4 ms·

I don't buy the idea that San Francisco has a housing shortage. San Francisco already has rather a lot of houses for 47 square miles of land. What San Francisco

by hugh4 11y ago

I don't buy the idea that San Francisco has a housing shortage. San Francisco already has rather a lot of houses for 47 square miles of land. What San Francisco has is is a ridiculous oversupply of people who want to live there. The time has come to say it: San Francisco is full. Everyone start colonising somewhere else.

simoncion 11y ago
> San Francisco is full. Everyone start colonising somewhere else. Indeed. Actually, San Francisco is overfull! Everyone who arrived in the past 4.8 years take notice: YOU ARE IN GRAVE DANGER OF SPILLING OUT ONTO THE BAY FLOOR. EVACUATE IN AN ORDERLY FASHION TO SAFER LOCALES IMMEDIATELY! [0] [0] Note to the humorless: This is at least as much of a joke as the comment to which I am replying. :)
eru 11y ago
They have a decent supply of houses in terms of numbers. But those houses have an undersupply of floors..
tdylan 11y ago
No. SF has ample space horizontally and more importantly vertically for housing. The problem is the construction of housing has been hindered dramatically by bureaucrats.
- hugh4 11y ago
  Sure, you could pack more people in, at the cost of quality of life for people who live there. But why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings just to cram more people in? It's ridiculous. A forest of skyscrapers like the nastier parts of Hong Kong? No thanks. Besides, you can't increase the amount if road space or the amount of footpath available. And geography makes it an awful place for ultra high density, you can only get out in one direction.
  - girvo 11y ago
    Who says I care about historic buildings?
  - masklinn 11y ago
    > But why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings Eh? San Francisco is a century old (because 1906 earthquake and fire), you can find rabbit cages older than that on the east coast. > A forest of skyscrapers like the nastier parts of Hong Kong? Increasing density doesn't mean skycrappers. London and Paris have twice and thrice the density of SF. Hell, Lyon has a 50% higher density than SF (27000/sq mi to 18000) and there's almost no skyscrapers in the inner-city skyline[0] and still room left for antique buildings[1], parks and basilicas taking up whole hilltops[2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:01._Panorama_de_Lyon_pris_depuis_le_toit_de_la_Basilique_de_Fourvière.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:01._Panorama_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:Amphitheater_von_Lyon.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:Amphitheater_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:Lyon_paysages.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:Lyon_paysages...
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > ...why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings... I say this as someone who adores the interior architecture of the 1960s through the early 1980s: Have you been in the housing out on the west-northwestern part of the city? I've had the opportunity to visit many friends out in those districts. Some of the single- and multi-family homes out there are really nice and totally worth preserving. A not-insubstantial slice of them are either nothing special, or are slowly mouldering because of landlords who refuse to do even the legally required maintenance unless forced to by The City. Hell, due to the lack of market pressures, even the once-gorgeous historic multi family dwelling in which I rent grows more dirty and poorly maintained by the month. If you want to see what a conversion of sections of the city to apartment towers would look like, go down to FiDi on a non-holiday weekday around lunch time. Notice the abundant sunshine and foot traffic. :) > ...just to cram more people in? The point is that the crammming would stop. Because anyone in their mid-twenties or older would be able to reasonably afford a place with one actual bedroom per occupant, packing 2+ people into a bedroom and having landlords declare that what should be a living room or a dining room is a bedroom would stop.
- wyclif 11y ago
  NIMBYS. You're talking about NIMBYs. The Bay area is infested with them, and they're obnoxious.
  - hugh4 11y ago
    NIMBYs are people who want something built but don't want it built near them, which is sorta obnoxious. Saying that something shouldn't be built at all is rather different.
lmm 11y ago
It's a free country. Lots of people want to live in SF. It seems rampantly unfair to say that only those who were lucky enough to be born there get to.
- hugh4 11y ago
  No, I'm saying that the people who get to live there should be the people who can afford to pay the ridiculous prices, and people who can't afford to get in should quit whining. I'd like to live in Blenheim Palace. But I can't afford to buy it and I don't think the Earl of Marlborough is selling. You don't catch me whining about it.
  - lmm 11y ago
    I think it's legitimate to whine about some of the legal aspects in SF - the zoning and especially the way people who've owned houses longer get to pay artificially low property taxes.

by hugh4 11y ago

simoncion 11y ago

> San Francisco is full. Everyone start colonising somewhere else. Indeed. Actually, San Francisco is overfull! Everyone who arrived in the past 4.8 years take notice: YOU ARE IN GRAVE DANGER OF SPILLING OUT ONTO THE BAY FLOOR. EVACUATE IN AN ORDERLY FASHION TO SAFER LOCALES IMMEDIATELY! [0] [0] Note to the humorless: This is at least as much of a joke as the comment to which I am replying. :)

eru 11y ago

They have a decent supply of houses in terms of numbers. But those houses have an undersupply of floors..

tdylan 11y ago

No. SF has ample space horizontally and more importantly vertically for housing. The problem is the construction of housing has been hindered dramatically by bureaucrats.

hugh4 11y ago
Sure, you could pack more people in, at the cost of quality of life for people who live there. But why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings just to cram more people in? It's ridiculous. A forest of skyscrapers like the nastier parts of Hong Kong? No thanks. Besides, you can't increase the amount if road space or the amount of footpath available. And geography makes it an awful place for ultra high density, you can only get out in one direction.
- girvo 11y ago
  Who says I care about historic buildings?
- masklinn 11y ago
  > But why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings Eh? San Francisco is a century old (because 1906 earthquake and fire), you can find rabbit cages older than that on the east coast. > A forest of skyscrapers like the nastier parts of Hong Kong? Increasing density doesn't mean skycrappers. London and Paris have twice and thrice the density of SF. Hell, Lyon has a 50% higher density than SF (27000/sq mi to 18000) and there's almost no skyscrapers in the inner-city skyline[0] and still room left for antique buildings[1], parks and basilicas taking up whole hilltops[2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:01._Panorama_de_Lyon_pris_depuis_le_toit_de_la_Basilique_de_Fourvière.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:01._Panorama_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:Amphitheater_von_Lyon.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:Amphitheater_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:Lyon_paysages.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#/media/File:Lyon_paysages...
- simoncion 11y ago
  > ...why would you want to destroy a nice city full of historic buildings... I say this as someone who adores the interior architecture of the 1960s through the early 1980s: Have you been in the housing out on the west-northwestern part of the city? I've had the opportunity to visit many friends out in those districts. Some of the single- and multi-family homes out there are really nice and totally worth preserving. A not-insubstantial slice of them are either nothing special, or are slowly mouldering because of landlords who refuse to do even the legally required maintenance unless forced to by The City. Hell, due to the lack of market pressures, even the once-gorgeous historic multi family dwelling in which I rent grows more dirty and poorly maintained by the month. If you want to see what a conversion of sections of the city to apartment towers would look like, go down to FiDi on a non-holiday weekday around lunch time. Notice the abundant sunshine and foot traffic. :) > ...just to cram more people in? The point is that the crammming would stop. Because anyone in their mid-twenties or older would be able to reasonably afford a place with one actual bedroom per occupant, packing 2+ people into a bedroom and having landlords declare that what should be a living room or a dining room is a bedroom would stop.
wyclif 11y ago
NIMBYS. You're talking about NIMBYs. The Bay area is infested with them, and they're obnoxious.
- hugh4 11y ago
  NIMBYs are people who want something built but don't want it built near them, which is sorta obnoxious. Saying that something shouldn't be built at all is rather different.

lmm 11y ago

It's a free country. Lots of people want to live in SF. It seems rampantly unfair to say that only those who were lucky enough to be born there get to.

hugh4 11y ago
No, I'm saying that the people who get to live there should be the people who can afford to pay the ridiculous prices, and people who can't afford to get in should quit whining. I'd like to live in Blenheim Palace. But I can't afford to buy it and I don't think the Earl of Marlborough is selling. You don't catch me whining about it.
- lmm 11y ago
  I think it's legitimate to whine about some of the legal aspects in SF - the zoning and especially the way people who've owned houses longer get to pay artificially low property taxes.