4 ms·
SF board of supervisors just voted unanimously against turning an old barely used church into 300 small shared-kitchen studio apartments, because it’s not “fami
by jacobolus 5y ago
SF board of supervisors just voted unanimously against turning an old barely used church into 300 small shared-kitchen studio apartments, because it’s not “family friendly” enough. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-supes-say-no-to-316-micro-homes-in-16512303.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-supes-say-no... (This will of course instead force 300 people who would live in those to awkwardly pair up and live as unrelated roommates in 150 scattered 2-bedroom flats, taking them off the market and contributing to high rents throughout the Bay Area.)
The board also just voted against turning a parking lot into a 500-unit apartment building, citing the recent Florida condo collapse as justification, and worrying that it will “gentrify” the corner of 6th and Market (!). https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/State-investigating-S-F-s-decision-to-reject-16573167.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/State-investigating-S...
- darawk 5y agoImagine what has to be going on in your mind that you believe turning non-housing into housing will gentrify something.
- noduerme 5y agoAsking as someone who lived there until the first dot com crash: Does anyone actually need to live in San Francisco anymore?
- novok 5y agoLets get more meta, does anyone ever need to live anywhere in particular /s
- eloisant 5y agoWell, it might not be true for the tech workers roaming HN, but there are still people who are forced to live in a big city to get a job!
- sitkack 5y agoNo alarm intended, but does anyone need to live anyway? Once you understand that simply perceiving reality is the most wondrous thing we can do, simply being present in the universe is enough.
- eloisant 5y agoI'd say since the pandemic not really I guess, most companies accept remote, however since 10 years or so SF really became the center of the Silicon Valley (while it was more south bay/peninsula before). It's going to take some time until tech workers stop flocking to SF and price become less ridiculous, if ever. I don't see it dropping below other world big cities like NYC however.
- pmorici 5y agoThey can’t possibly believe this stuff. They have a financial interest in keeping prices high. That is the simplest explanation.
- biztos 5y agoFor those unfamiliar with San Francisco: 6th and Market is a very bad neighborhood, and the idea of "gentrifying" it on any timeline you will live to see the end of, is laughable.
- jhgb 5y agoWhy is it even a bad idea? I would have thought that if it's a "very bad neigborhood", as you say, improving it is desirable.
- jlokier 5y agoImproving a "very bad neighbourhood" in the sense of "poor person's neighbourhood" tends to be undesirable for the people who are priced out as a result. Owners will do ok financially, but rents will rise, forcing many to leave the place they are settled in, may have grown up in, and often where their extended family lives.
- jhgb 5y agoIf the alternative is to keep it a "very bad neighbourhood", I don't see how how the situation is not at least even. (Unless "very bad neighborhood" was an exaggeration. "Poor person's neighbourhood" certainly wasn't what I imagined, but I live in a place where most "poor person's neighbourhoods" are pretty good...just poor, that's all).
- biztos 5y agoYes, I am in favor of improving it. It's just that if we're talking about 6th and Market, getting it anywhere close to what we think of as "gentrified" is a long, long game, especially in San Francisco. It's a legendary corner. But as others pointed out, the spot in question might not actually be right there, I was just commenting on the area mentioned by the parent, to add context for the non-SF people.
- jeffbee 5y agoUh, while many places in SF are indeed bad, the “sensitive” place the BoS claims to be protecting - Mint Plaza - is surrounded by apartments that already rent for $5500-$6500 per month.