4 ms·
San Francisco's population density: 18,573/sq mi Manhattan's: 71,998.9/sq mi It's difficult to look at this without thinking that the initial problem to be so
by samlevine 9y ago
San Francisco's population density:
18,573/sq mi
Manhattan's:
71,998.9/sq mi
It's difficult to look at this without thinking that the initial problem to be solved is density in the urban core.
Eventually, yes, you need much better transit to outlying areas. This will take decades even with iron clad political will, which isn't happening short of a takeover by house of Bourbon.
- timr 9y agoThat's not how it works. You don't build housing first and the infrastructure to get to it later. Nobody rational would build a skyscraper in the outer sunset (even if they could), because they know that the demand isn't there. Commuting to the outer sunset from downtown is painfully inconvenient. This is why rents are substantially lower on the west side of SF, despite the lower density. Build effective transit, and dense housing automatically happens, because people will organically demand it -- the story plays out identically in nearly every city that builds a light rail line. The YIMBY activists in SF don't seem to understand this, despite lots of rhetoric about supply and demand. The truth is, YIMBY folks in SF are myopically focused on a few core neighborhoods that are already pretty dense (i.e. the Mission), and completely ignoring the driving forces behind the demand. This is largely because they're being supported by people who want to re-develop already expensive neighborhoods, which is a quick way to make a buck in the short term, and a dubious way of responding to a housing crunch. An effective movement to increase housing density in SF should focus on better transit corridors, and leave the housing policy to happen of its own accord. In other words: if you want density in SF, run a subway line down Geary.