7 ms·

I understand the "build more" concept, but a city (any city) shouldn't grow too fast. There's a huge risk in growing too quickly. SF's infrastructure doesn't s

I understand the "build more" concept, but a city (any city) shouldn't grow too fast. There's a huge risk in growing too quickly. SF's infrastructure doesn't seem that it can handle more people. traffic is bad. Restaurants are full (have you been to a brunch?). Buses are full. More homeless than ever. Letting the price rise, so people/companies will go elsewhere seems like an okay strategy.

arcticbull 6y ago
> I understand the "build more" concept, but a city (any city) shouldn't grow too fast. There's a huge risk in growing too quickly. Well, it's pretty clear from the explosion in housing prices that it's not growing nearly fast enough. I'd love to see some citation as to what "too fast" is and why you think SF is at risk of hitting that number. > SF's infrastructure doesn't seem that it can handle more people. traffic is bad. Restaurants are full (have you been to a brunch?). Buses are full. More homeless than ever. More housing = more people = more revenue. That revenue turns into more infrastructure, more restaurants, etc. In fact more density makes infrastructure more economical to operate on a per capita basis. Think Hong Kong. Part of the reason there's more homeless people is they can't afford houses, which building units would help alleviate. > Letting the price rise, so people/companies will go elsewhere seems like an okay strategy. That's not a very free-market attitude!
- chongli 6y ago
  More housing = more people = more revenue. That revenue turns into more infrastructure, more restaurants, etc. In fact more density makes infrastructure more economical to operate on a per capita basis. Think Hong Kong. The cost of upgrading infrastructure in a busy city is enormously expensive. San Francisco is on a peninsula with no room at all to expand outward. The only solution is to build up and that’s a real problem in an area prone to earthquakes. Plus there are a lot of people that like the character of their neighbourhood and don’t want to live in an apartment building. It isn’t their fault that SF became the global tech capital.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > The cost of upgrading infrastructure in a busy city is enormously expensive. So having more people to split that cost with would help! To be clear Hong Kong island is far harder to build on. > Plus there are a lot of people that like the character of their neighbourhood and don’t want to live in an apartment building. It isn’t their fault that SF became the global tech capital. They’re also not entitled to that. In a democracy the many decide.
    - chongli 6y ago
      The many struggle to organize themselves as effectively as the few. This is how it’s always been in politics. I’m not aware of any recent development that would change that dynamic.
    - ntvSF313throw 6y ago
      > They’re also not entitled to that. In a democracy the many decide. Actually, yes they are. San Francisco is a participatory democracy. Between a large # of ballots voted for each November, we elect our board of supervisors and attend supervisor meetings to tell them how to vote. If people don't vote, well, that's their fault.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Nobody is entitled to a view or a property value. It’s not written down, it’s not codified, it’s not an entitlement. It’s a side effect of poor policy. I say that as someone who owns property in San Francisco.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      In a democracy the many decide. In a democracy the people who inhabit a place decide. Not the people who want to inhabit it. That's not democracy, it's colonialism.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        lol, that's not colonialism. Colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. However, with that in mind, I'm alluding to the kinds of people in a city like San Francisco. The older, rich, land-owning class tends to be very activist and tends to vote. The younger, less-wealthy, renter class tends not to vote. Therefore, the needs of the few are outcompeted by the needs of the many.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  > More housing = more people = more revenue. That revenue turns into more infrastructure, more restaurants, etc. In an optimistic world, sure. It can also be that you build a bunch of building. Then, there's an economic downturn, and SF is fucked and left with abandoned buildings. There are cities that fell into this trap. I'm not saying it will happen, but it can happen. Growing slowly is a good way not to push yourself into that corner. How slow? I dunno. I hope there's an expert that can evaluate it.
galimaufry 6y ago
It's a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg problem. If more people move to SF then more brunch places will open and the city will be able to afford to run more busses. Maybe SF could credibly commit to adding more density in the near future, but not immediately? That way speculators open brunch places before the customers arise, and there isn't a brunch shortage?
kitsunesoba 6y ago
Some of that is solved by dramatically increasing density, though. Nobody enjoys long commutes and a lot of people who currently drive probably wouldn't drive if they didn't have to, so presumably with enough added high density housing and public transport capacity traffic could be curbed considerably. Rideshare services are a big factor too, but that could be resolved by enforcing a cap on the number of rideshare vehicles in the city.
TheTrotters 6y ago
Those aren’t complicated problems. Buy more buses. Build more real estate for restaurants. And so on.
km3r 6y ago
Buses/light rail can increase the frequency during peak hours, a bus full of riders will pay for itself pretty easily. Restaurants are about to have access to their outdoor dining parklets they have built + their existing indoor capacity, which will likely make it much easier to find a spot for brunch. Cheaper prices will allow people to live closer to work and reduce traffic. Homeless is a tough one. I'd say that reduced housing prices would help, but I think that will just reduce the rate of new homeless. I personally thing that we need to aggressively force them to seek help or get out of the most expensive city in the world. Saving up enough to find a place in SF in near impossible, and hacks like homeless shelters are often full of crime and reduce the housing supply for low income families. We already fucked up the housing market with prop 13 throwing off the supply, we need to build a huge supply to counter that (unfortunately repealing prop 13 remains the 3rd rail in CA politics).

arcticbull 6y ago

> I understand the "build more" concept, but a city (any city) shouldn't grow too fast. There's a huge risk in growing too quickly. Well, it's pretty clear from the explosion in housing prices that it's not growing nearly fast enough. I'd love to see some citation as to what "too fast" is and why you think SF is at risk of hitting that number. > SF's infrastructure doesn't seem that it can handle more people. traffic is bad. Restaurants are full (have you been to a brunch?). Buses are full. More homeless than ever. More housing = more people = more revenue. That revenue turns into more infrastructure, more restaurants, etc. In fact more density makes infrastructure more economical to operate on a per capita basis. Think Hong Kong. Part of the reason there's more homeless people is they can't afford houses, which building units would help alleviate. > Letting the price rise, so people/companies will go elsewhere seems like an okay strategy. That's not a very free-market attitude!

chongli 6y ago
More housing = more people = more revenue. That revenue turns into more infrastructure, more restaurants, etc. In fact more density makes infrastructure more economical to operate on a per capita basis. Think Hong Kong. The cost of upgrading infrastructure in a busy city is enormously expensive. San Francisco is on a peninsula with no room at all to expand outward. The only solution is to build up and that’s a real problem in an area prone to earthquakes. Plus there are a lot of people that like the character of their neighbourhood and don’t want to live in an apartment building. It isn’t their fault that SF became the global tech capital.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > The cost of upgrading infrastructure in a busy city is enormously expensive. So having more people to split that cost with would help! To be clear Hong Kong island is far harder to build on. > Plus there are a lot of people that like the character of their neighbourhood and don’t want to live in an apartment building. It isn’t their fault that SF became the global tech capital. They’re also not entitled to that. In a democracy the many decide.
  - chongli 6y ago
    The many struggle to organize themselves as effectively as the few. This is how it’s always been in politics. I’m not aware of any recent development that would change that dynamic.
  - ntvSF313throw 6y ago
    > They’re also not entitled to that. In a democracy the many decide. Actually, yes they are. San Francisco is a participatory democracy. Between a large # of ballots voted for each November, we elect our board of supervisors and attend supervisor meetings to tell them how to vote. If people don't vote, well, that's their fault.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Nobody is entitled to a view or a property value. It’s not written down, it’s not codified, it’s not an entitlement. It’s a side effect of poor policy. I say that as someone who owns property in San Francisco.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    In a democracy the many decide. In a democracy the people who inhabit a place decide. Not the people who want to inhabit it. That's not democracy, it's colonialism.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      lol, that's not colonialism. Colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. However, with that in mind, I'm alluding to the kinds of people in a city like San Francisco. The older, rich, land-owning class tends to be very activist and tends to vote. The younger, less-wealthy, renter class tends not to vote. Therefore, the needs of the few are outcompeted by the needs of the many.
ergocoder 6y ago
> More housing = more people = more revenue. That revenue turns into more infrastructure, more restaurants, etc. In an optimistic world, sure. It can also be that you build a bunch of building. Then, there's an economic downturn, and SF is fucked and left with abandoned buildings. There are cities that fell into this trap. I'm not saying it will happen, but it can happen. Growing slowly is a good way not to push yourself into that corner. How slow? I dunno. I hope there's an expert that can evaluate it.

galimaufry 6y ago

It's a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg problem. If more people move to SF then more brunch places will open and the city will be able to afford to run more busses. Maybe SF could credibly commit to adding more density in the near future, but not immediately? That way speculators open brunch places before the customers arise, and there isn't a brunch shortage?

kitsunesoba 6y ago

Some of that is solved by dramatically increasing density, though. Nobody enjoys long commutes and a lot of people who currently drive probably wouldn't drive if they didn't have to, so presumably with enough added high density housing and public transport capacity traffic could be curbed considerably. Rideshare services are a big factor too, but that could be resolved by enforcing a cap on the number of rideshare vehicles in the city.

TheTrotters 6y ago

Those aren’t complicated problems. Buy more buses. Build more real estate for restaurants. And so on.

km3r 6y ago

Buses/light rail can increase the frequency during peak hours, a bus full of riders will pay for itself pretty easily. Restaurants are about to have access to their outdoor dining parklets they have built + their existing indoor capacity, which will likely make it much easier to find a spot for brunch. Cheaper prices will allow people to live closer to work and reduce traffic. Homeless is a tough one. I'd say that reduced housing prices would help, but I think that will just reduce the rate of new homeless. I personally thing that we need to aggressively force them to seek help or get out of the most expensive city in the world. Saving up enough to find a place in SF in near impossible, and hacks like homeless shelters are often full of crime and reduce the housing supply for low income families. We already fucked up the housing market with prop 13 throwing off the supply, we need to build a huge supply to counter that (unfortunately repealing prop 13 remains the 3rd rail in CA politics).