4 ms·

SF is already notoriously family unfriendly. The side effects you're describing sound like they'd impact suburban areas more so than the city. SF needs an over

SF is already notoriously family unfriendly. The side effects you're describing sound like they'd impact suburban areas more so than the city. SF needs an overhauled planning process and possibly a way to fast track review of housing in already over priced areas that can contribute to a reduction in median rent. Edit: what is also clear is that the longer we delay these changes the more A) folks will get displaced that wouldn't have otherwise and B) the greater backlog of housing will need to be built to make up for past deficit and correspondingly the greater magnitude of change to the city in a shorter time (which I agree with you should be minimized to a reasonable extent)

DoreenMichele 9y ago
I have actually studied some stuff relevant to this problem space. I am trying to figure out how to put useful info together and I am getting involved locally where I live, which is outside California. I don't know if that I am doing will go anywhere and I don't currently have firm suggestions for SF. But it is quite hard to find genuinely viable solutions that don't have seriously undesirable side effects. I think discussing it on HN can have a constructive purpose, but it isn't guaranteed to have one. I wish I knew how to more seriously engage people trying to come up with real solutions. My mother always said it is easy to criticize, it is hard to create. If you have any thoughts on how I can more effectively connect, I would love to hear them. You could also try connecting with me on Reddit where I created a space called Housing Works.
- otterley 9y ago
  What are the "undesirable side effects" to which you refer?
- andrewjl 9y ago
  Folks are getting involved in the community planning meetings, which are a major way here for potential developments to get more visibility. In SF this week there's a case of a man who owns a laundromat, and would like to turn it into a 75 unit apartment building. It sounds like he met all the objective criteria and is getting stonewalled by NIMBY's due to the usual excuses: "neighborhood character" and historical value of the building. The building is a laundromat, and by all appearances fairly mundane and not at all historical. I can think of no obvious opposition a reasonable urban planner would have to this development. Yet it's being stonewalled. What undesirable side effects would it have? I grew up in New York City, which is also dense. People love living there. What's wrong with SF moving in that direction if it means accommodating all the new residents AND providing reasonably priced housing to all the current ones. Pardon the rant, this issue hits close to home for me. Edit: Re your earlier point on SF geography, earthquake proofing is a well developed tech. It will add some cost to development, but that doesn't make it infeasible. I live in a part of the city where they had to drill many many feet down to bedrock. It can be done.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    I am not familiar with the specific case you are talking about. But one of the reasons we have this mess is due to historical efforts to improve things that resulted in the elimination of a lot of affordable housing. I have seen lots of examples of zoning gone wrong and stated goals being achieved, but with unexpected costs. I don't remember it as clearly as I once did, but the Aswan Dam met all its stated goals of providing electricity and controlling flooding. But it cost vastly more to build than expected, silt build up was much faster than expected, leading to a shorter lifespan than expected, it caused a terrible schistosomiasis epidemic and farmers had to spend huge quantities on fertilizer. They overlooked the fact that the icky flooding provided free fertilizer in the form of rich silt. They overlooked the fact that the icky flooding is why Egypt was The Jewel of the Nile for thousands of years. They didn't recognize that the icky flooding also kept the snail population under control. The snails are the vector for schistosomiasis, a horrifying parasitic infection. Lots of efforts to fix things go sideways. It happens all the time.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

I have actually studied some stuff relevant to this problem space. I am trying to figure out how to put useful info together and I am getting involved locally where I live, which is outside California. I don't know if that I am doing will go anywhere and I don't currently have firm suggestions for SF. But it is quite hard to find genuinely viable solutions that don't have seriously undesirable side effects. I think discussing it on HN can have a constructive purpose, but it isn't guaranteed to have one. I wish I knew how to more seriously engage people trying to come up with real solutions. My mother always said it is easy to criticize, it is hard to create. If you have any thoughts on how I can more effectively connect, I would love to hear them. You could also try connecting with me on Reddit where I created a space called Housing Works.

otterley 9y ago
What are the "undesirable side effects" to which you refer?
andrewjl 9y ago
Folks are getting involved in the community planning meetings, which are a major way here for potential developments to get more visibility. In SF this week there's a case of a man who owns a laundromat, and would like to turn it into a 75 unit apartment building. It sounds like he met all the objective criteria and is getting stonewalled by NIMBY's due to the usual excuses: "neighborhood character" and historical value of the building. The building is a laundromat, and by all appearances fairly mundane and not at all historical. I can think of no obvious opposition a reasonable urban planner would have to this development. Yet it's being stonewalled. What undesirable side effects would it have? I grew up in New York City, which is also dense. People love living there. What's wrong with SF moving in that direction if it means accommodating all the new residents AND providing reasonably priced housing to all the current ones. Pardon the rant, this issue hits close to home for me. Edit: Re your earlier point on SF geography, earthquake proofing is a well developed tech. It will add some cost to development, but that doesn't make it infeasible. I live in a part of the city where they had to drill many many feet down to bedrock. It can be done.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I am not familiar with the specific case you are talking about. But one of the reasons we have this mess is due to historical efforts to improve things that resulted in the elimination of a lot of affordable housing. I have seen lots of examples of zoning gone wrong and stated goals being achieved, but with unexpected costs. I don't remember it as clearly as I once did, but the Aswan Dam met all its stated goals of providing electricity and controlling flooding. But it cost vastly more to build than expected, silt build up was much faster than expected, leading to a shorter lifespan than expected, it caused a terrible schistosomiasis epidemic and farmers had to spend huge quantities on fertilizer. They overlooked the fact that the icky flooding provided free fertilizer in the form of rich silt. They overlooked the fact that the icky flooding is why Egypt was The Jewel of the Nile for thousands of years. They didn't recognize that the icky flooding also kept the snail population under control. The snails are the vector for schistosomiasis, a horrifying parasitic infection. Lots of efforts to fix things go sideways. It happens all the time.