3 ms·
Regulations to fix regulations.... Perhaps the root issue is that the government tries "helping" too much. Neither California nor Oregon have the the spatial c
by huffmsa 7y ago
Regulations to fix regulations.... Perhaps the root issue is that the government tries "helping" too much.
Neither California nor Oregon have the the spatial constraints somewhere like NYC does.
Both states and their cities have implement policies which only make sense when you've run out of land and the ability to develop relatively unregulated.
Government intervention except for at the last possible moment almost always has negative long term second order effects.
- isoskeles 7y agoI agree with the first sentence. And the last one too. However, San Francisco in particular has worse spatial constraints than NYC. That city has “run out of land.”
- huffmsa 7y agoI did weight that. Most of SF is landfill and falling apart. But there's expansion outside of the city still relatively available. So I guess my addendum and corelary is that once you do hit that "last possible moment" the action needs to be decisive and absolute. NYC did a pretty good job of it.
- isoskeles 7y agoWhich parts are falling apart, or what do you define as falling apart? I used to live in SF, and I still work there. It looks mostly put-together to me. There is definitely blight and abandoned builds, especially around Civic Center, but that plus landfill is not "most" of SF. Map of landfill (green): https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d7f66b45593b76f812792ee55203e577 https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d7f66b45593b76f812792e... My comment is mostly targeted at the idea that there aren't spatial constraints. SF proper is thoroughly developed. The land is accounted for. We can nitpick over specific plots, but there isn't new land to start developing. People who move here want to live in SF or close enough to public transit, and most of those places are developed too, even if they are suburban. There is no BART in Tracy, etc. so people aren't moving to the undeveloped land there.
- huffmsa 7y agoA lot of the landfill is unstable, and some of it is falling apart. Like the stuff under the millennium tower.
- scarejunba 7y agoApart from the millennium tower, what else is having trouble? Is it possible that, if it’s only the millennium tower, it could just be related to the way that one was constructed? Salesforce tower is fine, for instance, and it’s much taller. Also, if you don’t mind sharing, are you a civil engineer? Just asking because my friends who work as engineers in construction do not share your opinions.
- Mountain_Skies 7y agoOnly in two dimensions. SF and the Bay Area in general are very lowrise. They have plenty of space in the third dimension though the recent experience with the Millennium Tower might dampen the already low level of enthusiasm for building upwards.
- 0xB31B1B 7y ago75% of SF is single family homes that can be redeveloped, there are 800 acres of private golf courses in SF, how has SF “run out of land”
- isoskeles 7y agoThere are not 800 acres of "private" golf courses in SF. Most of those golf courses are on public land in public parks. Do you also propose SF tear down Golden Gate Park and replace that with housing?
- PunksATawnyFill 7y agoSo you’re just going to seize private property?