4 ms·

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

by 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.

by 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.