5 ms·

I agree with the basic premise, but it seems to me that those two cities in particular are quite different. New York definitely has its NIMBY crowd, and people

by CPLX 10y ago

I agree with the basic premise, but it seems to me that those two cities in particular are quite different. New York definitely has its NIMBY crowd, and people will scream about development in certain places under certain situations, but on the whole it seems to be an entirely different culture towards growth. As a longtime NYC resident, my feeling at least is that everyone here basically agrees on the premise that they are going to live in a giant, incredibly dense, tall, interconnected city that looks like a city. People might lament loss of historic buildings, get annoyed by the aesthetics of cookie cutter towers, or get seriously concerned at lower income people being ignored by builders, but we do get that we live in a big city. From the outside, it seems like the Bay Area is completely schizophrenic. San Francisco has obvious big city problems that seem largely unaddressed. The Valley is completely dominated by automobile-scale planning with a way of life based on four story office parks surrounded by parking lots, a fundamentally broken model. And the people with real money seem to want to continue some fantasy that everyone is living in a bucolic nature preserve rather than the choked up global megacity that clearly surrounds them. I have little doubt that NYC will, in fact, just get much much bigger over the next 20 years, and will generally have the same fundamental structure and urban fabric. The Valley on the other hand seems like it's going to need to change course.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
komali2 10y ago
The weird thing is, there's no reason we can't have both (megacity and nature preserve). A hop skip and a jump over the golden gate bridge brings you to the expansive Golden Gate Recreational Area. Head south and you have lots of state preserves, national parks, state parks, and etc for hiking/climbing. A mere three hour drive south is the incredible Big Sur. A few more hours East, Yosemite. So why not develop down town? Why not knock down the dinky little family two stories in Daly City and put up highrises? I don't get it.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Eventually what you describe will force some density...if you look at an map of the Bay Area, you will see that most cities are bordered by county-owned open space or parks of some kind, which creates a natural border for development. It was very forward-thinking of local governments to create these parks and open spaces back when the there was no demand for the land.
- sevensor 10y ago
  Seismic instability? It's not insurmountable, but building skyscrapers in San Francisco is going to be expensive.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Is Tokyo (and Japan in general) not even more earthquake prone than San Francisco? It doesn't seem to have stopped them building many skyscrapers.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      They didn't say it wasn't possible - just that it is more expensive. And they're right. Far more regulations/building codes and limited structures (that are resistant to the sway that occurs during earthquakes) are what can be built... and they're more expensive if you need things done "the right way".
      - sevensor 10y ago
        Yup, that was my point :)
- tbrock 10y ago
  The public transportation in SF is too awful for any expansion to work. They can barely figure out rush hour with less than a million people! There is no possible way it can convert into a sprawling metropolis when the muni "lines" all share one basic tube and one path. It's a joke. New York works because even when the president is in town you can get from downtown to uptown in 15 minutes on an express train. I can barely move 10 blocks in SF in that same time at 5pm. I think the tech activity will move elsewhere in 30 years.
Roritharr 10y ago
The idea that NYC residents understand that they live in THE global megacity (of the west), with everything that comes with it, was what always inspired me to dream of living in NYC. I loved the idea of Alicia Keys singing Empire State of Mind and meaning it, something which I couldn't take serious if it would center around cities close to where I grew up. Most of this probably heavy romanticizing on my part but nonetheless, the general awareness of ones place in the world must be much stronger if you grow up in NYC, compared to other parts of the world.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Many people in the bay area romanticize San Francisco. They don't know any better. Not that they're stupid, there's nothing north or east of SF, and NYC is very far away. Much dilution on what an actual global city is.
Kalium 10y ago
Basically every single Bay city has a severe case of voter-induced NIMBY. Each city does its best to avoid building any housing while attracting all the businesses it can. They all figure the people can live in next city over.
- ktRolster 10y ago
  Basically every single Bay city has a severe case of voter-induced NIMBY This is literally every place I've ever lived, both big and small. Everyone wants to be the last person to move to a place.
  - sib 10y ago
    True, but exacerbated in the Bay Area by the effects of Proposition 13, which makes it even harder for cities to pay for improvements in services. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...
    - azinman2 10y ago
      San Francisco has record revenue, almost doubling in recent years (and what's been done? We had a 100M deficit last year???!). There's lots of taxes one can put in place beyond property taxes. Furthermore, those that are locked in by prop 13 will slowly die or move losing that protected status. Meanwhile if prop 13 went away people like my parents who bought in the bay long ago would no longer be able to afford living here. We need to protect the long time residents who have made the city what it is. They're becoming increasingly rare, and once trends change (suburbs become popular, tech busts, prices are too high, other cities catch up, etc) SF would be bare without them.
      - Kalium 10y ago
        > We need to protect the long time residents who have made the city what it is. Sure. But at what cost? And paid by who? And for how long? When we're preserving someone's memories of SF from 1965 at a huge cost to everyone who has the temerity to be under 45, it may be time to maybe possibly consider a re-evaluation of the balance of costs and benefits. If preserving things for your parents means a hundred working-class families get pushed out by rents rising because your parents' memories require no new housing built, the balance of policy exhibits significant opportunity for improvement. The past is important, but it's not healthy for the future to be enslaved to the past. Your parents, too, are a trend that will change.
bradleyjg 10y ago
I agree NY is better than off than SF, but the trend is worrying. Take for example landmark preservation. I think almost everyone agrees that the loss of the old Penn Station was a tragedy, but now we have significant fractions of Manhattan designated as part of a historic districts and more are coming all the time. It's a one way ratchet. On top of that, the power of the NIMBYs is significantly stronger in the outer boros than it is in Manhattan (especially Queens and Staten Island). Once you reach city limits they are all powerful (Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester). Then there's Chris Christie's killing of the ARC project and the worrying lack of new transit capacity. It's most acute over the Hudson, but the pending doom for Williamsburg highlights the mass transit system's lack of resiliency outside of core Manhattan. I don't want to get too political especially on local politics which is probably not of much interest to most HN readers, but Bloomberg left BdB use a very solid economic position and a couple of ambitious transit plans in the works or almost finished (7 extension, east side access and 2nd ave). Since BdB has become mayor he started a war with the governor and his only proposals for new transit projects are frankly dumb (the trolley down the east side of the East River and the new ferries).
jhj 10y ago
I don't think that everyone agrees on that in NYC, especially not the City Council or any of the people in local government with the power to change it. Much of the city is still single-family housing or multiple occupancy dwellings typically capped at 4 stories (or 2.0 FAR) that could stand to be much taller, and of the multiple dwelling units, the politicians only care about the rent-regulated tenants, that are their permanent constituency to which they grant favors in an endless cycle of pandering and vote buying (see also: the recent 0% regulated rent raises). Other people like myself commute endless hours on the subway or PATH under buildings that are ludicrously low that could otherwise house many more if rebuilt, when special interest groups like GVSHP oppose anything that would upset their fragile conception of what the city should be. I don't see this changing anytime soon. The City Council just voted 45-0 against rezoning an Inwood project that would have allowed for 3 measly more stories of housing on a building that can as of right have 14 stories. God forbid if we actually have to build real amounts of housing, preferably non-subsidized. As a NYC resident and market-rate renter, I'm sick and tired of paying for everyone else's rent when they will not lift a finger to help alleviate my burden.

by CPLX 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

komali2 10y ago

The weird thing is, there's no reason we can't have both (megacity and nature preserve). A hop skip and a jump over the golden gate bridge brings you to the expansive Golden Gate Recreational Area. Head south and you have lots of state preserves, national parks, state parks, and etc for hiking/climbing. A mere three hour drive south is the incredible Big Sur. A few more hours East, Yosemite. So why not develop down town? Why not knock down the dinky little family two stories in Daly City and put up highrises? I don't get it.

karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Eventually what you describe will force some density...if you look at an map of the Bay Area, you will see that most cities are bordered by county-owned open space or parks of some kind, which creates a natural border for development. It was very forward-thinking of local governments to create these parks and open spaces back when the there was no demand for the land.
sevensor 10y ago
Seismic instability? It's not insurmountable, but building skyscrapers in San Francisco is going to be expensive.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Is Tokyo (and Japan in general) not even more earthquake prone than San Francisco? It doesn't seem to have stopped them building many skyscrapers.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    They didn't say it wasn't possible - just that it is more expensive. And they're right. Far more regulations/building codes and limited structures (that are resistant to the sway that occurs during earthquakes) are what can be built... and they're more expensive if you need things done "the right way".
    - sevensor 10y ago
      Yup, that was my point :)
tbrock 10y ago
The public transportation in SF is too awful for any expansion to work. They can barely figure out rush hour with less than a million people! There is no possible way it can convert into a sprawling metropolis when the muni "lines" all share one basic tube and one path. It's a joke. New York works because even when the president is in town you can get from downtown to uptown in 15 minutes on an express train. I can barely move 10 blocks in SF in that same time at 5pm. I think the tech activity will move elsewhere in 30 years.

Roritharr 10y ago

The idea that NYC residents understand that they live in THE global megacity (of the west), with everything that comes with it, was what always inspired me to dream of living in NYC. I loved the idea of Alicia Keys singing Empire State of Mind and meaning it, something which I couldn't take serious if it would center around cities close to where I grew up. Most of this probably heavy romanticizing on my part but nonetheless, the general awareness of ones place in the world must be much stronger if you grow up in NYC, compared to other parts of the world.

cloudjacker 10y ago
Many people in the bay area romanticize San Francisco. They don't know any better. Not that they're stupid, there's nothing north or east of SF, and NYC is very far away. Much dilution on what an actual global city is.

Kalium 10y ago

Basically every single Bay city has a severe case of voter-induced NIMBY. Each city does its best to avoid building any housing while attracting all the businesses it can. They all figure the people can live in next city over.

ktRolster 10y ago
Basically every single Bay city has a severe case of voter-induced NIMBY This is literally every place I've ever lived, both big and small. Everyone wants to be the last person to move to a place.
- sib 10y ago
  True, but exacerbated in the Bay Area by the effects of Proposition 13, which makes it even harder for cities to pay for improvements in services. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...
  - azinman2 10y ago
    San Francisco has record revenue, almost doubling in recent years (and what's been done? We had a 100M deficit last year???!). There's lots of taxes one can put in place beyond property taxes. Furthermore, those that are locked in by prop 13 will slowly die or move losing that protected status. Meanwhile if prop 13 went away people like my parents who bought in the bay long ago would no longer be able to afford living here. We need to protect the long time residents who have made the city what it is. They're becoming increasingly rare, and once trends change (suburbs become popular, tech busts, prices are too high, other cities catch up, etc) SF would be bare without them.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      > We need to protect the long time residents who have made the city what it is. Sure. But at what cost? And paid by who? And for how long? When we're preserving someone's memories of SF from 1965 at a huge cost to everyone who has the temerity to be under 45, it may be time to maybe possibly consider a re-evaluation of the balance of costs and benefits. If preserving things for your parents means a hundred working-class families get pushed out by rents rising because your parents' memories require no new housing built, the balance of policy exhibits significant opportunity for improvement. The past is important, but it's not healthy for the future to be enslaved to the past. Your parents, too, are a trend that will change.

bradleyjg 10y ago

I agree NY is better than off than SF, but the trend is worrying. Take for example landmark preservation. I think almost everyone agrees that the loss of the old Penn Station was a tragedy, but now we have significant fractions of Manhattan designated as part of a historic districts and more are coming all the time. It's a one way ratchet. On top of that, the power of the NIMBYs is significantly stronger in the outer boros than it is in Manhattan (especially Queens and Staten Island). Once you reach city limits they are all powerful (Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester). Then there's Chris Christie's killing of the ARC project and the worrying lack of new transit capacity. It's most acute over the Hudson, but the pending doom for Williamsburg highlights the mass transit system's lack of resiliency outside of core Manhattan. I don't want to get too political especially on local politics which is probably not of much interest to most HN readers, but Bloomberg left BdB use a very solid economic position and a couple of ambitious transit plans in the works or almost finished (7 extension, east side access and 2nd ave). Since BdB has become mayor he started a war with the governor and his only proposals for new transit projects are frankly dumb (the trolley down the east side of the East River and the new ferries).

jhj 10y ago

I don't think that everyone agrees on that in NYC, especially not the City Council or any of the people in local government with the power to change it. Much of the city is still single-family housing or multiple occupancy dwellings typically capped at 4 stories (or 2.0 FAR) that could stand to be much taller, and of the multiple dwelling units, the politicians only care about the rent-regulated tenants, that are their permanent constituency to which they grant favors in an endless cycle of pandering and vote buying (see also: the recent 0% regulated rent raises). Other people like myself commute endless hours on the subway or PATH under buildings that are ludicrously low that could otherwise house many more if rebuilt, when special interest groups like GVSHP oppose anything that would upset their fragile conception of what the city should be. I don't see this changing anytime soon. The City Council just voted 45-0 against rezoning an Inwood project that would have allowed for 3 measly more stories of housing on a building that can as of right have 14 stories. God forbid if we actually have to build real amounts of housing, preferably non-subsidized. As a NYC resident and market-rate renter, I'm sick and tired of paying for everyone else's rent when they will not lift a finger to help alleviate my burden.