4 ms·

I reject the premise that San Francisco should be planning for an ever-increasing population. At some point I think that San Francisco should look at itself an

by hugh4 11y ago

I reject the premise that San Francisco should be planning for an ever-increasing population. At some point I think that San Francisco should look at itself and say "Hey, we're a small, earthquake-prone hilly penninsula, we can't expand outwards. Traffic flow is constrained by planning decisions made a long time ago. We've got a pretty good quality of life as it is, and lots of nice historic buildings. Let's just put a lid on it and declare we're basically full". Many of the nicest cities in Europe are ones where at some point in the past they've decided to stop building in the historic city centre and just leave things as they were at some particular point in time. If anything I think San Francisco needs fewer people. San Francisco should focus on quality of residents, not quantity.

reality_czech 11y ago
San Francisco basically has done exactly what you suggest. Most city residents don't believe that anything should be built (or if it should, it definitely shouldn't be in their neighborhood.) http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_growing_way_faster_than_its_housing_stock.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_g... As a consequence, it is "focusing on quality of residents, not quantity" (the "quality" that they're looking for is the green stuff).
- hugh4 11y ago
  And San Francisco is a nice place. So what's the problem? Sure, not everyone who wants to live there can afford to live there, but that's always the way it is in desirable places, otherwise we'd all live in Vanuatu or something.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    San Francisco is a nice place. It will probably get nicer, as more and more grubby natives are replaced by nice presentable dot-commers. It's just that some people object to that process. Including, seemingly, people who live and vote in SF. They believe they can have a city that limits overall housing supply while simultaneously growing housing supply for the homeless, for the working poor, and for everyone else. San Francisco is a nice place.
cylinder 11y ago
I agree with this (no I don't live in SF). We've got a whole giant country to live in; why cram so many into a tip on the far edge? So much of America's economic advantage is derived from its distributed, continental population.

by hugh4 11y ago

reality_czech 11y ago

San Francisco basically has done exactly what you suggest. Most city residents don't believe that anything should be built (or if it should, it definitely shouldn't be in their neighborhood.) http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_growing_way_faster_than_its_housing_stock.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/04/sfs_population_is_g... As a consequence, it is "focusing on quality of residents, not quantity" (the "quality" that they're looking for is the green stuff).

hugh4 11y ago
And San Francisco is a nice place. So what's the problem? Sure, not everyone who wants to live there can afford to live there, but that's always the way it is in desirable places, otherwise we'd all live in Vanuatu or something.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  San Francisco is a nice place. It will probably get nicer, as more and more grubby natives are replaced by nice presentable dot-commers. It's just that some people object to that process. Including, seemingly, people who live and vote in SF. They believe they can have a city that limits overall housing supply while simultaneously growing housing supply for the homeless, for the working poor, and for everyone else. San Francisco is a nice place.

cylinder 11y ago

I agree with this (no I don't live in SF). We've got a whole giant country to live in; why cram so many into a tip on the far edge? So much of America's economic advantage is derived from its distributed, continental population.