" and can get real money) - for the rest of us, it mostly only makes sense if you have a deep emotional connection to the place and/or have a rent-controlled space. (In the south bay, if you own, live with family, or have a landlord who doesn't jack up rents with market... there's no actual rent control in the south bay, though I know a few people paying vastly below-market rents because they've been renting from the same person for a decade or more, and that person is being cool. There's serious rent control in San Francisco proper.) This... is probably why companies are opening up branch offices; there are many good people who just won't move here because the cost, but that's because we aren't expensive enough, not because we're too expensive.
  - hibikir 11y ago
    The advantage of the bay area is your improved chances of networking. If you are well connected enough as it is, chances are you'll do better elsewhere, maybe even doing remote work for bay area companies. There's people here that could pay for a 4 bedroom house in full every year if then wanted to, just by abusing that pay differential. So why would we move there, if we can get paid pretty much the same with a much cheaper cost of living? The extra connections are not worth going from 1K a month mortgages to 4-5K.
- frozenport 11y ago
  >>The market always corrects itself. Its not a free market, there are regulations.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  I thought it was fascinating how many accuracies in that article played out, makes me wish I had bought some houses for $129,000 in San Francisco in the 80's :-). But perhaps more interesting is the salary question, because there is so much resistance to raising salaries it pulls companies out of the Bay Area. (which has been true since I started here in the 80's) I am not sure what the opposite of a bubble is (not enough increases relative to the market) but as far as I can tell the whole country is in one of those. At some point someone is going to just say "Screw it, staff for effectiveness even it it doubles our HR cost." and if that entity successfully captures the top performers it will seriously outperform all of its competitors in the market and light off a wage war which was what happened in the late 70's and 90's in the Bay Area.
jarjoura 11y ago
There's still a LOT of dead space (vacant parking lots and warehouses) in SOMA, Mission Bay, and Dog Patch that are already re-zoned for high-rises. Once these areas completely fill out, I suspect pressure will increase to move west of Van Ness.
- gorkemyurt 11y ago
  Van Ness corridor itself is going through a massive makeover with multiple housing projects and a rapid bus transit system. I expect a similar makeover on Lombard between Lyon and Van ness.. As presidio becomes a real tourist attraction, current state of the lombard corridor is just pathetic
  - jarjoura 11y ago
    Oh god, Pac Heights and Marina are such status symbol neighborhoods, I cannot imagine them allowing for much change. Public transit is horrible there and they really could do anything to improve it. That's just my inner-jaded self talking though. :)
chaostheory 11y ago
SF != the Bay Area I don't understand why people continually tend to ignore places like Oakland, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and even the nearby surrounding areas like Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, Burlingame, and South SF. Daly City, South SF, and even San Bruno are like a 15 min drive into SF or 20 min using Bart. Housing is more affordable in those places. Am I missing something? EDIT: Considering that these posts are on HN, I find it very strange and disturbing to repeatedly read variants of "it's impossible to do x because of y".
- Rapzid 11y ago
  Parking? If I have to drive into SOMA for work I'm not sure how much cheaper those areas are when you factor in time and parking.
  - chaostheory 11y ago
    Parking just adds $200-$300. (I could be wrong but I feel that it's also tax deductible if you keep the receipts.) It's still a lot cheaper by approximately $1000 depending on your living situation (It's even cheaper if you just rent / sublet a room outside of SF: $600-$900 including utilities). I used to do the same thing even though I could have taken Bart instead which would make it a lot more affordable and healthier from all the walking. As for time my drive was about 15-20 min one way and I used it to listen to podcasts and audiobooks. For Bart, I would either work, sleep, or listen to podcasts plus I saved a lot of time and money that I would have used for a gym.
- archagon 11y ago
  I get the sense that people feel entitled to live in whatever city they want, and SF is clearly the cultural center of Northern California.
- conanbatt 11y ago
  One one hand, depending exclusively on Bart means you dont get to have SF at night. Being far away makes it expensive to Uber (Figure a 3xUber twice a weekend). Its also not much cheaper, unless you start getting away from transport. Oakland has bigger commute, and lots of shady areas, including some eventful bart stations. Its also way more sparse to go out at night. If you live in Palo alto and work in San Francisco, you are going to have a hell of a daily commute.
archagon 11y ago
> Guess that the only way out is to wait for the next big one. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that seems like a pretty gross sentiment. "I hope a natural disaster gets these old people out of their homes so me and my hip friends can move into our favorite city." I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but I feel like I see a lot of similar animosity towards the longstanding residents (or as you put it, "entrenched interests") of SF.
- raldi 11y ago
  > "I hope a natural disaster gets these old people out of their homes..." ...and into tall, beautiful apartment buildings in walkable neighborhoods with excellent transit connections, so we can all live here together.
  - archagon 11y ago
    For many people, SF wouldn't be SF without the older buildings and neighborhoods. You'd arguably be destroying the character of the city just for the chance to live there. Also, I don't think I've ever seen an affordable apartment highrise in a major city. Think those new and shiny skyscrapers will be able to compete with rent-controlled housing? What's actually going to happen is that the longtime residents are going to get pushed out into the outskirts while the Silicon Valley rich fill out the city.
    - raldi 11y ago
      > For many people, SF wouldn't be SF without the older buildings and neighborhoods. See, I think the soul of San Francisco actually comes from its people. Given a choice between preserving buildings or saving people from displacement, I think the latter does more to preserve the essence of the city.
    - ucaetano 11y ago
      The character of cities changes all the time, who are we to say what should be the character of a city? Let it change, let it evolve. SF's character only became what it is by changing from it's previous character, again and again and again.
mraison 11y ago
Interestingly, Paris does have strict height restrictions for buildings. But two big differences are: * it is easier to find tiny (and thus cheaper) housing in Paris, since the standards of comfort are lower. For people who want a simple shelter and spend most of their time outside, it can frustrating to look for housing in SF. * public transit is everywhere in Paris and most areas inside the city are safe, whereas in SF people tend to choose from a small subset of neighborhoods. Cars are unnecessary - they generally create more problems than they solve.
- gkanapathy 11y ago
  A "height restriction" in paris is means a seven-story building, while in SF, it's a three-story building.
prawn 11y ago
Charge a premium fee for building height above a certain number of stories. Fee goes directly towards public infrastructure. Surprised more communities don't do this.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

nugget 11y ago

The market always corrects itself. San Francisco's high prices will continue to create an exodus of young talent which should help support a second Silicon Valley type nexus, whether that be in Seattle, Austin, New York, or elsewhere. It was interesting to hear Yelp call out high developer salaries on their last earnings call. Companies are starting to invest in satellite offices and this will have long term consequences.

raldi 11y ago
> The market always corrects itself. "In the long run, we're all dead." -Keynes It took generations for a second Motor City to emerge outside of Detroit. New York is still the unchallenged capital of the finance and fashion worlds. There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. There's a Reno and an Atlantic City, but neither holds a candle to Las Vegas. What makes you so certain tech will have an exodus from San Francisco between now and the year of your retirement?
- nugget 11y ago
  It's hard for two kids in a garage to start a new car company or a new investment bank. Much easier for them to start the next big tech company.
- Encosia 11y ago
  > There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. Look into what's been going on in Georgia for the past few years. Not a replacement for Hollywood yet, but it's a good example of how quickly alternatives can take off due almost entirely to geographic differences in the cost of doing business.
  - jacobolus 11y ago
    Where by “geographic differences in the cost of doing business” you mean “desperate politicians in a race to the bottom competing over who can waive the most taxes”. http://www.georgia.org/industries/entertainment/production-incentives/ http://www.georgia.org/industries/entertainment/production-i...
    - echelon 11y ago
      My rent for a two bedroom apartment in Inman Park is $700. The costs of doing business in Atlanta are significantly less than other regions.
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    Georgia has had a presence at the Game Developers' Conference every year for as long back as I can remember. They've been wooing game developers with basically free money and other bonuses. And while they likely have convinced a few companies (they like to showcase a half dozen or so), it's not like it even was a measurable blip on the growth of game companies in Silicon Valley.
    - Encosia 11y ago
      That's interesting, but we (as far as I know) weren't talking about game development, but about TV/movie production. Most people don't realize it, but many recent high-budget movies were filmed in Georgia, e.g. Fast Five, Vacation, Ant-Man, all three Hunger Games movies, one of the recent X-Men movies, Flight, etc. After 2008, there was an abundance of empty warehouse space here available at deep discounts, not far from the highest volume airport in the world. As the economy rebounded, momentum in that industry seems to have remained even though there aren't many empty/cheap warehouses here anymore. A few developers are even working on purpose-built movie studios around town now. It has been interesting to watch, and certainly could parallel what could happen in the bay area if an exodus to somewhere like Austin began in earnest.
- echelon 11y ago
  > There's no "Second Hollywood" in the United States. It's right here in Atlanta. It's been a decade and a half in the making, and the pace and scale of it increases with every passing year.
  - someear 11y ago
    If the "second hollywood" is in fact in Atlanta, I think you're validating the original point (i.e. there is no second hollywood). Being second miles and miles behind the leader doesn't actually mean you're close to winning, or even competing.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    According to wikipedia, as a whole $617M was spent in Georgia in 2013 on production; this compares disfavorably with Louisiana ($674M), British Columbia ($778M), and New York State (1880M). Wiki doesn't even bother to list California. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry_in_Georgia_%28U.S._state%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry_in_Georgia_%28U....)
    - echelon 11y ago
      That list doesn't include all the new studios being built: Pinewood: http://m.pinewoodgroup.com/our-studios/usa/pinewood-atlanta-studios http://m.pinewoodgroup.com/our-studios/usa/pinewood-atlanta-... Third Rail: http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/04/07/film-and-tv-studio-to-anchor-former-doraville-gm-plant-site http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/04/07/film-and-tv-s... Tyler Perry's new facility: http://m.clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/06/29/tyler-perrys-fort-mcpherson-studio-dreams-to-become-a-reality http://m.clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/06/29/tyler-perry... This is just three of about ten studio facilities being built in the area. I believe three of the Marvel films have been filmed in Atlanta. These have been recent enough not to be in that list. I know this is anecdotal, but if you were living in Atlanta you'd get a sense of how much growth is occurring in our film industry.
- cft 11y ago
  San Francisco is the second Hollywood. The new media capital.
  - raldi 11y ago
    And it only took, what, 90 years?
gorkemyurt 11y ago
Its kind of too late for that.. I expect record number companies to IPO in the next two years; uber, dropbox, airbnb, pinterest, stripe, lyft... A lot of people are going to be really liquid and will be looking to buy property.
- nugget 11y ago
  No doubt, but as the gap between prices in SF and everywhere else widens, it will become much more appealing for them to move and enjoy a higher quality of life elsewhere.
muzz 11y ago
It's been 34 years since 1981, how much longer until the correction?
rhino369 11y ago
You'll probably see less profitable industries get out of dodge before tech companies do. Tech companies have more money, labor costs are less important to the bottom line, and young tech workers can and do spending way too much on rent.
lsc 11y ago
> It was interesting to hear Yelp call out high developer salaries on their last earnings call. Companies are starting to invest in satellite offices and this will have long term consequences. That's the thing... Technical people are still cheap. Really cheap, compared to the jobs where your asset is "knowing people" - our salaries haven't been increasing with the cost of living around here, unlike the real-estate agent example below. Look at what you pay a body shop for developer time. A lot of that goes to the body shop; the people who's main asset is the "relationship" with management. Heck, at 3%, become a real-estate agent. sell three or four houses around here a year, and you'll make more than your average developer or sysadmin. Yeah, wake me up when we make more than recruiters. Until then, I'm going to ignore all this noise about technical people being expensive, because it's obvious bullshit. All that said, while I don't think the cost of us is a problem for companies, the high cost of living is a problem for us. As a technical person, the bay area only really makes sense if you are the best of the best (or have those "relationship contacts" and can get real money) - for the rest of us, it mostly only makes sense if you have a deep emotional connection to the place and/or have a rent-controlled space. (In the south bay, if you own, live with family, or have a landlord who doesn't jack up rents with market... there's no actual rent control in the south bay, though I know a few people paying vastly below-market rents because they've been renting from the same person for a decade or more, and that person is being cool. There's serious rent control in San Francisco proper.) This... is probably why companies are opening up branch offices; there are many good people who just won't move here because the cost, but that's because we aren't expensive enough, not because we're too expensive.
- hibikir 11y ago
  The advantage of the bay area is your improved chances of networking. If you are well connected enough as it is, chances are you'll do better elsewhere, maybe even doing remote work for bay area companies. There's people here that could pay for a 4 bedroom house in full every year if then wanted to, just by abusing that pay differential. So why would we move there, if we can get paid pretty much the same with a much cheaper cost of living? The extra connections are not worth going from 1K a month mortgages to 4-5K.
frozenport 11y ago
>>The market always corrects itself. Its not a free market, there are regulations.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I thought it was fascinating how many accuracies in that article played out, makes me wish I had bought some houses for $129,000 in San Francisco in the 80's :-). But perhaps more interesting is the salary question, because there is so much resistance to raising salaries it pulls companies out of the Bay Area. (which has been true since I started here in the 80's) I am not sure what the opposite of a bubble is (not enough increases relative to the market) but as far as I can tell the whole country is in one of those. At some point someone is going to just say "Screw it, staff for effectiveness even it it doubles our HR cost." and if that entity successfully captures the top performers it will seriously outperform all of its competitors in the market and light off a wage war which was what happened in the late 70's and 90's in the Bay Area.

jarjoura 11y ago

There's still a LOT of dead space (vacant parking lots and warehouses) in SOMA, Mission Bay, and Dog Patch that are already re-zoned for high-rises. Once these areas completely fill out, I suspect pressure will increase to move west of Van Ness.

gorkemyurt 11y ago
Van Ness corridor itself is going through a massive makeover with multiple housing projects and a rapid bus transit system. I expect a similar makeover on Lombard between Lyon and Van ness.. As presidio becomes a real tourist attraction, current state of the lombard corridor is just pathetic
- jarjoura 11y ago
  Oh god, Pac Heights and Marina are such status symbol neighborhoods, I cannot imagine them allowing for much change. Public transit is horrible there and they really could do anything to improve it. That's just my inner-jaded self talking though. :)

chaostheory 11y ago

SF != the Bay Area I don't understand why people continually tend to ignore places like Oakland, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and even the nearby surrounding areas like Daly City, Pacifica, San Bruno, Burlingame, and South SF. Daly City, South SF, and even San Bruno are like a 15 min drive into SF or 20 min using Bart. Housing is more affordable in those places. Am I missing something? EDIT: Considering that these posts are on HN, I find it very strange and disturbing to repeatedly read variants of "it's impossible to do x because of y".

Rapzid 11y ago
Parking? If I have to drive into SOMA for work I'm not sure how much cheaper those areas are when you factor in time and parking.
- chaostheory 11y ago
  Parking just adds $200-$300. (I could be wrong but I feel that it's also tax deductible if you keep the receipts.) It's still a lot cheaper by approximately $1000 depending on your living situation (It's even cheaper if you just rent / sublet a room outside of SF: $600-$900 including utilities). I used to do the same thing even though I could have taken Bart instead which would make it a lot more affordable and healthier from all the walking. As for time my drive was about 15-20 min one way and I used it to listen to podcasts and audiobooks. For Bart, I would either work, sleep, or listen to podcasts plus I saved a lot of time and money that I would have used for a gym.
archagon 11y ago
I get the sense that people feel entitled to live in whatever city they want, and SF is clearly the cultural center of Northern California.
conanbatt 11y ago
One one hand, depending exclusively on Bart means you dont get to have SF at night. Being far away makes it expensive to Uber (Figure a 3xUber twice a weekend). Its also not much cheaper, unless you start getting away from transport. Oakland has bigger commute, and lots of shady areas, including some eventful bart stations. Its also way more sparse to go out at night. If you live in Palo alto and work in San Francisco, you are going to have a hell of a daily commute.

archagon 11y ago

> Guess that the only way out is to wait for the next big one. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that seems like a pretty gross sentiment. "I hope a natural disaster gets these old people out of their homes so me and my hip friends can move into our favorite city." I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but I feel like I see a lot of similar animosity towards the longstanding residents (or as you put it, "entrenched interests") of SF.

raldi 11y ago
> "I hope a natural disaster gets these old people out of their homes..." ...and into tall, beautiful apartment buildings in walkable neighborhoods with excellent transit connections, so we can all live here together.
- archagon 11y ago
  For many people, SF wouldn't be SF without the older buildings and neighborhoods. You'd arguably be destroying the character of the city just for the chance to live there. Also, I don't think I've ever seen an affordable apartment highrise in a major city. Think those new and shiny skyscrapers will be able to compete with rent-controlled housing? What's actually going to happen is that the longtime residents are going to get pushed out into the outskirts while the Silicon Valley rich fill out the city.
  - raldi 11y ago
    > For many people, SF wouldn't be SF without the older buildings and neighborhoods. See, I think the soul of San Francisco actually comes from its people. Given a choice between preserving buildings or saving people from displacement, I think the latter does more to preserve the essence of the city.
  - ucaetano 11y ago
    The character of cities changes all the time, who are we to say what should be the character of a city? Let it change, let it evolve. SF's character only became what it is by changing from it's previous character, again and again and again.

mraison 11y ago

Interestingly, Paris does have strict height restrictions for buildings. But two big differences are: * it is easier to find tiny (and thus cheaper) housing in Paris, since the standards of comfort are lower. For people who want a simple shelter and spend most of their time outside, it can frustrating to look for housing in SF. * public transit is everywhere in Paris and most areas inside the city are safe, whereas in SF people tend to choose from a small subset of neighborhoods. Cars are unnecessary - they generally create more problems than they solve.

gkanapathy 11y ago
A "height restriction" in paris is means a seven-story building, while in SF, it's a three-story building.

prawn 11y ago

Charge a premium fee for building height above a certain number of stories. Fee goes directly towards public infrastructure. Surprised more communities don't do this.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]