5 ms·

This town won't be for the freaks and weirdos for long: they're being priced out. You can rage against the techies all you want, but unless we can build more h

This town won't be for the freaks and weirdos for long: they're being priced out. You can rage against the techies all you want, but unless we can build more housing, the techies will be the only ones who can afford to live here. It seems bizarre to me that those most fervently opposed to the influx of tech in SF are doing the most to harm the existing residents. If you make it hard to build in San Francisco, there won't be enough houses. If there aren't enough houses, who do you think gets the few that remain? It's not the freaks and the weirdos– it's the wealthy. The freaks and the weirdos have to leave because of your shortsighted policies.

superuser2 10y ago
I think they're hoping that eventually, investors will get tired of paying the high salaries needed to locate their engineers in the Bay Area (or salaries won't increase commensurate to cost of living, and they will stop finding engineers willing to move there). Whether the city's culture or the tech community's attachment to the region will break first is, of course, an open question.
vasilipupkin 10y ago
SF used to be beautiful. With tons more development, it will just look like Hong Kong/Singapore/Chicago/Manhattan, etc. and that beauty will be lost
- fishtoaster 10y ago
  That's a common sentiment, and I think there are a few points against it: 1. SF could double it's current housing density tomorrow and still have less than half of manhatten's density. That's not a serious concern. 2. Even if it were, we're faced with a tough choice: preserve SF's low-density housing, or preserve it's people. Which is better: a city with 20% taller buildings, or a city where the only the rich can afford to live, secure in their $10m victorians and $5k/mo NEMA towers? 3. Many would argue that SF's uniqueness is its population, its freespirited attitude, and its rich history of art and culture. The buildings themselves are only a small part of that. Losing them would be a bummer, but far worse than losing the real soul of the city.
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with anything that you said. I'm just lamenting the fact that SF will look just like every other skyscraper style skyline. You won't even know where you are
  - DrScump 10y ago
    <SF could double it's current housing density tomorrow and still have less than half of manhatten's density. That's not a serious concern.> Count how many bridges and tubes connect Manhattan to the mainland vs. how many bridges and freeways connect SF to the rest of the world, and revisit that concept again.
- morgante 10y ago
  When is the point of peak beauty? 1900? 1850? Also, Hong Kong is a rather beautiful city.
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    Singapore looks like a giant shopping mall. It's nice in its own right, sure but I don't think I want every city in the world to look like it
    - HillaryBriss 10y ago
      don't worry. they won't. take LA for instance. most parts of it look like a giant traffic jam. looking like a nice shopping mall would be a welcome upgrade. LA will never look as nice as Singapore. Singapore has a huge amount of surplus investment cash. LA's budget is constantly at a breaking point.
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  I'm not arguing against development. I'm just saying that the iconic look and feel of SF will be lost. Maybe that's inevitable, but it saddens many people
  - WildUtah 10y ago
    Tokyo and Mexico City have very, very few buildings over five stories and still have double the density of SF. Paris and Barcelona have almost none over seven stories and have four times the density of SF. So it doesn't have to be high rises and skyscrapers. SF can look like SF and build enough to make living affordable. Of course, the real problem is the peninsula cities that insist on densities much lower than one third of SF. 80% of buildable land on the peninsula is tied up there being wasted.
- raldi 10y ago
  You could cut housing prices in half by building 111,000 new units. You could do that by converting 6% of the city's single-family homes into six-story apartment buildings, leaving the other 94% untouched, and not building a single structure taller than that.

superuser2 10y ago

I think they're hoping that eventually, investors will get tired of paying the high salaries needed to locate their engineers in the Bay Area (or salaries won't increase commensurate to cost of living, and they will stop finding engineers willing to move there). Whether the city's culture or the tech community's attachment to the region will break first is, of course, an open question.

vasilipupkin 10y ago

SF used to be beautiful. With tons more development, it will just look like Hong Kong/Singapore/Chicago/Manhattan, etc. and that beauty will be lost

fishtoaster 10y ago
That's a common sentiment, and I think there are a few points against it: 1. SF could double it's current housing density tomorrow and still have less than half of manhatten's density. That's not a serious concern. 2. Even if it were, we're faced with a tough choice: preserve SF's low-density housing, or preserve it's people. Which is better: a city with 20% taller buildings, or a city where the only the rich can afford to live, secure in their $10m victorians and $5k/mo NEMA towers? 3. Many would argue that SF's uniqueness is its population, its freespirited attitude, and its rich history of art and culture. The buildings themselves are only a small part of that. Losing them would be a bummer, but far worse than losing the real soul of the city.
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with anything that you said. I'm just lamenting the fact that SF will look just like every other skyscraper style skyline. You won't even know where you are
- DrScump 10y ago
  <SF could double it's current housing density tomorrow and still have less than half of manhatten's density. That's not a serious concern.> Count how many bridges and tubes connect Manhattan to the mainland vs. how many bridges and freeways connect SF to the rest of the world, and revisit that concept again.
morgante 10y ago
When is the point of peak beauty? 1900? 1850? Also, Hong Kong is a rather beautiful city.
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  Singapore looks like a giant shopping mall. It's nice in its own right, sure but I don't think I want every city in the world to look like it
  - HillaryBriss 10y ago
    don't worry. they won't. take LA for instance. most parts of it look like a giant traffic jam. looking like a nice shopping mall would be a welcome upgrade. LA will never look as nice as Singapore. Singapore has a huge amount of surplus investment cash. LA's budget is constantly at a breaking point.
vasilipupkin 10y ago
I'm not arguing against development. I'm just saying that the iconic look and feel of SF will be lost. Maybe that's inevitable, but it saddens many people
- WildUtah 10y ago
  Tokyo and Mexico City have very, very few buildings over five stories and still have double the density of SF. Paris and Barcelona have almost none over seven stories and have four times the density of SF. So it doesn't have to be high rises and skyscrapers. SF can look like SF and build enough to make living affordable. Of course, the real problem is the peninsula cities that insist on densities much lower than one third of SF. 80% of buildable land on the peninsula is tied up there being wasted.
raldi 10y ago
You could cut housing prices in half by building 111,000 new units. You could do that by converting 6% of the city's single-family homes into six-story apartment buildings, leaving the other 94% untouched, and not building a single structure taller than that.