4 ms·

> We need to be building massive amounts of housing in city centers to let as many people live in them that would like to A model/example where this has been d

by jasonv 6y ago

> We need to be building massive amounts of housing in city centers to let as many people live in them that would like to A model/example where this has been done well? I hear this all the time, but if you build more dense versions of the cities/towns we have now, it'll be miserable. Thin-walled apartment homes built along narrow-sidewalks without proper public spaces and reasonable bike/pedestrian zones, etc. I think the resistance comes from not showing the grand plan around these kinds of in-fill demands. I can't imagine living in the American version of them, and I've lived (happily) in the dense(r) city centers of Amsterdam, Berlin and Brooklyn. I've also lived in SF -- never again. It's a terrible version of urban development.

techsupporter 6y ago
> I hear this all the time, but if you build more dense versions of the cities/towns we have now, it'll be miserable. Thin-walled apartment homes built along narrow-sidewalks without proper public spaces and reasonable bike/pedestrian zones, etc. So we...don't do that. Bluntly speaking, it's trivial: all of these issues are of our own making in America. We have hundreds of examples just in Europe of how to make car-lite, walkable, nice cities and towns and that's just on a single continent. And that's artificially restricting ourselves to a single continent with societies that look the most like ours. A quick pivot to most of eastern Asia will show much more variety in how to build those areas. (I will pause here and throw right out the idea that "Europe is much smaller than the United States so we couldn't possibly..." There is no reason we cannot duplicate those same cityscapes all across the United States; we have sub-national states and counties for a reason.) We are car-centric and spread out because we choose to be. So we either change those choices and make the commensurate political and financial changes to go along with it, or we don't and we accept the consequences of things like "large swaths of the West Coast burn to the ground" and "we are stuck in our metal boxes powered by carbon fuels or batteries backed by precious rare earth minerals." We already spent a couple trillion dollars propping up the stock market for nothing more than paper gains; the argument that we "can't afford it" is laughable.
epistasis 6y ago
The resistance comes from a tiny number of people, and is not representative of the majority. Blocking the wants of the people requires subversion of democracy and subversion of the housing market by a few very wealthy and connected and powerful people. California and many other states’ governance has enabled a small number of people to veto what the majority wants. For example, all of SF’s safe streets program during the pandemic have been held up by the actions of only two people [1]. Two people subverting changes that are wildly popular just because is is change rather than maintaining the status quo. Similarly, Minneapolis’ legalization of triplexes city wide is popular with a majority of the city, [2] but during the government process the representation was quite different, and unrepresentative of the city. Yet that unrepresentative process is somehow considered “democratic”. My question to you is that, if you don’t like living in SF, why are you interested unmaking sure others can’t live there? Do you assume they don’t like it? Do you assume that you know what’s in their best interests? Sooooo may people love living in SF, in fact almost everybody who lives there loves it. It works well for them. Let the people that love it enjoy it. It will leave suburbia emptier for those who prefer suburbia. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/San-Francisco-lets-just-one-person-stop-15561164.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Sa... [2] https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/crosstabs-MN-NH-NV-WI.pdf/80f8e4634fe6f880/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/crosstabs-MN-NH-NV-WI...
- jasonv 6y ago
  The people who love SF don’t seem to want it SF-ier, otherwise these proposals would pass (I’ve also lived in Cow Hollow and Bernal Heights). I work in the city with SFers. They all complain incessantly about their apartments, the noise, the commute, etc. People in SF, commuting by Bart or bike for 20-30 minutes, complaining to coworkers who spend 50-80 minutes on Bart commuting in from San Ramon and Walnut Creek. Singles in SF don’t seem to understand what dual income, 1-2 kids might want. It’s not SF (not school lotteries, yes to playgrounds). If it was so great, selling more of it should be easier. And I know about the two people blocking slow streets... not the same NIMBY story as infill housing nobody is convinced will be great. Update: There have been a few responses to my OP. No stated examples of where infill housing plus better urban planning have yielded the improvements that the SF infill crowd are trying to sell. It needs a master plan, which doesn’t seem likely from SF governance.
renewiltord 6y ago
There's an appeal to the SFR, not going to lie, but my flat in London was absolutely great. Massive concrete on the river, couldn't hear either of my neighbours unless we were both out on our balconies, access to city life. Nah, man, cities can be awesome. London is an example. Love it there.

by jasonv 6y ago

techsupporter 6y ago

> I hear this all the time, but if you build more dense versions of the cities/towns we have now, it'll be miserable. Thin-walled apartment homes built along narrow-sidewalks without proper public spaces and reasonable bike/pedestrian zones, etc. So we...don't do that. Bluntly speaking, it's trivial: all of these issues are of our own making in America. We have hundreds of examples just in Europe of how to make car-lite, walkable, nice cities and towns and that's just on a single continent. And that's artificially restricting ourselves to a single continent with societies that look the most like ours. A quick pivot to most of eastern Asia will show much more variety in how to build those areas. (I will pause here and throw right out the idea that "Europe is much smaller than the United States so we couldn't possibly..." There is no reason we cannot duplicate those same cityscapes all across the United States; we have sub-national states and counties for a reason.) We are car-centric and spread out because we choose to be. So we either change those choices and make the commensurate political and financial changes to go along with it, or we don't and we accept the consequences of things like "large swaths of the West Coast burn to the ground" and "we are stuck in our metal boxes powered by carbon fuels or batteries backed by precious rare earth minerals." We already spent a couple trillion dollars propping up the stock market for nothing more than paper gains; the argument that we "can't afford it" is laughable.

epistasis 6y ago

The resistance comes from a tiny number of people, and is not representative of the majority. Blocking the wants of the people requires subversion of democracy and subversion of the housing market by a few very wealthy and connected and powerful people. California and many other states’ governance has enabled a small number of people to veto what the majority wants. For example, all of SF’s safe streets program during the pandemic have been held up by the actions of only two people [1]. Two people subverting changes that are wildly popular just because is is change rather than maintaining the status quo. Similarly, Minneapolis’ legalization of triplexes city wide is popular with a majority of the city, [2] but during the government process the representation was quite different, and unrepresentative of the city. Yet that unrepresentative process is somehow considered “democratic”. My question to you is that, if you don’t like living in SF, why are you interested unmaking sure others can’t live there? Do you assume they don’t like it? Do you assume that you know what’s in their best interests? Sooooo may people love living in SF, in fact almost everybody who lives there loves it. It works well for them. Let the people that love it enjoy it. It will leave suburbia emptier for those who prefer suburbia. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/San-Francisco-lets-just-one-person-stop-15561164.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Sa... [2] https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/crosstabs-MN-NH-NV-WI.pdf/80f8e4634fe6f880/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/crosstabs-MN-NH-NV-WI...

jasonv 6y ago
The people who love SF don’t seem to want it SF-ier, otherwise these proposals would pass (I’ve also lived in Cow Hollow and Bernal Heights). I work in the city with SFers. They all complain incessantly about their apartments, the noise, the commute, etc. People in SF, commuting by Bart or bike for 20-30 minutes, complaining to coworkers who spend 50-80 minutes on Bart commuting in from San Ramon and Walnut Creek. Singles in SF don’t seem to understand what dual income, 1-2 kids might want. It’s not SF (not school lotteries, yes to playgrounds). If it was so great, selling more of it should be easier. And I know about the two people blocking slow streets... not the same NIMBY story as infill housing nobody is convinced will be great. Update: There have been a few responses to my OP. No stated examples of where infill housing plus better urban planning have yielded the improvements that the SF infill crowd are trying to sell. It needs a master plan, which doesn’t seem likely from SF governance.

renewiltord 6y ago

There's an appeal to the SFR, not going to lie, but my flat in London was absolutely great. Massive concrete on the river, couldn't hear either of my neighbours unless we were both out on our balconies, access to city life. Nah, man, cities can be awesome. London is an example. Love it there.