4 ms·

Personally I'm a big fan of skyscrapers for a practical reason: they have more capacity, which a city like San Francisco certainly needs. Can't help but feel th

Personally I'm a big fan of skyscrapers for a practical reason: they have more capacity, which a city like San Francisco certainly needs. Can't help but feel the writer has an axe to grind.

losteric 9y ago
I'm a fan of high-density work spaces, as long as they're built in tandem with high-density residential spaces and high-density transportation systems. San Francisco does the former without the latter. BART is an embarrassment when compared with Manhattan's subway: * Manhattan subway map: https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg * Bay Area subway map: https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif * Manhattan compared to SF: https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg - the entire first subway map fits in the white space of this one Price is the big argument against BART... because we're thinking so small. More ambitious expansion benefits from economies of scale. If we could coordinate projects in multiple metropolitan areas, standardizing technology (boring, rails, power, etc), prices would drop even further... that's where Musk's Boring Company comes into play.
- ihodes 9y ago
  The size comparison is a bit off; Manhattan is about half the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968). Of course, NYC is over 6x the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968).
  - losteric 9y ago
    Thanks, I didn't know about that tool. Better than the images I provided. Still, NYC subway is far denser both within Manhattan as well as the surrounding area.
  - jacques_chester 9y ago
    I've heard SF described as a Brooklyn without a Manhattan. Which generally checks out in numbers. Brooklyn's density is ~14,700/km^2, SF's is ~18,500/km^2. By comparison, Manhattan is 27,800/km^2.
    - DerekL 9y ago
      Where did you get 18,500/km^2 for San Francisco? 870,887 / 121.46 km^2 = 7170. More like Queens, not Brooklyn.
      - jacques_chester 9y ago
        Ah, I got it wrong. Mixed miles and square kilometres.
    - surrealize 9y ago
      You mixed up some units here: Brooklyn is way denser than SF (about twice as dense). Your SF number is people per square mile, not per square km. Same units, Brooklyn is ~35,300/m^2, SF ~18,500/m^2 Manhattan ~69,400/m^2 all from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
      - jacques_chester 9y ago
        My figures are based on square kilometres. A square mile is quite different. Edit: bonus round! I got Manhattan right but did the reverse error for SF (quoting km^2 for miles^2).
- nathanvanfleet 9y ago
  There is also the MUNI metro as well. But it's true that even those two combined are inadequate.
  - losteric 9y ago
    That's true, a fair comparison would include metro and Caltrains, and NYC's equivalent long-distance commuter lines... what just makes NYC look even better.
- closeparen 9y ago
  BART does exactly what it's supposed to: indulge the public's desire to live in single family detached houses while benefitting from an urban economy. I'm grateful that we decided to do this in a way that has fewer negative externalities, and probably lower total cost to society, than a freeway expansion. Seriously, we're lucky that the intention behind BART gave us anything resembling a train. If you try to read it as a way to connect urban neighborhoods (like Manhattan's subways), you're going to be disappointed, because it isn't one. Remember that most city land area is essentially suburban, and that SF/Oakland/SJ are less than a third of the region's population. Transportation that serves the needs and preferences of the regional electorate is vanishingly unlikely to resemble the Manhattan subway system, or make any sense for the tiny minority of us living on urban blocks. It's going to look like BART and Caltrain: infrequent stations in low-rise neighborhoods with big parking lots, infrequent service outside peak commute hours, etc.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    It's still epic bullshit. Here's the Menlo Park station: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4548376,-122.1829295,3a,75y,132.26h,78.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbLbRREG0b2NoRXQxx_dEYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4548376,-122.1829295,3a,75y,.... Here's the Metro North station in New Rochelle, NY: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.911459,-73.785247,3a,75y,93.35h,93.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx1aM6WeYHcwKq5TvmrWKIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.911459,-73.785247,3a,75y,93..... Lot's of parking, but also several 30-40 story high-rises within walking distance. This is Mamaroneck, a fancy NY suburb: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9537644,-73.7359993,3a,75y,38.37h,104.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svIS0tyS_SDbrszsjqNYGAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9537644,-73.7359993,3a,75y,3.... This is Portchester: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0002183,-73.6633792,3a,75y,274.92h,106.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snZIIQZEsVsJwNBe-rMnWBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0002183,-73.6633792,3a,75y,2.... New York is the only place I'm familiar with where a Costco out in the suburbs is accessible to people taking public transit.
    - DrScump 9y ago
      "New York is the only place I'm familiar with where a Costco out in the suburbs is accessible to people taking public transit." The Sunnyvale CA Costco is literally next door to the Lawrence Caltrain station and has been for over 30 years (it was originally built as a Price Club).
henrikschroder 9y ago
Yeah, the whole article is one giant "sic transit gloria mundi". And yet, the city grows bigger and taller every year. And that's awesome. Fuck the NIMBY crowd.
- SilasX 9y ago
  I’m sure there’s a pun in there about “sick transit”.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
Skyscapers are fine, but the housing in them can really only be so cheap, since they're inherently expensive to build. SF could do with a lot more low- and mid-rise buildings too.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  They are also very expensive to maintain which is why they are often sold after a decade or two often below cost.
- ng12 9y ago
  For sure. By area, SF is still mostly single-family homes. Neighborhoods like the Sunset and Forest Hills are shockingly underdeveloped.
RickHull 9y ago
Yeah -- "inescapably"? Tyler Cowen would call this mood affiliation.
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
Indeed, the twin towers alone were capable of accomodating Google and Apple who currently exist as gigantic suburban sprawl Imagine all of that replaced by public transportation and two buildings NYC is no wonderland with its antiquated infrastructure but get it together Cali

Personally I'm a big fan of skyscrapers for a practical reason: they have more capacity, which a city like San Francisco certainly needs. Can't help but feel the writer has an axe to grind.

losteric 9y ago

I'm a fan of high-density work spaces, as long as they're built in tandem with high-density residential spaces and high-density transportation systems. San Francisco does the former without the latter. BART is an embarrassment when compared with Manhattan's subway: * Manhattan subway map: https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg * Bay Area subway map: https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif * Manhattan compared to SF: https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg - the entire first subway map fits in the white space of this one Price is the big argument against BART... because we're thinking so small. More ambitious expansion benefits from economies of scale. If we could coordinate projects in multiple metropolitan areas, standardizing technology (boring, rails, power, etc), prices would drop even further... that's where Musk's Boring Company comes into play.

ihodes 9y ago
The size comparison is a bit off; Manhattan is about half the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968). Of course, NYC is over 6x the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968 https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968).
- losteric 9y ago
  Thanks, I didn't know about that tool. Better than the images I provided. Still, NYC subway is far denser both within Manhattan as well as the surrounding area.
- jacques_chester 9y ago
  I've heard SF described as a Brooklyn without a Manhattan. Which generally checks out in numbers. Brooklyn's density is ~14,700/km^2, SF's is ~18,500/km^2. By comparison, Manhattan is 27,800/km^2.
  - DerekL 9y ago
    Where did you get 18,500/km^2 for San Francisco? 870,887 / 121.46 km^2 = 7170. More like Queens, not Brooklyn.
    - jacques_chester 9y ago
      Ah, I got it wrong. Mixed miles and square kilometres.
  - surrealize 9y ago
    You mixed up some units here: Brooklyn is way denser than SF (about twice as dense). Your SF number is people per square mile, not per square km. Same units, Brooklyn is ~35,300/m^2, SF ~18,500/m^2 Manhattan ~69,400/m^2 all from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
    - jacques_chester 9y ago
      My figures are based on square kilometres. A square mile is quite different. Edit: bonus round! I got Manhattan right but did the reverse error for SF (quoting km^2 for miles^2).
nathanvanfleet 9y ago
There is also the MUNI metro as well. But it's true that even those two combined are inadequate.
- losteric 9y ago
  That's true, a fair comparison would include metro and Caltrains, and NYC's equivalent long-distance commuter lines... what just makes NYC look even better.
closeparen 9y ago
BART does exactly what it's supposed to: indulge the public's desire to live in single family detached houses while benefitting from an urban economy. I'm grateful that we decided to do this in a way that has fewer negative externalities, and probably lower total cost to society, than a freeway expansion. Seriously, we're lucky that the intention behind BART gave us anything resembling a train. If you try to read it as a way to connect urban neighborhoods (like Manhattan's subways), you're going to be disappointed, because it isn't one. Remember that most city land area is essentially suburban, and that SF/Oakland/SJ are less than a third of the region's population. Transportation that serves the needs and preferences of the regional electorate is vanishingly unlikely to resemble the Manhattan subway system, or make any sense for the tiny minority of us living on urban blocks. It's going to look like BART and Caltrain: infrequent stations in low-rise neighborhoods with big parking lots, infrequent service outside peak commute hours, etc.
- rayiner 9y ago
  It's still epic bullshit. Here's the Menlo Park station: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4548376,-122.1829295,3a,75y,132.26h,78.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbLbRREG0b2NoRXQxx_dEYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4548376,-122.1829295,3a,75y,.... Here's the Metro North station in New Rochelle, NY: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.911459,-73.785247,3a,75y,93.35h,93.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx1aM6WeYHcwKq5TvmrWKIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.911459,-73.785247,3a,75y,93..... Lot's of parking, but also several 30-40 story high-rises within walking distance. This is Mamaroneck, a fancy NY suburb: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9537644,-73.7359993,3a,75y,38.37h,104.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svIS0tyS_SDbrszsjqNYGAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9537644,-73.7359993,3a,75y,3.... This is Portchester: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0002183,-73.6633792,3a,75y,274.92h,106.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snZIIQZEsVsJwNBe-rMnWBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0002183,-73.6633792,3a,75y,2.... New York is the only place I'm familiar with where a Costco out in the suburbs is accessible to people taking public transit.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    "New York is the only place I'm familiar with where a Costco out in the suburbs is accessible to people taking public transit." The Sunnyvale CA Costco is literally next door to the Lawrence Caltrain station and has been for over 30 years (it was originally built as a Price Club).

henrikschroder 9y ago

Yeah, the whole article is one giant "sic transit gloria mundi". And yet, the city grows bigger and taller every year. And that's awesome. Fuck the NIMBY crowd.

SilasX 9y ago
I’m sure there’s a pun in there about “sick transit”.

TulliusCicero 9y ago

Skyscapers are fine, but the housing in them can really only be so cheap, since they're inherently expensive to build. SF could do with a lot more low- and mid-rise buildings too.

dogma1138 9y ago
They are also very expensive to maintain which is why they are often sold after a decade or two often below cost.
ng12 9y ago
For sure. By area, SF is still mostly single-family homes. Neighborhoods like the Sunset and Forest Hills are shockingly underdeveloped.

RickHull 9y ago

Yeah -- "inescapably"? Tyler Cowen would call this mood affiliation.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

Indeed, the twin towers alone were capable of accomodating Google and Apple who currently exist as gigantic suburban sprawl Imagine all of that replaced by public transportation and two buildings NYC is no wonderland with its antiquated infrastructure but get it together Cali