4 ms·

Or may be we should face the sad truth: it's only so many people can be accommodated in SF. Granted, we can build taller houses. It will cause huge influx of p

Or may be we should face the sad truth: it's only so many people can be accommodated in SF. Granted, we can build taller houses. It will cause huge influx of people, transport collapse, school and health care systems overload. At this point it may be easier to just build another city.

opportune 6y ago
This makes my head boil. The Bay Area can also build more of those schools and infrastructure as well. There are so many metro areas, probably hundreds, that have done it before. It’s entirely a political problem. I always hear the NIMBYs complaining about these made up problems and other people choosing to live in “shoebox apartments” as if they’re real problems and not simply them imposing restrictions on everyone else
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  You are absolutely right: NIMBY. Apparently due to some reasons local people do not want to live in a beehive. Go and build somewhere else. California is a large state with lots of unoccupied land.
  - opportune 6y ago
    I’m saying the problem needs to be addressed in good faith, because NIMBY people will put up nonsensical arguments like other people living in small apartments or needing to build new schools (to support an expanding tax base...) as problems rather than the actual problems they have motivating them to politically oppose urbanization
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      You are solving the wrong problem. No matter how hard we try there's no way to squeeze all the United States in SF. May be instead just make other places livable?
      - stellar678 6y ago
        The Bay Area could host the entire population of the United States with ~850 sq ft of land area per person. As it is, we currently allocate ~29,500 sq ft of land area per person. Surely we can find a middle ground somewhere in the name of access to opportunity and in the name resolving our severe housing shortage.
ska 6y ago
> it's only so many people can be accommodated in S This is true but not very important today; as has been clearly demonstrated in many different contexts, that number is a large multiple of the current population.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
San Francisco has a population density of 7,000/km2. Manhattan has a density of 27,000/km2. San Mateo has a density of 1,000/km2

opportune 6y ago

This makes my head boil. The Bay Area can also build more of those schools and infrastructure as well. There are so many metro areas, probably hundreds, that have done it before. It’s entirely a political problem. I always hear the NIMBYs complaining about these made up problems and other people choosing to live in “shoebox apartments” as if they’re real problems and not simply them imposing restrictions on everyone else

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
You are absolutely right: NIMBY. Apparently due to some reasons local people do not want to live in a beehive. Go and build somewhere else. California is a large state with lots of unoccupied land.
- opportune 6y ago
  I’m saying the problem needs to be addressed in good faith, because NIMBY people will put up nonsensical arguments like other people living in small apartments or needing to build new schools (to support an expanding tax base...) as problems rather than the actual problems they have motivating them to politically oppose urbanization
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    You are solving the wrong problem. No matter how hard we try there's no way to squeeze all the United States in SF. May be instead just make other places livable?
    - stellar678 6y ago
      The Bay Area could host the entire population of the United States with ~850 sq ft of land area per person. As it is, we currently allocate ~29,500 sq ft of land area per person. Surely we can find a middle ground somewhere in the name of access to opportunity and in the name resolving our severe housing shortage.

ska 6y ago

> it's only so many people can be accommodated in S This is true but not very important today; as has been clearly demonstrated in many different contexts, that number is a large multiple of the current population.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

San Francisco has a population density of 7,000/km2. Manhattan has a density of 27,000/km2. San Mateo has a density of 1,000/km2