5 ms·

Is the resistance to more high density housing in SFO just due to a NIMBY mentality? Building up seems like such an obvious solution and one that would only ben

by knz 10y ago

Is the resistance to more high density housing in SFO just due to a NIMBY mentality? Building up seems like such an obvious solution and one that would only benefit the economy there - how much talent avoids moving to the Bay area due to the cost of housing and associated issues. Lack of jobs is another economic signal but our recent election has shown that voters have an expectation that they will be able to stay in their communities (an interesting contrast to centuries of increasing urbanization).

vidarh 10y ago
Many places building up would negate what made the people currently living there choose to move there. It's a tradeoff between the interests of those currently living there and those who aspire to living there.
- knz 10y ago
  Is that unique to the bay area though? It's been a few years since I was there but to seem I recall some larger high rise buildings. Smaller apartment blocks (3 stories etc) doesn't have to come at the expense of the lifestyle either - the large European cities I've been to all had thriving neighborhood's , likewise with parts of larger US cities.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    The Bay Area is very diverse. What residents would object to varies accordingly. > Smaller apartment blocks (3 stories etc) doesn't have to come at the expense of the lifestyle either - the large European cities I've been to all had thriving neighborhood's , likewise with parts of larger US cities. Of course you can. That's not the issue. The issue is that in many of these areas the current residents largely do not want this because they don't want the character of the areas to change. It boils down to how much control you want existing residents to have over planning. This would be equally hard to change in most of Europe in places where you have geographically constrained areas full of wealthy owners that does not want the area to change too much.
- troupe 10y ago
  Yes, but there are many other things in SF that are now attracting people there that would continue to be attractive with much denser housing.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    But that misses the point, which is that it is not what many of those currently living there wants. Hence the conflict between present inhabitants and those that aspire to live there.
douche 10y ago
Depressing as it is, the best option for SF might be a 1906-level earthquake to clear the slate and force rebuilding.
- knz 10y ago
  The Canterbury earthquakes have done something similar in Christchurch, New Zealand. There has been a lot of political contention over how best to rebuild the CBD and fights over bike lanes/slower speed limits as well as concerns about the impact of redevelopment on outlying areas that picked up the slack when the CBD was being leveled. Given the political environment in the US I fear it would take decades for an area like SFO to recover, if at all. Many companies would likely just leave the area.

by knz 10y ago

vidarh 10y ago

Many places building up would negate what made the people currently living there choose to move there. It's a tradeoff between the interests of those currently living there and those who aspire to living there.

knz 10y ago
Is that unique to the bay area though? It's been a few years since I was there but to seem I recall some larger high rise buildings. Smaller apartment blocks (3 stories etc) doesn't have to come at the expense of the lifestyle either - the large European cities I've been to all had thriving neighborhood's , likewise with parts of larger US cities.
- vidarh 10y ago
  The Bay Area is very diverse. What residents would object to varies accordingly. > Smaller apartment blocks (3 stories etc) doesn't have to come at the expense of the lifestyle either - the large European cities I've been to all had thriving neighborhood's , likewise with parts of larger US cities. Of course you can. That's not the issue. The issue is that in many of these areas the current residents largely do not want this because they don't want the character of the areas to change. It boils down to how much control you want existing residents to have over planning. This would be equally hard to change in most of Europe in places where you have geographically constrained areas full of wealthy owners that does not want the area to change too much.
troupe 10y ago
Yes, but there are many other things in SF that are now attracting people there that would continue to be attractive with much denser housing.
- vidarh 10y ago
  But that misses the point, which is that it is not what many of those currently living there wants. Hence the conflict between present inhabitants and those that aspire to live there.

douche 10y ago

Depressing as it is, the best option for SF might be a 1906-level earthquake to clear the slate and force rebuilding.

knz 10y ago
The Canterbury earthquakes have done something similar in Christchurch, New Zealand. There has been a lot of political contention over how best to rebuild the CBD and fights over bike lanes/slower speed limits as well as concerns about the impact of redevelopment on outlying areas that picked up the slack when the CBD was being leveled. Given the political environment in the US I fear it would take decades for an area like SFO to recover, if at all. Many companies would likely just leave the area.