3 ms·

Let's not pretend because SF has problems that nobody else's problems are any big deal.

by ksenzee 10y ago

snerbles 10y ago
This is also known as the Fallacy of Relative Privation.
geggam 10y ago
Relativity... its a thing ;)
jfoutz 10y ago
Kind of a tangent, but isn't the Los Angeles area much more populous than the bay area? Sure the problem might not be quite as severe as SF, but it affects 2.5x the number of people.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  LA has more people, but also much more land. The entire stretch from SF on the other hand is surrounded by water on three sides, and the valley in general is... well, a valley. Surrounded by mountains. To get a good sense of this, open Google Maps and center it on California. You'll get a sense of how different the two areas are in terms of sprawl. LA is basically one big concrete jungle from Burbank all the way to Anaheim. SF area is much more densely packed.
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    I've visited both, but lived in neither. Yeah, SF itself isn't even a million people, LA 3.4 million. The bay area gets up to 7 million, but greater LA is 18 million. SF did feel much denser. The sort of standard answer is just build more housing, but the cities are already so congested. Building up would surely lower prices in both cities, but i think it'd make bad commutes worse. I dunno. If there was an easy answer, people would just do that. For a long time the easy answer was just drive farther. That's becoming less of an option now and it's not clear what, if anything, should be done. In any case, it's easier to convince 100,000 people than it is to convince a million, and it's easier to convince a million than it is to convince 10 million. Whatever the answer is is going to take some serious politics.
    - JBReefer 10y ago
      We need what Japan has: a national zoning code.
    - ssalazar 10y ago
      > The sort of standard answer is just build more housing, but the cities are already so congested. Building up would surely lower prices in both cities, but i think it'd make bad commutes worse. Build around public transportation and fix zoning. > In any case, it's easier to convince 100,000 people than it is to convince a million, and it's easier to convince a million than it is to convince 10 million. Whatever the answer is is going to take some serious politics. Sigh, yes.

Let's not pretend because SF has problems that nobody else's problems are any big deal.

by ksenzee 10y ago

Let's not pretend because SF has problems that nobody else's problems are any big deal.

snerbles 10y ago

This is also known as the Fallacy of Relative Privation.

geggam 10y ago

Relativity... its a thing ;)

jfoutz 10y ago

Kind of a tangent, but isn't the Los Angeles area much more populous than the bay area? Sure the problem might not be quite as severe as SF, but it affects 2.5x the number of people.

enraged_camel 10y ago
LA has more people, but also much more land. The entire stretch from SF on the other hand is surrounded by water on three sides, and the valley in general is... well, a valley. Surrounded by mountains. To get a good sense of this, open Google Maps and center it on California. You'll get a sense of how different the two areas are in terms of sprawl. LA is basically one big concrete jungle from Burbank all the way to Anaheim. SF area is much more densely packed.
- jfoutz 10y ago
  I've visited both, but lived in neither. Yeah, SF itself isn't even a million people, LA 3.4 million. The bay area gets up to 7 million, but greater LA is 18 million. SF did feel much denser. The sort of standard answer is just build more housing, but the cities are already so congested. Building up would surely lower prices in both cities, but i think it'd make bad commutes worse. I dunno. If there was an easy answer, people would just do that. For a long time the easy answer was just drive farther. That's becoming less of an option now and it's not clear what, if anything, should be done. In any case, it's easier to convince 100,000 people than it is to convince a million, and it's easier to convince a million than it is to convince 10 million. Whatever the answer is is going to take some serious politics.
  - JBReefer 10y ago
    We need what Japan has: a national zoning code.
  - ssalazar 10y ago
    > The sort of standard answer is just build more housing, but the cities are already so congested. Building up would surely lower prices in both cities, but i think it'd make bad commutes worse. Build around public transportation and fix zoning. > In any case, it's easier to convince 100,000 people than it is to convince a million, and it's easier to convince a million than it is to convince 10 million. Whatever the answer is is going to take some serious politics. Sigh, yes.