4 ms·

It's a shame that when people focus on the bay area's ludicrous housing costs, they tend to speak exclusively of San Francisco and ignore the opportunity to dev

It's a shame that when people focus on the bay area's ludicrous housing costs, they tend to speak exclusively of San Francisco and ignore the opportunity to develop Oakland, which has a lot of flat land that is easier to build tall buildings on top of, instead of trying to densify San Francisco's endless peaks and twists. The author said a potential future for San Francisco is as a "gated community for the rich." That may be the case, perhaps already having been so for a long time. It's unfortunate that an economic juggernaut heralded as the shining center of modern American capitalism is also so inaccessible, but that does not mean the overall solution is by making that place accessible at the expense of more realistic options. The author compares the density of SF to NYC's Brooklyn. Like Manhattan, San Francisco is owned by the rich and their rules, yet Brooklyn is big and booming. Oakland is prime to take up the role of the Bay's Brooklyn. Side note: if people want to return to the halcyon days of San Francisco when the wealthy and the workers could live atop the same rock, it will cost a ton of money. Hairdressers, grocery clerks, teachers, and the like will either need massive housing subsidies or comparable salaries to tech workers. That possibility could exist too, if the well-heeled agree to let go of a big chunk of change.

gravity13 11y ago
I get the sense Manhattan was established, and then tapped out, hence Brooklyn. Whereas San Francisco is neither of those. San Francisco is the hip place to be (for tech) and Oakland is perceived as the fallback for companies that can't afford to host. Which really surmounts to: I would much rather work in SF than Oakland (I really base my decision on what food & bar options I have around me, though).
- ghaff 11y ago
  Well, most of Brooklyn probably wasn't all that appealing (for certain values and types of appealing) 15 or 20 years ago either. [1] At any rate, it wasn't gentrified. But Manhattan, in spite of doing a fair bit of development in at least sections of the city, was really expensive so young professionals started "settling" on Brooklyn. At the same time, some areas of Manhattan that were previously, shall we say, rather disreputable were also gentrifying. So, yes, you'd prefer to live in SF than Oakland but 15 years or so ago, you'd probably have preferred to live in Manhattan than Brooklyn. [1] http://www.wired.com/2015/09/photos-brooklyn-hipsters/ http://www.wired.com/2015/09/photos-brooklyn-hipsters/
- sethhochberg 11y ago
  Parts of Manhattan which are popular with the very wealthy are certainly pretty well tapped out (the West Village comes to mind as a neighborhood with well-protected zoning regulations and lots of low to mid-rise buildings similar to many San Francisco neighborhoods). In other parts of Manhattan though new neighborhoods are being created from underused space (look at the Hudson Yards project, creating thousands of housing and commercial units on top of an active rail yard on the west side of midtown). Dozens of new towers are currently under construction in Manhattan. I've lived in both SF and NYC and feel like Oakland has much more of a stigma than Brooklyn does simply because of transit access. You can live in SF and enjoy walkable local communities. You can live in Oakland and enjoy walkable local communities. But getting between the two can be a much more arduous process via Bart or bus than the many plentiful subway connections between Manhattan and Brooklyn. Visiting friends, of even the prospect of a commute, between SF and Oakland would have given me much more pause than getting over to Brooklyn. BART and the transbay buses are woefully inadequate for an area which is trying to pitch itself as a region rather than two distinct cities with a bridge between.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    That seems a good assessment. I suspect that there may be a bit of hindsight bias about Brooklyn, given that we know today that (parts of) it did gentrify and quite rapidly. But your point about transportation links--and, heck, a bridge you can walk over--is well taken.
  - mahyarm 11y ago
    I really don't understand the entire BART tube fear. You can get from fidi to downtown oakland in 12 minutes on a consistent schedule. I think it's more the bridge with it's horrible 1 hour traffic and how most of the bay area is a very car dependent place.
    - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
      BART can be standing room only quite often during commutes, but if you're going from Market Street to an Oakland station, its really not that big of a deal.
- danans 11y ago
  You may not be aware that Oakland has an amazing and burgeoning food and bar scene, one that has arguably stolen the authenticity crown from San Francisco. Traditional restaurants also are alive and well in Oakland if that's your thing.
- Apocryphon 11y ago
  Your comment seems a few years out of date. SF's rents and COL is notoriously sky-high and has been for the last 3-4 years or so, and the movement to Oakland has also been taking place during that year. Not to mention, Uber, perhaps one of the region's greatest up-and-coming unicorn juggernauts, is going to move to Oakland. The ship has long since sailed towards the East Bay.
Kalium 11y ago
> It's a shame that when people focus on the bay area's ludicrous housing costs, they tend to speak exclusively of San Francisco and ignore the opportunity to develop Oakland, which has a lot of flat land that is easier to build tall buildings on top of, instead of trying to densify San Francisco's endless peaks and twists. It doesn't get ignored. The problem is that Oakland costs about as much to develop as SF does with potential revenues that are much lower. It's a terrible business proposition.
pfooti 11y ago
I'm not sure about Oakland's geology, but the part of SF where I live (outer sunset) is more or less just houses on top of sand dunes. I'm no geologist, but I've always wondered how well one could build tall buildings on that kind of ground.
vhold 11y ago
Imagine how different San Francisco would be if plans like this had moved forward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_Mountain#Westbay_Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_Mountain#Westbay_Con... Not only did they want to fill the bay in with the mountain, they wanted to build another Bay Bridge there.

gravity13 11y ago

I get the sense Manhattan was established, and then tapped out, hence Brooklyn. Whereas San Francisco is neither of those. San Francisco is the hip place to be (for tech) and Oakland is perceived as the fallback for companies that can't afford to host. Which really surmounts to: I would much rather work in SF than Oakland (I really base my decision on what food & bar options I have around me, though).

ghaff 11y ago
Well, most of Brooklyn probably wasn't all that appealing (for certain values and types of appealing) 15 or 20 years ago either. [1] At any rate, it wasn't gentrified. But Manhattan, in spite of doing a fair bit of development in at least sections of the city, was really expensive so young professionals started "settling" on Brooklyn. At the same time, some areas of Manhattan that were previously, shall we say, rather disreputable were also gentrifying. So, yes, you'd prefer to live in SF than Oakland but 15 years or so ago, you'd probably have preferred to live in Manhattan than Brooklyn. [1] http://www.wired.com/2015/09/photos-brooklyn-hipsters/ http://www.wired.com/2015/09/photos-brooklyn-hipsters/
sethhochberg 11y ago
Parts of Manhattan which are popular with the very wealthy are certainly pretty well tapped out (the West Village comes to mind as a neighborhood with well-protected zoning regulations and lots of low to mid-rise buildings similar to many San Francisco neighborhoods). In other parts of Manhattan though new neighborhoods are being created from underused space (look at the Hudson Yards project, creating thousands of housing and commercial units on top of an active rail yard on the west side of midtown). Dozens of new towers are currently under construction in Manhattan. I've lived in both SF and NYC and feel like Oakland has much more of a stigma than Brooklyn does simply because of transit access. You can live in SF and enjoy walkable local communities. You can live in Oakland and enjoy walkable local communities. But getting between the two can be a much more arduous process via Bart or bus than the many plentiful subway connections between Manhattan and Brooklyn. Visiting friends, of even the prospect of a commute, between SF and Oakland would have given me much more pause than getting over to Brooklyn. BART and the transbay buses are woefully inadequate for an area which is trying to pitch itself as a region rather than two distinct cities with a bridge between.
- ghaff 11y ago
  That seems a good assessment. I suspect that there may be a bit of hindsight bias about Brooklyn, given that we know today that (parts of) it did gentrify and quite rapidly. But your point about transportation links--and, heck, a bridge you can walk over--is well taken.
- mahyarm 11y ago
  I really don't understand the entire BART tube fear. You can get from fidi to downtown oakland in 12 minutes on a consistent schedule. I think it's more the bridge with it's horrible 1 hour traffic and how most of the bay area is a very car dependent place.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    BART can be standing room only quite often during commutes, but if you're going from Market Street to an Oakland station, its really not that big of a deal.
danans 11y ago
You may not be aware that Oakland has an amazing and burgeoning food and bar scene, one that has arguably stolen the authenticity crown from San Francisco. Traditional restaurants also are alive and well in Oakland if that's your thing.
Apocryphon 11y ago
Your comment seems a few years out of date. SF's rents and COL is notoriously sky-high and has been for the last 3-4 years or so, and the movement to Oakland has also been taking place during that year. Not to mention, Uber, perhaps one of the region's greatest up-and-coming unicorn juggernauts, is going to move to Oakland. The ship has long since sailed towards the East Bay.

Kalium 11y ago

> It's a shame that when people focus on the bay area's ludicrous housing costs, they tend to speak exclusively of San Francisco and ignore the opportunity to develop Oakland, which has a lot of flat land that is easier to build tall buildings on top of, instead of trying to densify San Francisco's endless peaks and twists. It doesn't get ignored. The problem is that Oakland costs about as much to develop as SF does with potential revenues that are much lower. It's a terrible business proposition.

pfooti 11y ago

I'm not sure about Oakland's geology, but the part of SF where I live (outer sunset) is more or less just houses on top of sand dunes. I'm no geologist, but I've always wondered how well one could build tall buildings on that kind of ground.

vhold 11y ago

Imagine how different San Francisco would be if plans like this had moved forward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_Mountain#Westbay_Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_Mountain#Westbay_Con... Not only did they want to fill the bay in with the mountain, they wanted to build another Bay Bridge there.