7 ms·
I'm going to throw out an unpopular opinion. I think it's great that 73.5% of the city is low rise. 26.5% of the city having apartments is already more than p
by ww520 8y ago
I'm going to throw out an unpopular opinion. I think it's great that 73.5% of the city is low rise. 26.5% of the city having apartments is already more than plenty. 100% apartments would destroy SF. People fighting to get to live in SF because of its character. Destroying that you won't have San Francisco.
- closeparen 8y agoThey sure did. But why should the rest of us be sympathetic to the aesthetic taste of people who own $1.5 million assets? This concession is not free. It comes at the expense of others’ access to community, jobs, and shelter.
- greglindahl 8y agoI don't think anyone was advocating 100% apartments.
- Qworg 8y agoThe character is what brought them there? Not jobs? Also, which SF are you proposing to maintain? The 1850's version? Early '90's? Whenever you decided to move there? The only constant is change and renewal - you can't live in a museum.
- SCAQTony 8y agoWhy not? Rich people do. Bill Gates lives in a 66,000 square foot "house" with collectibles in it. Larry Ellison on a 23-acre estate. Why does the everyone below them have to be forced into cell block apartments?
- Karrot_Kream 8y agoWhat is your definition of a "cell-block apartment"?
- reaperducer 8y agohttp://time.com/4581230/hong-kong-apartments-property-sale-rent-small-housing/ http://time.com/4581230/hong-kong-apartments-property-sale-r... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4306496/Coffin-apartments-Hong-Kong-one-room-families-LA.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-430649...
- SCAQTony 8y agoMy definition of a cell block apartment is any outside wall[s] and/or a ceiling/floor which are the only barriers that separate you from your neighbor. I think having a garden or a porch, even a side yard is important to middle class. I am getting severely voted down for having this opinion, but I think my definition and the history of density in urban areas is on my side. When you put a bunch of young males in a crowded urban center, crime, violence, drug addiction happens. https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=honors_theses https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
- rsynnott 8y agoIn most of Europe, the majority of the middle-class lives in housing where at least one wall is shared with a neighbour (whether it be apartments, semi-detached or terraced houses). For that matter, most middle-class New Yorkers live in apartments or other high density housing, and seem to survive.
- mjevans 8y agoJust replying about 'balconies' - I //hate// them as sources of noisy neighbors and neighbors that smoke and thus ruin the air around where I live. I also dislike how MDU exhausts, particularly the laundry exhausts, are not sent out a scrubbed (E.G. water filtration) negative draw system to remove the fine particulates. I have never in my life even seen an MDU with such a setup, let alone filtered air ingress delivered to each unit.
- bytematic 8y agoAny apartments that go up in san fransisco will be nicer than most houses in the world
- arethuza 8y agoI lived in the centre of Edinburgh in the UNESCO World Heritage Area for 30 years and that is pretty close to living in a museum and I was pretty happy with the experience https://ewh.org.uk/ https://ewh.org.uk/
- khuey 8y agoThe west side of San Francisco is nobody's idea of a World Heritage site. It's just bland California sprawl.
- arethuza 8y agoAnd there are many parts of Edinburgh that aren't that exceptional (or even very nice) - you don't keep everything in a museum but the things that are worth protecting should be protected. The catch is getting the balance right between the two extremes - it always seems to be presented as a false dichotomy between "no controls" and "no change". NB I'm no claiming that the Edinburgh planning process is perfect - just reacting on my experience of owning and living in listed properties in an extremely heavily controlled area.
- greglindahl 8y agoSo the unexceptional and un-nice areas of Edinburgh are also extremely heavily controlled? I can't figure it out from reading what you wrote. For SF, the whole place is heavily controlled.
- arethuza 8y agoNo there has been amount of new development in the last 20 years - particularly along the coastline where old harbour and dock areas have been redeveloped. Edinburgh does also have the advantage of excellent public transport links into the centre (e.g. hence the old joke "nice castle, pity they built it so close to the railway"). From what I remember of walking around SF - parts of it are very nice and large parts of it are pretty unexceptional. Not sure why would want to apply the same rules to both. But the nice parts are definitely worth of protection in my view.
- flatline 8y agoThere are jobs all across the country. The total cost of living in SF is the highest in the US right now, so it can't be the pay that's attractive - if you're making $250k/year and paying $1mm for a starter home, you could almost certainly do better living elsewhere at a lower salary. Jobs could still be a component, but I would say it's the character of the jobs, and the character of the area, that draws people.
- lovich 8y agoA home being only 4x your yearly salary is a much better ratio than most of the country. You could theoretically pay that off in 10 years without much sacrifice and most mortgages are 30 year terms. When you add in prop 13 which prevents your costs from rising with the market, then that seems like a great deal all around
- butterfi 8y agoSF is a city that is constantly changing itself, for good or bad. Been in SF for over 40 years now and still can't believe how much has changed in that time.
- reaperducer 8y agoThe character is what brought them there? Not jobs? Very often, yes. Especially in the 1960's. Thousands of people moved to San Francisco in the 60's just for its character. Itinerant tech workers may not understand that. But once the tech bubble moves on to the next hot location, the locals who love the city and loved it before Google and Facebook will still be there.
- eat_veggies 8y agoSorry, but the 1960's were over 50 years ago--approaching 60. The locals who loved it for its character half a century ago will be dead by the time the "tech bubble moves on to the next hot location," if they aren't already.
- wahern 8y agoYeah. The "locals" will be all the people who moved here for the tech jobs. And people forget that the reason there was so much culture in California in the 1960s was because of the booming economy, driven in large part by defense industries. Everybody was coming to California, and that drove cultural dynamism. SF was an extremely politically conservative city when the hippies came. They certainly didn't come to SF because they liked the locals; they came here along with everybody else and changed the city.
- reaperducer 8y agoAnd because they're older than you, their opinions and values don't matter. Got it. You do realize that age discrimination is a federal crime, right?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- seem_2211 8y ago.... and?
- hindsightbias 8y agoAll metropolitan zoning decisions should be made based off of short-term trends? Were you around for dotcom? Character and cost played a part in the early post dotcom techwave. They didn't start coming here for the jobs. They came here because they already had a job in the valley (with >70% low-density housing) and it was cheaper and hipper to live in SF. They slept on my couch for weeks while apt hunting. Then that wave required busing. Then some employers decided to move/expand in the city because workers wanted to be where it has hip. I'd be happy to bring a bulldozer to Valencia or Dolores. Problem is, a few thousand early-adopter otherwise glibertarian techies will be the first to jump in front of it. And for some reason, it's those baddies in the zoning department who refuse to adapt to the latest fad. To think of all the strip malls we could have had. Or that freeway running thru Hayes, the Panhandle and GG. https://hoodline.com/2015/03/panhandle-freeway-revolt https://hoodline.com/2015/03/panhandle-freeway-revolt
- saosebastiao 8y agoCaving to short term trends is how we got into this mess in the first place. Zoning-based cartels on housing is the microcosm of time, not the other way around.
- sushid 8y agoCan you add a disclaimer as to whether you own a housing unit in the Bay Area or not?
- deadmetheny 8y agoWhat is HN's obsession with disclaimers? People are free to have their opinions for whatever reason they want and aren't beholden to explain why.
- antisthenes 8y agoBecause a biased opinion given without evidence and effort can be discarded as such. If you want people to take what you say seriously, then you have to be willing to disclose your "skin in the game" If you aren't, then your online opinions are akin to writing in chalk on the nearest fence, and just as valuable.
- deadmetheny 8y ago> If you aren't, then your online opinions are akin to writing in chalk on the nearest fence, and just as valuable. This is the default case no matter what. Either way, I can explain my opinion if I feel like it, adding a "disclaimer" feels like some sort of weirdly perverse anti-pattern to make someone feel as though their opinion is invalidated by having a reason for holding it in the first place.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- greedo 8y agoAnd the same goes with people who don't own property; their opinions are biased because they want to be living the good life in SF for less.
- sushid 8y agoI'm not demanding that the parent include it. But just as you should take someone's advice on why Google's X technology is superior to all competitors' with a grain of salt if their paycheck comes from it, so does their position on SF housing if they happen to own a house.
- rukittenme 8y agoI'm sure people felt the same way about NYC in 1890. But had we preserved the "character" of 1890's NYC we wouldn't have the supremely better 2018 NYC. You're so worried about "losing" something that you're forgoing the creation of something new and better.
- magduf 8y agoTo be fair, to get to the "supremely better 2018 NYC", you had to go through the truly horrible NYC of the 70s and 80s....
- reaperducer 8y agoNYC works hard to preserve its 1930's architecture, and the character of some neighborhoods. NYC has zoning, too.
- ufo 8y agoI think more people fight to live there because o jobs and other people who live in SF more than because of low-rise housing.
- Bekwnn 8y ago73% being low-rise doesn't make the other 26% apartment buildings. There are so few actual apartment buildings here that half the buildings that look like apartment buildings are hotels.
- mikeryan 8y ago73% isn't low rise either, about a third of that 73% (30% of total) are parks and open spaces.
- woah 8y agoDo you own a house in SF?
- ww520 8y agoNo. I've lived there before.
- adrice727 8y agoHow are you defining character? Is it only the look of the neighborhoods, or is it the people that live in those neighborhoods?
- jimbofisher1 8y agoWhat character, the human shit and needles in the streets?
- azinman2 8y agoEvery city has problems. That doesn’t mean SF has no character. It’s one of the biggest tourist attractions in the country for a reason.
- frockington 8y agoCan't see the comment due to censoring but character is not necessarily good. Having a character of homeless people openly defecating in the streets isn't optimal and will probably harm tourist activity in the long run
- azinman2 8y agoIt’s not Disneyland, it’s a major city with giant wealth inequality and lots of social services. Much like Paris, NYC, Rome, etc. I don’t see how this erases SF’s character.
- kindatrue 8y agoThis bumper sticker summarizes SF's character that must be preserved at all costs: https://twitter.com/pt/status/964520632502202368 https://twitter.com/pt/status/964520632502202368
- frockington 8y agoOpen needle usage and human defecation does not need to happen in large cities. NYC doesn't seem to have the same fecal troubles as SF. Even Cleveland is cleaner from my experience as long as you ignore the burning river
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- daveFNbuck 8y agoIf there aren't enough apartments, the character is going to change with the demographics as people need to have more and more money to live there.
- MaupitiBlue 8y agoAgreed. If you can’t find somewhere you can afford to live, go somewhere else. We are a nation of immigrants. Our ancestors relocated from every corner of the planet, yet we incessantly whine about having to move to Modesto.
- butterfi 8y agoHave you been to Modesto? It could be worse I suppose, but it's not exactly what I would call a stretch goal.
- jtmcmc 8y agoThe character of the city isn't defined by the amount of single family homes it has. Also character of a city changes over time.
- Karrot_Kream 8y agoThen maybe SF should have only allowed commerical zoning if it had the residential capacity to handle, instead of being greedy and trying to make jobs without housing.
- conanbatt 8y ago> more than plenty. By whose measure? If it is more than plenty then you dont need to put any rules limiting it, it already satisfies the demand. > 100% apartments would destroy SF. People fighting to get to live in SF because of its character. Destroying that you won't have San Francisco. San francisco has been destroyed many times over. Its not the gold-digging town it used to be in the quaint 1800's, or the low-cost, cheap city it was in the 1930s, etc etc. If san francisco doubles its population it will be another city: it is inevitable and it is good. This is not SF's first iteration and wont be its last.
- reaperducer 8y agoit is inevitable A thousand towns and cities in Europe would disagree. and it is good Your opinion. Fortunately, not the opinion of the majority of voters in San Francisco.
- rsynnott 8y ago> A thousand towns and cities in Europe would disagree. Which cities of any significance in Europe have avoided high-density development? There'll often be protected areas of historical interest, but it's not normal to freeze the city as a whole in time.
- conanbatt 8y ago> Your opinion. Fortunately, not the opinion of the majority of voters in San Francisco. A mere electoral trick. If every person that works in SF voted you would get the opposite result. Also, all the people you mention will die and will be replaced by others.
- reaperducer 8y agoall the people you mention will die and will be replaced by others. As will you. And people who don't respect or understand what you love will destroy it and replace it.
- greedo 8y ago
- bytematic 8y agoThis can be done differently. In Madison, WI you cannot build above the capital building, but there is still lots of apartments.
- saosebastiao 8y agoThat's obviously not an unpopular opinion. How do you think it got that way? The problem is that as people are slowly priced out of the city, out of the region, and out of state by these asinine policies, digging in the heels is only going to make the backlash worse. The fact that we are talking about it at all shows that we are in the early stages of a massive reform in housing policy. If you wait until the median family is living in poverty because they're paying 60% of their income to housing, the reform is going to be far more severe and undesirable (to you, at least) than you can even imagine.
- namlem 8y agoSF's "character" is long dead for everyone but the extremely wealthy. Why should we preserve something that only exists to benefit the elite at the detriment of everybody else?
- jblow 8y agoThe character of San Francisco is currently homeless people everywhere, and poop and needles all over the sidewalks.