7 ms·

SF Bay area (Nine-county) is 25 times the size of Singapore and 11 times that of London. Its population at 7.7 million is only 1.4 times as large as Singapore's

SF Bay area (Nine-county) is 25 times the size of Singapore and 11 times that of London. Its population at 7.7 million is only 1.4 times as large as Singapore's (5.6 million) and less than London's (8.8 million). Its GDP at $721 billion is 2.4 times that of Singapore's ($297 billion) and 1.3 times London's ($542 billion). Solutions should be possible if rational negotiations could be carried out and affected parties could be compensated adequately. I understand that older residents wish to retain their lifestyle and community character. Could any amount of money and other concessions from new developments compensate them for the potential change that will come quite gradually in any case? Could the new developments be constructed in an area that wouldn't have a direct impact on their daily lives? More practical concerns like increased traffic jam and effect on property value should be addressable with the tens of billions of economic benefits that could be realized from new, denser developments. Finding a way to equitably distribute these benefits would be a huge headache but since the net results are likely positive, the solution should be possible with the right organization and efforts.

wallace_f 9y ago
Asking because I don't know: is SF, on a 100- to 1,000-year time horizon, a good place to invest dense, high rise development?
- dirktheman 9y ago
  Since the chance that a major earthquake will occur within the next -1000 years is about 100%, I wouldn't invest a dime in long term real estate in SF...
  - hkmurakami 9y ago
    If you own the land underneath the building, and you're on non-land fill land, then maybe it's okay. Buying a unit in a highrise in SF never really made sense to me.
  - gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
    It is not guaranteed that the earthquake will destroy your investment. What is fairly likely is that the-greater-fool will apply. Some people won't discount the risk properly and you are therefore bidding against people who overvalue the asset.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    Japan would like a word
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      I'm not sure what Japan would say. 2011 Tohoku earthquake was pretty disastorous. If that type of earthquake hit SF or Tokyo, I don't really know how much earthquake-proofing will matter? Stuff like this seems pretty scary for big buildings: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liquefaction_at_Niigata.JPG#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liquefaction_at_Ni...
      - asteli 9y ago
        Not sure why you chose to illustrate this with a photo from over 50 years ago. I'd like to think that our understanding of earthquake safety has evolved since the 40s? 50s? whenever those structures were built.
        wallace_f 9y ago
        I actually didn't assert anything here. It would be interesting if someone with expertise was able to offer better insight. Like the above picture illustrates, I don't know if at some point it matters anymore how well the building or foundation is built if the ground is liquified, or moves too much.
  - jdavis703 9y ago
    I'd be more concerned about buying "soft story" (what non-civil engineers call "top heavy") real estate. But modern high density housing is engineered to withstand earthquakes. For example one of the tallest residential buildings in SF, 1 Rincon Hill, was engineered either all kinds of weight balancing measures and reinforcements. So long story short, I'd never buy "soft story" real estate, but the newer or retrofitted stuff should be fine.
  - EliRivers 9y ago
    Is the value of the real estate principally the value of the building on it, or the right to have that building there? In large parts of the UK, the cost of real estate is a fraction of the replacement cost of the building, so even if the building was leveled in an earthquake, the only way the speculator would lose out would be if the earthquake did so much damage that the city was abandoned and the population dropped enormously. It's not uncommon with really expensive houses for a new owner to have it demolished so he can build the house he wants instead; the value is in having permission to have a house on that land, and an earthquake won't take that away (unless it's a really huge earthquake that outright destroys land or makes everyone leave forever).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
leggomylibro 9y ago
There's always eminent domain, aka Theft By Government. "Screw you all, we gave you a chance to play ball and you didn't. So now we have to do things the hard way." Or, more reasonably, just stay the fuck away from silicon valley if you're looking at starting a business or working for a tech company. Things will even out eventually. Or not, but the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. I don't get what's so great about the area, anyways. Every time I've been it's just seemed like an insanely expensive shithole...but I guess I'm not the one splashing billions of dollars around.
- nopinsight 9y ago
  If you are an entrepreneur in a certain field, such as deep learning, and need to stay at the bleeding edge by having people with extensive experience to bump ideas off and hire as employees or partner with, it is one of the best, if not the best, areas in the world. For example, the number of AI meetups in Silicon Valley proper is many times that of East Bay, which is a hub in its own right. If you work in a right position for one of the tech giants in the area, the compensation you get will leave you with more savings than working in a much cheaper place with smaller salary. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wish to have other options as well.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    Sure. What's the percentage of startups in SV working on such bleeding edge technology, as opposed to e-commerce, social media, or on demand delivery?
    - nopinsight 9y ago
      I concur. I guess those are tied to investors who live in the area and do not wish to fund startups they need to travel too far to oversee? I read that a prominent SV investor values his time at $200,000 an hour. If that's true then I guess it makes sense for some investors.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    One of the more prominent companies in AI is in London Other companies and schools that train experts are in Canada, closer to the East Coast Bay Area seems to not be so much about people with exceedingly talent, more about people who will overwork themselves for less pay
jankotek 9y ago
> Solutions should be.... Is solution even possible? SF simply does not want a change and immigrants. Lets build new Silicon Valley somewhere else... I am in Berlin right now, and it is way more relaxed here.
- rwmj 9y ago
  Or just work remotely. The vast majority of SV work does not require physical presence.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    This ends up being sub-optimal. It's great to have physical presence to aid communication with your co-workers and, in some positions, that's pretty much essential. I've been part of remote teams a lot and the most productive times we had were when we all flew somewhere to be in the same room for a couple weeks.
    - jankotek 9y ago
      Personal preference. In my experience most employers can not even provide good office space and hardware. I am way more productive at home.
    - notacoward 9y ago
      One good anecdote deserves another. I've been a remote worker continuously for several years. While getting together physically for brief high-intensity sessions can be great for productivity, I've found that being with others continuously even through long low-intensity periods has the opposite effect. Most of my work requires focus more than anything, and the interrupt/distraction load associated with colocation destroys that focus. Most of the other full-time long-term remote workers I've known have made similar observations. Being alone all the time might be sub-optimal, but so is being with others all the time (especially for introverts).
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    Not true. You are saying this only in theory, not because companies actually offer this as a choice to folks. Many companies in SV have a strong belief that colocation is key to productivity. Whether that's true or not, another discussion, but most folks do not have a choice wrt remote work.
geogra4 9y ago
This, I think is the most ridiculous thing about the bay area. Everyone is spooked about 'Manhattanization' and development like NYC is some ghetto where no one wants to live. Heck, San Francisco has 20% more land area than Paris with only 40% of the population. What is with the terror SF residents have around increasing population density?
- alphonsegaston 9y ago
  It’s not terror. It’s just a mask for predatory, unchecked real estate speculation.
- nakedrobot2 9y ago
  I've concluded that the particular combination of direct democracy and NIMBYism has made california a living hell when it should be one of the finest places to live in aggregate for the whole population in the world. There is the space and wealth to make it so, but it is so broken that there isn't even a decent public transporation system from San Francisco to Silicon Valley, resulting in the most horrendous and unpleasant traffic jams basically from 6am to 8pm every day.
TrickyRick 9y ago
Doesn't the risk of earthquakes prevent building tall buildings? Also London is comparatively flat, a large area on the SF peninsula is a huge useless (From a housing perspective) mountain and large parts of it are hills which makes construction difficult. I'm not saying this is the main reason but it probably makes the comparison a bit biased.
- xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
  No, city legislation disallows high-rises to preserve the town's image, and keep demand high. The reason for the lack of housing in the bay area is wholly artificial. NIMBYism at the extreme. Look at other high population areas in earthquake prone regions. Plenty of huge high rises.
  - TrickyRick 9y ago
    Fair point, loads of other cities have figured it out.
- mdorazio 9y ago
  On your earthquake question, the answer is no. See Tokyo as an example. From an engineering perspective we are very good at making buildings earthquake resistant; it just costs more to do so. Height restrictions on construction like those in SF usually have more to do with politics and NIMBYism than with safety concerns.
closeparen 9y ago
Don’t forget that most advocates have decided that since new construction is expensive, it must be making the affordability crisis worse. They usually want to block anything that’s not BMR/lottery. Anyone who argues otherwise is accused of supporting neoliberal trickle-down economics. It would be great if all we had to do was agree on how to manage side effects. We don’t even have buy-in on the basic cause and effect relationships involved.

wallace_f 9y ago

Asking because I don't know: is SF, on a 100- to 1,000-year time horizon, a good place to invest dense, high rise development?

dirktheman 9y ago
Since the chance that a major earthquake will occur within the next -1000 years is about 100%, I wouldn't invest a dime in long term real estate in SF...
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  If you own the land underneath the building, and you're on non-land fill land, then maybe it's okay. Buying a unit in a highrise in SF never really made sense to me.
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
  It is not guaranteed that the earthquake will destroy your investment. What is fairly likely is that the-greater-fool will apply. Some people won't discount the risk properly and you are therefore bidding against people who overvalue the asset.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Japan would like a word
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    I'm not sure what Japan would say. 2011 Tohoku earthquake was pretty disastorous. If that type of earthquake hit SF or Tokyo, I don't really know how much earthquake-proofing will matter? Stuff like this seems pretty scary for big buildings: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liquefaction_at_Niigata.JPG#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liquefaction_at_Ni...
    - asteli 9y ago
      Not sure why you chose to illustrate this with a photo from over 50 years ago. I'd like to think that our understanding of earthquake safety has evolved since the 40s? 50s? whenever those structures were built.
      - wallace_f 9y ago
        I actually didn't assert anything here. It would be interesting if someone with expertise was able to offer better insight. Like the above picture illustrates, I don't know if at some point it matters anymore how well the building or foundation is built if the ground is liquified, or moves too much.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  I'd be more concerned about buying "soft story" (what non-civil engineers call "top heavy") real estate. But modern high density housing is engineered to withstand earthquakes. For example one of the tallest residential buildings in SF, 1 Rincon Hill, was engineered either all kinds of weight balancing measures and reinforcements. So long story short, I'd never buy "soft story" real estate, but the newer or retrofitted stuff should be fine.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  Is the value of the real estate principally the value of the building on it, or the right to have that building there? In large parts of the UK, the cost of real estate is a fraction of the replacement cost of the building, so even if the building was leveled in an earthquake, the only way the speculator would lose out would be if the earthquake did so much damage that the city was abandoned and the population dropped enormously. It's not uncommon with really expensive houses for a new owner to have it demolished so he can build the house he wants instead; the value is in having permission to have a house on that land, and an earthquake won't take that away (unless it's a really huge earthquake that outright destroys land or makes everyone leave forever).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

leggomylibro 9y ago

There's always eminent domain, aka Theft By Government. "Screw you all, we gave you a chance to play ball and you didn't. So now we have to do things the hard way." Or, more reasonably, just stay the fuck away from silicon valley if you're looking at starting a business or working for a tech company. Things will even out eventually. Or not, but the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. I don't get what's so great about the area, anyways. Every time I've been it's just seemed like an insanely expensive shithole...but I guess I'm not the one splashing billions of dollars around.

nopinsight 9y ago
If you are an entrepreneur in a certain field, such as deep learning, and need to stay at the bleeding edge by having people with extensive experience to bump ideas off and hire as employees or partner with, it is one of the best, if not the best, areas in the world. For example, the number of AI meetups in Silicon Valley proper is many times that of East Bay, which is a hub in its own right. If you work in a right position for one of the tech giants in the area, the compensation you get will leave you with more savings than working in a much cheaper place with smaller salary. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wish to have other options as well.
- Apocryphon 9y ago
  Sure. What's the percentage of startups in SV working on such bleeding edge technology, as opposed to e-commerce, social media, or on demand delivery?
  - nopinsight 9y ago
    I concur. I guess those are tied to investors who live in the area and do not wish to fund startups they need to travel too far to oversee? I read that a prominent SV investor values his time at $200,000 an hour. If that's true then I guess it makes sense for some investors.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  One of the more prominent companies in AI is in London Other companies and schools that train experts are in Canada, closer to the East Coast Bay Area seems to not be so much about people with exceedingly talent, more about people who will overwork themselves for less pay

jankotek 9y ago

> Solutions should be.... Is solution even possible? SF simply does not want a change and immigrants. Lets build new Silicon Valley somewhere else... I am in Berlin right now, and it is way more relaxed here.

rwmj 9y ago
Or just work remotely. The vast majority of SV work does not require physical presence.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  This ends up being sub-optimal. It's great to have physical presence to aid communication with your co-workers and, in some positions, that's pretty much essential. I've been part of remote teams a lot and the most productive times we had were when we all flew somewhere to be in the same room for a couple weeks.
  - jankotek 9y ago
    Personal preference. In my experience most employers can not even provide good office space and hardware. I am way more productive at home.
  - notacoward 9y ago
    One good anecdote deserves another. I've been a remote worker continuously for several years. While getting together physically for brief high-intensity sessions can be great for productivity, I've found that being with others continuously even through long low-intensity periods has the opposite effect. Most of my work requires focus more than anything, and the interrupt/distraction load associated with colocation destroys that focus. Most of the other full-time long-term remote workers I've known have made similar observations. Being alone all the time might be sub-optimal, but so is being with others all the time (especially for introverts).
- chrisco255 9y ago
  Not true. You are saying this only in theory, not because companies actually offer this as a choice to folks. Many companies in SV have a strong belief that colocation is key to productivity. Whether that's true or not, another discussion, but most folks do not have a choice wrt remote work.

geogra4 9y ago

This, I think is the most ridiculous thing about the bay area. Everyone is spooked about 'Manhattanization' and development like NYC is some ghetto where no one wants to live. Heck, San Francisco has 20% more land area than Paris with only 40% of the population. What is with the terror SF residents have around increasing population density?

alphonsegaston 9y ago
It’s not terror. It’s just a mask for predatory, unchecked real estate speculation.
nakedrobot2 9y ago
I've concluded that the particular combination of direct democracy and NIMBYism has made california a living hell when it should be one of the finest places to live in aggregate for the whole population in the world. There is the space and wealth to make it so, but it is so broken that there isn't even a decent public transporation system from San Francisco to Silicon Valley, resulting in the most horrendous and unpleasant traffic jams basically from 6am to 8pm every day.

TrickyRick 9y ago

Doesn't the risk of earthquakes prevent building tall buildings? Also London is comparatively flat, a large area on the SF peninsula is a huge useless (From a housing perspective) mountain and large parts of it are hills which makes construction difficult. I'm not saying this is the main reason but it probably makes the comparison a bit biased.

xyzzy_plugh 9y ago
No, city legislation disallows high-rises to preserve the town's image, and keep demand high. The reason for the lack of housing in the bay area is wholly artificial. NIMBYism at the extreme. Look at other high population areas in earthquake prone regions. Plenty of huge high rises.
- TrickyRick 9y ago
  Fair point, loads of other cities have figured it out.
mdorazio 9y ago
On your earthquake question, the answer is no. See Tokyo as an example. From an engineering perspective we are very good at making buildings earthquake resistant; it just costs more to do so. Height restrictions on construction like those in SF usually have more to do with politics and NIMBYism than with safety concerns.

closeparen 9y ago

Don’t forget that most advocates have decided that since new construction is expensive, it must be making the affordability crisis worse. They usually want to block anything that’s not BMR/lottery. Anyone who argues otherwise is accused of supporting neoliberal trickle-down economics. It would be great if all we had to do was agree on how to manage side effects. We don’t even have buy-in on the basic cause and effect relationships involved.