3 ms·

Can't speak to the Bay Area but in NYC we have hit the physical limits of population until there is a serious investment in infrastructure. The subways are burs

Can't speak to the Bay Area but in NYC we have hit the physical limits of population until there is a serious investment in infrastructure. The subways are bursting at the seams. In Manhattan we are running out of sunlight. These article always bug me a little as we already live in the densest spot in the US and get lectured why we need to crowd in more.

ChrisLTD 9y ago
Agreed on the subway and a lot of Manhattan, but Brooklyn is far less dense and filled with 2 and 3 story buildings that could easily be 5 and 6 stories without shrouding Brooklyn in shadows.
- jshaqaw 9y ago
  Yeah decent point.
ghaff 9y ago
That's a point that is often missed and it's something that happens over a timeframe of decades. In NYC, the Second Avenue Subway has only been planned for something like a century and is now (very partially) operational. Meanwhile, within the city itself, San Francisco has one stretch of BART more or less along Market.
JimboOmega 9y ago
In SF we absolutely haven't (especially if you add in the peninsula), but the planning rules are ridiculously restrictive, especially outside the SoMa "core". We're probably who this is aimed at. The Bay area has some of the most bizarre real estate realities - the most expensive commercial real estate in the US, along Sand Hill Road - is mostly ugly 2-3 story suburban office buildings. It costs more than Park Avenue. And residential is worse, especially in the peninsula - rambling, ugly, 70s built single family houses for millions of dollars. No hope of ever building a 5 story apartment building, let alone the high rises the local economy would support. There is a very strong trend towards protecting everything as it was in the 70s, even as ridiculous and exclusionary as that is in practice.
samcheng 9y ago
There's a LOT of space, vertical and horizontal, in the Bay Area. Land near the tech giants goes for upwards of $300 per square foot - and is filled with 60-year-old single-story tract housing.

ChrisLTD 9y ago

Agreed on the subway and a lot of Manhattan, but Brooklyn is far less dense and filled with 2 and 3 story buildings that could easily be 5 and 6 stories without shrouding Brooklyn in shadows.

jshaqaw 9y ago
Yeah decent point.

ghaff 9y ago

That's a point that is often missed and it's something that happens over a timeframe of decades. In NYC, the Second Avenue Subway has only been planned for something like a century and is now (very partially) operational. Meanwhile, within the city itself, San Francisco has one stretch of BART more or less along Market.

JimboOmega 9y ago

In SF we absolutely haven't (especially if you add in the peninsula), but the planning rules are ridiculously restrictive, especially outside the SoMa "core". We're probably who this is aimed at. The Bay area has some of the most bizarre real estate realities - the most expensive commercial real estate in the US, along Sand Hill Road - is mostly ugly 2-3 story suburban office buildings. It costs more than Park Avenue. And residential is worse, especially in the peninsula - rambling, ugly, 70s built single family houses for millions of dollars. No hope of ever building a 5 story apartment building, let alone the high rises the local economy would support. There is a very strong trend towards protecting everything as it was in the 70s, even as ridiculous and exclusionary as that is in practice.

samcheng 9y ago

There's a LOT of space, vertical and horizontal, in the Bay Area. Land near the tech giants goes for upwards of $300 per square foot - and is filled with 60-year-old single-story tract housing.