3 ms·

> As San Francisco becomes more like Manhattan, would people want to stay? i don't know if the existing residents will want to stay, but i think many more peop

by lg 10y ago

> As San Francisco becomes more like Manhattan, would people want to stay? i don't know if the existing residents will want to stay, but i think many more people overall would want to live in a manhattan of the west coast, as evidenced by the manhattan of the east coast which people keep moving to.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> I don't know if the existing residents will want to stay, but i think many more people overall would want to live in a manhattan of the west coast So go build "Manhattan of the West Coast" somewhere else on the coast, and leave San Francisco alone.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  No, build it right beside SF and leave the rest of the coast alone...
- __derek__ 10y ago
  I'm laughing at your NIMBYism, but some big city along the northern California or southern Oregon coast would make the corridor from Vancouver to San Francisco more contiguous, which could help to justify a high-speed rail line.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I'm laughing at your NIMBYism San Francisco ain't my backyard, by a long shot. > some big city along the northern California or southern Oregon coast would make the corridor from Vancouver to San Francisco more contiguous, which could help to justify a high-speed rail line. AFAIK, the geography of the Northen California to Southern Oregon coast isn't real conducive either to a high-speed rail line or a big city. (If you want a Manhattan of the West Coast, it probably would make more sense to try to build it in the LA area, where an extra couple million people packed in a tight area would still obviously require radical new local infrastructure where it came together, but wouldn't be as significant of a relative increase in demand on regional infrastructure.)
    - __derek__ 10y ago
      Just protective of San Francisco, then? Given that the probability of a new big city on the West Coast is effectively zero, I felt comfortable ignoring real limitations of that plan. In reality, of course, water, seismicity, and erosion put a damper on any attractive hypothetical options.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Just protective of San Francisco, then? It just doesn't make sense to transform a city to something its residents don't want because someone else has an aesthetic preference for it to exist somewhere.
        swampthinker 10y ago
        And I'm sure many complained when the buildings and prices of Manhattan kept climbing. The transplants to a city sooner or later become its natives, with their own desires and aesthetic preferences.
        saosebastiao 10y ago
        Yes it does. It's current residents transformed it into what it is now from what it was before they arrived...why wouldn't we expect that to continue happening? Just cause some of them don't want it to happen?
et-al 10y ago
Good point. As much as we romanticise that we're no longer economic migrants, most people probably still are. In which case, as long as there is money to be made in city, people will go irregardless of its aesthetics. They may complain with tweets and Medium rants, but they'll still come and stay.

by lg 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I don't know if the existing residents will want to stay, but i think many more people overall would want to live in a manhattan of the west coast So go build "Manhattan of the West Coast" somewhere else on the coast, and leave San Francisco alone.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
No, build it right beside SF and leave the rest of the coast alone...
__derek__ 10y ago
I'm laughing at your NIMBYism, but some big city along the northern California or southern Oregon coast would make the corridor from Vancouver to San Francisco more contiguous, which could help to justify a high-speed rail line.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I'm laughing at your NIMBYism San Francisco ain't my backyard, by a long shot. > some big city along the northern California or southern Oregon coast would make the corridor from Vancouver to San Francisco more contiguous, which could help to justify a high-speed rail line. AFAIK, the geography of the Northen California to Southern Oregon coast isn't real conducive either to a high-speed rail line or a big city. (If you want a Manhattan of the West Coast, it probably would make more sense to try to build it in the LA area, where an extra couple million people packed in a tight area would still obviously require radical new local infrastructure where it came together, but wouldn't be as significant of a relative increase in demand on regional infrastructure.)
  - __derek__ 10y ago
    Just protective of San Francisco, then? Given that the probability of a new big city on the West Coast is effectively zero, I felt comfortable ignoring real limitations of that plan. In reality, of course, water, seismicity, and erosion put a damper on any attractive hypothetical options.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Just protective of San Francisco, then? It just doesn't make sense to transform a city to something its residents don't want because someone else has an aesthetic preference for it to exist somewhere.
      - swampthinker 10y ago
        And I'm sure many complained when the buildings and prices of Manhattan kept climbing. The transplants to a city sooner or later become its natives, with their own desires and aesthetic preferences.
      - saosebastiao 10y ago
        Yes it does. It's current residents transformed it into what it is now from what it was before they arrived...why wouldn't we expect that to continue happening? Just cause some of them don't want it to happen?

et-al 10y ago

Good point. As much as we romanticise that we're no longer economic migrants, most people probably still are. In which case, as long as there is money to be made in city, people will go irregardless of its aesthetics. They may complain with tweets and Medium rants, but they'll still come and stay.