4 ms·
Nice to see someone I can agree with. Sure there's plenty of beautiful Victorian homes in San Francisco, but there's a lot of shitty ones that need to be razed
by GiraffeGlove 9y ago
Nice to see someone I can agree with. Sure there's plenty of beautiful Victorian homes in San Francisco, but there's a lot of shitty ones that need to be razed too. SF doesn't need all these 3-4 story, 3-4 BR single family homes with tiny unusable garages - it needs taller denser and modern apartment complexes with a nice park in the middle.
All but about 1/8th of the city is just a sprawling suburb.
- geebee 9y agoHmmm... would you be willing to identify some of the neighborhoods you think should be razed. I personally think there's historical value in many of the marina style houses built in the 1920s, which may (I'm not sure) be what you're referring to here. Yeah, we have a problem, but razing 7/8ths of San Francisco? Yikes. Also - there are suburbs and there are suburbs. The excelsior in SF, as an example of a generally SFH neighborhood, has a population density of 17,640/sq mi. Palo Alto has a population density of 2,808.46/sq mi . I think you can make a compelling case that because it is closer to job centers, we should increase density. I don't really object to the use of the word "suburb" to describe the excelsior (or the sunset), but if someone uses "suburb" to refer to a low density neighborhood more typical of what an American thinks of as "suburban" (7/8 of SF is "suburb"), I do think there may be an ambiguity creeping into the argument. The two things are very different.
- tedivm 9y agoAll the wood houses will end up burning down during the next quake anyways.