4 ms·

SF is over 5x denser than Dallas, which is the densest major city in Texas. The problem with homelessness is people can't afford to live in homes. It is a lot

by birken 6y ago

SF is over 5x denser than Dallas, which is the densest major city in Texas. The problem with homelessness is people can't afford to live in homes. It is a lot easier to avoid homelessness when you have essentially endless space to build housing.

listenallyall 6y ago
If you and fellow San Franciscans were willing to think in 3 dimensions, you'd realize you've got essentially endless space as well.
- curryst 6y ago
  SF has additional earthquake protection laws that kick for buildings taller than 8 or 9 stories iirc. I think they're expensive to do, because a lot of buildings stop at that height.
bob33212 6y ago
I certainly can't afford to live on Madison Ave in NYC. But instead of living in a tent on the street on Madison Ave, I live in a city that is much cheaper than NYC and I don't live in the most expensive part of town. Should NYC provide me housing if I start living in a tent on Madison Ave?
- coryrc 6y ago
  NYC actually does have a law where they are required to do just that: https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/todays-read-behind-new-yorks-right-shelter-policy/ https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/todays-read-behind-n...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  As another commenter linked to, they should and will. (SF, in contrast, will not - homeless advocacy groups in California generally aren't fans of shelters, so there's not much pressure to ensure there are enough beds to go around.)
sampo 6y ago
> SF is over 5x denser than Dallas San Francisco is also 3x less dense than Paris (Paris, France). SF could add homes for 1.5 million people and still be as livable as Paris, if it wanted to.
- NotChina 6y ago
  Paris is not on a fault line either. Or built on large portions of land that suffer from liquid faction.
  - maya24 6y ago
    SF like most American cities has suffered poor city planning and no foresight about future population growth.
  - jandrewrogers 6y ago
    That isn't a credible argument. We've known how to engineer for seismic risks for a very long time and many dense, tall cities are built on top of faults in seismic risk zones at least as severe as San Francisco without issue. For example, Tokyo and Seattle. San Francisco even has the advantage of being merely fault adjacent. In cases like Seattle, a major thrust fault runs through the city. It doesn't prevent dense construction.
abernard1 6y ago
> It is a lot easier to avoid homelessness when you have essentially endless space to build housing. This is hyperbole and dramatically wrong. It's one of those statistics that's repeated in Bay Area circles but has no bearing on reality. Houston metro is almost the same size as the entire 9-county Bay Area metro: 7M population, 10K sq mi. Bay Area 9 county: 7.4M population, 7K sq mi. Houston metro pop density = 0.7K people / sq mi. Bay Area 9 county = 1.05K people / sq mi. So, the Bay Area 9 county is only 1.5 times as dense as Houston, largely because Houston allows many more high rises.
- plorkyeran 6y ago
  You've taken a statement about SF and applied it to an area 140 times the size of SF. Obviously that will result in it being nonsense.
  - abernard1 6y ago
    SF is the size of downtown Houston, and Houston does not have these problems. Applying statistics from SF, which is effectively the "downtown" of the Bay Area is not a valid comparison. The population density of San Francisco is not impressive, period. Downtown Houston is much more developed than San Francisco, and that would be a more valid comparison for density. But this also doesn't get to the main point which was cost and housing density. Cost per sq/ft in Houston (excluding the lots, which are enormous compared to the Bay Area) is $107. Median house price in downtown Houston is $310K. Costs per sq/ft in the Bay Area are anywhere between $280 and $800. It's not a close comparison in price at all, despite being a comparable density.
    - birken 6y ago
      On an absolute basis, SF has horrifically restricted housing policy that makes it incredibly difficult to build new, denser housing. However, compared to the broader bay area, SF has incredibly progressive housing policy. It is ridiculous to compare downtown Houston, which is surrounded on all sides by a zillion square miles of suburbs (under city control!), to SF, which is surrounded by a limited number of more expensive and more restrictive enclaves that SF has no power over, and most of those places are a bridge or tunnel away. Obviously there is going to be less demand, and less premium for land if there are 10,000 other plots within 30 minutes. That just isn't the case in SF. If the bay area as a whole had better housing policy than it would help SF a lot. But they don't, so it makes it worse for SF. And SF has no control over the housing laws passed in other counties. SF is of course partially at fault, as they should have better housing policy themselves, but they are not entirely responsible for the problem.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
So SF needs to reform their overly restrictive building regulations? Ignore the NIMBYism and do what is better for the city as a whole?

by birken 6y ago

listenallyall 6y ago

If you and fellow San Franciscans were willing to think in 3 dimensions, you'd realize you've got essentially endless space as well.

curryst 6y ago
SF has additional earthquake protection laws that kick for buildings taller than 8 or 9 stories iirc. I think they're expensive to do, because a lot of buildings stop at that height.

bob33212 6y ago

I certainly can't afford to live on Madison Ave in NYC. But instead of living in a tent on the street on Madison Ave, I live in a city that is much cheaper than NYC and I don't live in the most expensive part of town. Should NYC provide me housing if I start living in a tent on Madison Ave?

coryrc 6y ago
NYC actually does have a law where they are required to do just that: https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/todays-read-behind-new-yorks-right-shelter-policy/ https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/todays-read-behind-n...
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
As another commenter linked to, they should and will. (SF, in contrast, will not - homeless advocacy groups in California generally aren't fans of shelters, so there's not much pressure to ensure there are enough beds to go around.)

sampo 6y ago

> SF is over 5x denser than Dallas San Francisco is also 3x less dense than Paris (Paris, France). SF could add homes for 1.5 million people and still be as livable as Paris, if it wanted to.

NotChina 6y ago
Paris is not on a fault line either. Or built on large portions of land that suffer from liquid faction.
- maya24 6y ago
  SF like most American cities has suffered poor city planning and no foresight about future population growth.
- jandrewrogers 6y ago
  That isn't a credible argument. We've known how to engineer for seismic risks for a very long time and many dense, tall cities are built on top of faults in seismic risk zones at least as severe as San Francisco without issue. For example, Tokyo and Seattle. San Francisco even has the advantage of being merely fault adjacent. In cases like Seattle, a major thrust fault runs through the city. It doesn't prevent dense construction.

abernard1 6y ago

> It is a lot easier to avoid homelessness when you have essentially endless space to build housing. This is hyperbole and dramatically wrong. It's one of those statistics that's repeated in Bay Area circles but has no bearing on reality. Houston metro is almost the same size as the entire 9-county Bay Area metro: 7M population, 10K sq mi. Bay Area 9 county: 7.4M population, 7K sq mi. Houston metro pop density = 0.7K people / sq mi. Bay Area 9 county = 1.05K people / sq mi. So, the Bay Area 9 county is only 1.5 times as dense as Houston, largely because Houston allows many more high rises.

plorkyeran 6y ago
You've taken a statement about SF and applied it to an area 140 times the size of SF. Obviously that will result in it being nonsense.
- abernard1 6y ago
  SF is the size of downtown Houston, and Houston does not have these problems. Applying statistics from SF, which is effectively the "downtown" of the Bay Area is not a valid comparison. The population density of San Francisco is not impressive, period. Downtown Houston is much more developed than San Francisco, and that would be a more valid comparison for density. But this also doesn't get to the main point which was cost and housing density. Cost per sq/ft in Houston (excluding the lots, which are enormous compared to the Bay Area) is $107. Median house price in downtown Houston is $310K. Costs per sq/ft in the Bay Area are anywhere between $280 and $800. It's not a close comparison in price at all, despite being a comparable density.
  - birken 6y ago
    On an absolute basis, SF has horrifically restricted housing policy that makes it incredibly difficult to build new, denser housing. However, compared to the broader bay area, SF has incredibly progressive housing policy. It is ridiculous to compare downtown Houston, which is surrounded on all sides by a zillion square miles of suburbs (under city control!), to SF, which is surrounded by a limited number of more expensive and more restrictive enclaves that SF has no power over, and most of those places are a bridge or tunnel away. Obviously there is going to be less demand, and less premium for land if there are 10,000 other plots within 30 minutes. That just isn't the case in SF. If the bay area as a whole had better housing policy than it would help SF a lot. But they don't, so it makes it worse for SF. And SF has no control over the housing laws passed in other counties. SF is of course partially at fault, as they should have better housing policy themselves, but they are not entirely responsible for the problem.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

So SF needs to reform their overly restrictive building regulations? Ignore the NIMBYism and do what is better for the city as a whole?