3 ms·
I think you are saying San Francisco should embrace greater density in order to solve its problem. That's pretty short-term thinking. Start here: San Francisco
by xbar 5y ago
I think you are saying San Francisco should embrace greater density in order to solve its problem. That's pretty short-term thinking.
Start here: San Francisco, for very specific geographic and regional reasons, will not have sufficient housing in the next century, and it will continue to have growing homeless populations. Solve for a 50-year horizon.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> San Francisco, for very specific geographic and regional reasons, will not have sufficient housing in the next century Some of the densest cities on the planet are on islands. San Francisco is on a peninsula. It is a low density city with tons of infill potential. That densification potential, together with slow population growth in the developed world, makes the problem perfectly tenable. (That said, homeowners would lose money. So not holding my breath.)
- nasmorn 5y agoNo way would homeowners lose money long term if San Francisco turns into Hong Kong. They are land owners first and foremost
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> No way would homeowners lose money long term if San Francisco turns into Hong Kong In the short term they would. And in the long term, they would gain wealth but lose their iron grip on the city. Never underestimate the seductiveness of power. As long as San Francisco’s renters believe density is impossible or will price them out, homeowners (specifically, about half a dozen families) will retain their lock on the city.
- marnett 5y agoWhich half a dozen or so families are you referring to here?
- umeshunni 5y ago> San Francisco, for very specific geographic and regional reasons, will not have sufficient housing in the next century You mean, "for very specific political and cultural reasons". There's nothing in San Francisco's geography that most world cities haven't solved.