4 ms·

Look at this. From the article it says Tokyo started 110,000 houses annually per year since 2003. Population of Tokyo: ~9M. Population of the Bay Area: ~7M.

Look at this. From the article it says Tokyo started 110,000 houses annually per year since 2003. Population of Tokyo: ~9M. Population of the Bay Area: ~7M. The BA starts around 11,500 houses per year. Roughly similar in population -- a tenth of the housing being built. Wtf.

Shivetya 7y ago
because it is wholly under the domain of politics in the Bay Area. Most if not all special interest groups are linked back to either those in office or their party. the usual method is to form groups where you friends and family get nice part time advisement jobs pulling down 100k or more; we recently had a candidate in my state who part timed a get out to vote PAC for even more. There have been many stories posted here and elsewhere how nearly every attempt to build housing is derailed, usually under the guise of setting aside for "affordable housing", followed by union workers only, followed by environmental concern; one was defeated for adding a few hours of shade to twenty percent of a play area/park of a school!; to finally architectural concerns because why would we want to impose on history of buildings barely a hundred years old. It comes down to money for politicians and those already there not wanting "those people" living among them. Heck in my local metro area they have squads to clear out the homeless and undesirables every time a convention or big game comes in; a town which has been blue for most all this century and most of the previous. One where you will hear the politicians stamp their feet about how unfair it is and if only they had more power and money they could fix it, yet they never have. Instead a new stadium displaced an older black church, go figure.
- codedokode 7y ago
  > to finally architectural concerns because why would we want to impose on history of buildings barely a hundred years old. On the other hand, why do people need to build a new, ugly modern high-rise buildings in historical parts of the city? Is there not enough of other land? Historical parts better stay historical forever and there should be no new buildings, I think. Because no tourist will ever come to see modern, ugly concrete buildings.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    There can't be that many historic buildings in a city that burned to the ground in 1906, yet somehow we have historic auto-body shops, historic bars, historic music halls converted to comedy clubs, historic crab restaurants...
    - mactrey 7y ago
      https://i.redd.it/i3ndx7dhc5x21.jpg https://i.redd.it/i3ndx7dhc5x21.jpg Historic, historic, architecturally beautiful, indescribably beautiful San Francisco...
      - meddlepal 7y ago
        Kind of a waste of such a nice street grid for such low density housing.
        rayiner 7y ago
        Waste of a lovely bayside location. Imagine how much better that water view would look contrasted against modern glass and steel skyscrapers: https://s3.amazonaws.com/si-interactive/prod/ai-cio-com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/05082506/iStock-511665488.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/si-interactive/prod/ai-cio-com/wp-c....
        solidsnack9000 7y ago
        It could even be nice with two or three story buildings.
        tasubotadas 7y ago
        And then people wonder why the city isn't investing in public transport.
ezconnect 7y ago
They built many houses because they also demolishes lots of houses.
golemiprague 7y ago
If you take Tokyo plus the three cities adjacent to it, Chiba, Saitama and yokohama, then it is much more than 9M, probably around 20M and all that on a smaller area than the bay area. For proportions it takes less than half an hour by regular train to get from the centre of Yokohama to the centre of Tokyo and only couple of minutes from the edge of one of those cities to the edge of Tokyo so they are basically one big metropolis. If you choose not to live in the centre of tokyo but rather half an hour away by regular train, the prices are funny and those trains come every 3-10 minutes depends on the time, 18 hours a day.
osdiab 7y ago
While I'm totally in favor of what you're saying - it could be that the article means greater Tokyo and not just the central part of Tokyo (to bring the comparison similar to the Bay Area one), which would amount to more like 39 million population - it's a much much much larger city than the San Francisco Bay Area. But I would believe the number if they really do just mean central Tokyo housing starts, that seems like a reasonable number. And that would make it potentially even more embarrassing for SF.
kmlx 7y ago
just to put things in context: greater tokyo area is 38 million, the largest urban economy in the world.
myrandomcomment 7y ago
The population of Tokyo proper is 13.8M and the metro area (think Bay Area SF to San Jose) is 38.1M. I lived in Tokyo and have been back around 100 times over the last 10 years, most recently last week. SF does not even register as a city to my way of thinking.

Shivetya 7y ago

because it is wholly under the domain of politics in the Bay Area. Most if not all special interest groups are linked back to either those in office or their party. the usual method is to form groups where you friends and family get nice part time advisement jobs pulling down 100k or more; we recently had a candidate in my state who part timed a get out to vote PAC for even more. There have been many stories posted here and elsewhere how nearly every attempt to build housing is derailed, usually under the guise of setting aside for "affordable housing", followed by union workers only, followed by environmental concern; one was defeated for adding a few hours of shade to twenty percent of a play area/park of a school!; to finally architectural concerns because why would we want to impose on history of buildings barely a hundred years old. It comes down to money for politicians and those already there not wanting "those people" living among them. Heck in my local metro area they have squads to clear out the homeless and undesirables every time a convention or big game comes in; a town which has been blue for most all this century and most of the previous. One where you will hear the politicians stamp their feet about how unfair it is and if only they had more power and money they could fix it, yet they never have. Instead a new stadium displaced an older black church, go figure.

codedokode 7y ago
> to finally architectural concerns because why would we want to impose on history of buildings barely a hundred years old. On the other hand, why do people need to build a new, ugly modern high-rise buildings in historical parts of the city? Is there not enough of other land? Historical parts better stay historical forever and there should be no new buildings, I think. Because no tourist will ever come to see modern, ugly concrete buildings.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  There can't be that many historic buildings in a city that burned to the ground in 1906, yet somehow we have historic auto-body shops, historic bars, historic music halls converted to comedy clubs, historic crab restaurants...
  - mactrey 7y ago
    https://i.redd.it/i3ndx7dhc5x21.jpg https://i.redd.it/i3ndx7dhc5x21.jpg Historic, historic, architecturally beautiful, indescribably beautiful San Francisco...
    - meddlepal 7y ago
      Kind of a waste of such a nice street grid for such low density housing.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Waste of a lovely bayside location. Imagine how much better that water view would look contrasted against modern glass and steel skyscrapers: https://s3.amazonaws.com/si-interactive/prod/ai-cio-com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/05082506/iStock-511665488.jpg https://s3.amazonaws.com/si-interactive/prod/ai-cio-com/wp-c....
        solidsnack9000 7y ago
        It could even be nice with two or three story buildings.
      - tasubotadas 7y ago
        And then people wonder why the city isn't investing in public transport.

ezconnect 7y ago

They built many houses because they also demolishes lots of houses.

golemiprague 7y ago

If you take Tokyo plus the three cities adjacent to it, Chiba, Saitama and yokohama, then it is much more than 9M, probably around 20M and all that on a smaller area than the bay area. For proportions it takes less than half an hour by regular train to get from the centre of Yokohama to the centre of Tokyo and only couple of minutes from the edge of one of those cities to the edge of Tokyo so they are basically one big metropolis. If you choose not to live in the centre of tokyo but rather half an hour away by regular train, the prices are funny and those trains come every 3-10 minutes depends on the time, 18 hours a day.

osdiab 7y ago

While I'm totally in favor of what you're saying - it could be that the article means greater Tokyo and not just the central part of Tokyo (to bring the comparison similar to the Bay Area one), which would amount to more like 39 million population - it's a much much much larger city than the San Francisco Bay Area. But I would believe the number if they really do just mean central Tokyo housing starts, that seems like a reasonable number. And that would make it potentially even more embarrassing for SF.

kmlx 7y ago

just to put things in context: greater tokyo area is 38 million, the largest urban economy in the world.

myrandomcomment 7y ago

The population of Tokyo proper is 13.8M and the metro area (think Bay Area SF to San Jose) is 38.1M. I lived in Tokyo and have been back around 100 times over the last 10 years, most recently last week. SF does not even register as a city to my way of thinking.