4 ms·

I think in the two scenarios you can focus on either the positives or the negatives. When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; nega

I think in the two scenarios you can focus on either the positives or the negatives. When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control When population goes down: positive - rent is finally affordable; negative - the area is falling apart existentially I think the media in general has found the negative spin sells better.

mr90210 4y ago
As a non-US citizen, sometimes I ask myself how did California end up like the country where I am from, which is located in the so called third world.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Jackpillar 4y ago
- compiler-guy 4y ago
  The short version is that it isn't. You just hear about the worst parts. There are still plenty of fully functional cities and towns and the crime rate is still quite low by historical standards. Definitely has its problems, but the availability heuristic makes things seem worse than they are.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    Yeah, this is definitely a real problem. I live in semi-rural America, and I have literally never in my life even seen a gun fire before. I used to live in DC, for six years, and I was never robbed, accosted, or even made to feel unsafe, and I had on multiple occasions walked miles home from a bar after closing. It was a downright pleasant way to get home if I didn’t need to be up the next morning. America the country is basically nothing like America shown on TV. It’s just too big and complex to explain in a soundbyte.
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  This is an exaggeration. I grew up in the southbay and you basically never see the shit you see in SF in the southbay. SJ has a bigger population then SF.
nineplay 4y ago
I love SF and I'm happy the population is going down. These articles are posted once a week and trumpeted as some sort of victory and I can't imagine who they think is shedding tears over this. Sometime people wave their hands towards sad homeowners who are ( maybe ) seeing their home prices go down but I own a pricy home in a pricy neighborhood and as far as I'm concerned it's funny money. Whatever profit I'd make from selling my home only matters if I move to a place where home prices haven't gone up at the same rate. There's no lower COL city that I'm interested in living in so it's all the same to me.
- olivermarks 4y ago
  People who own properties in SF are in a v different situation to those who are renting, couch surfing, flying in and out to HQ etc etc. I love SF too. We moved north over the bridge 8 years ago (working from home) but are in the city all the time. It was spectacularly deteriorating pre pandemic (when we left the Castro area the local library had just employed an armed guard to keep the transients out for example) and is now arguably in crisis due to the collapse of foot traffic retail, rampant crime and due to the city being a welcoming destination for transients who often have serious mental illness (SMI) and substance abuse issues. The city - and California generally - does not have the resources to triage their needs but it does have a huge 'non profit' homeless industry and more worryingly some areas are crowded with cartel drug sellers. Driving European visitor friends around a few weeks ago was the first time I'd really been to all the neighborhoods in a leisurely way since the pandemic abated. The wealthier areas (Noe Valley etc) are relatively unchanged apart from a lot of empty storefronts, but a lot of the city looks very beaten up despite the gorgeous vistas, light and climate (perfect weather during out tour). We are at a typical west coast boom/bust cross roads for California cities...
  - nineplay 4y ago
    SF has its problems to be sure. California has its problems too though whether or not those problems are better or worse than problems in any other place is unclear - the media treats SF and California as though they are one and the same. ( I'm old enough to remember when the media treated LA and California as one and the same and the SFers would snottily gripe that they're not 'that' California ) Still I don't know of any SF problems that will be made worse by the population going down. Seems to me that the couch surfers, renters, etc. benefit from the lower population.
akavi 4y ago
> When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control What's endlessly infuriating is population going up in a city should be an almost unmitigated positive. It's just our unwillingness to allow building new housing turning it into a zero sum game that makes it a mixed bag.
- refurb 4y ago
  But why? Are we aiming to have mega-cities of 15M people like Asia? I've been there, no thanks. It would be better if people move to other cities if SF doesn't make sense.
- visarga 4y ago
  But does the transportation capacity also scale linearly with size?
  - ellard 4y ago
    The argument I usually see is that there would be less need for transportation as the removal of explicit zoning would be part of the effort for increasing density and that would put people closer to the goods and services that they want/need. (I don't have an opinion on this; the closest I ever got to city planning was playing Sim City)
  - mupuff1234 4y ago
    I think we have plenty of working proof that mass transportation systems work at scale (NYC, Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin...)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
88913527 4y ago
A nuanced view of any sort of economic change will include analysis would objectively consider all the pro's-and-con's, and the media knows that con's sell better because of heightened emotional response.

mr90210 4y ago

As a non-US citizen, sometimes I ask myself how did California end up like the country where I am from, which is located in the so called third world.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Jackpillar 4y ago
compiler-guy 4y ago
The short version is that it isn't. You just hear about the worst parts. There are still plenty of fully functional cities and towns and the crime rate is still quite low by historical standards. Definitely has its problems, but the availability heuristic makes things seem worse than they are.
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  Yeah, this is definitely a real problem. I live in semi-rural America, and I have literally never in my life even seen a gun fire before. I used to live in DC, for six years, and I was never robbed, accosted, or even made to feel unsafe, and I had on multiple occasions walked miles home from a bar after closing. It was a downright pleasant way to get home if I didn’t need to be up the next morning. America the country is basically nothing like America shown on TV. It’s just too big and complex to explain in a soundbyte.
deltaonefour 4y ago
This is an exaggeration. I grew up in the southbay and you basically never see the shit you see in SF in the southbay. SJ has a bigger population then SF.

nineplay 4y ago

I love SF and I'm happy the population is going down. These articles are posted once a week and trumpeted as some sort of victory and I can't imagine who they think is shedding tears over this. Sometime people wave their hands towards sad homeowners who are ( maybe ) seeing their home prices go down but I own a pricy home in a pricy neighborhood and as far as I'm concerned it's funny money. Whatever profit I'd make from selling my home only matters if I move to a place where home prices haven't gone up at the same rate. There's no lower COL city that I'm interested in living in so it's all the same to me.

olivermarks 4y ago
People who own properties in SF are in a v different situation to those who are renting, couch surfing, flying in and out to HQ etc etc. I love SF too. We moved north over the bridge 8 years ago (working from home) but are in the city all the time. It was spectacularly deteriorating pre pandemic (when we left the Castro area the local library had just employed an armed guard to keep the transients out for example) and is now arguably in crisis due to the collapse of foot traffic retail, rampant crime and due to the city being a welcoming destination for transients who often have serious mental illness (SMI) and substance abuse issues. The city - and California generally - does not have the resources to triage their needs but it does have a huge 'non profit' homeless industry and more worryingly some areas are crowded with cartel drug sellers. Driving European visitor friends around a few weeks ago was the first time I'd really been to all the neighborhoods in a leisurely way since the pandemic abated. The wealthier areas (Noe Valley etc) are relatively unchanged apart from a lot of empty storefronts, but a lot of the city looks very beaten up despite the gorgeous vistas, light and climate (perfect weather during out tour). We are at a typical west coast boom/bust cross roads for California cities...
- nineplay 4y ago
  SF has its problems to be sure. California has its problems too though whether or not those problems are better or worse than problems in any other place is unclear - the media treats SF and California as though they are one and the same. ( I'm old enough to remember when the media treated LA and California as one and the same and the SFers would snottily gripe that they're not 'that' California ) Still I don't know of any SF problems that will be made worse by the population going down. Seems to me that the couch surfers, renters, etc. benefit from the lower population.

akavi 4y ago

> When population goes up: positive - the area is vibrant economically; negative - rent is spiraling upwards out of control What's endlessly infuriating is population going up in a city should be an almost unmitigated positive. It's just our unwillingness to allow building new housing turning it into a zero sum game that makes it a mixed bag.

refurb 4y ago
But why? Are we aiming to have mega-cities of 15M people like Asia? I've been there, no thanks. It would be better if people move to other cities if SF doesn't make sense.
visarga 4y ago
But does the transportation capacity also scale linearly with size?
- ellard 4y ago
  The argument I usually see is that there would be less need for transportation as the removal of explicit zoning would be part of the effort for increasing density and that would put people closer to the goods and services that they want/need. (I don't have an opinion on this; the closest I ever got to city planning was playing Sim City)
- mupuff1234 4y ago
  I think we have plenty of working proof that mass transportation systems work at scale (NYC, Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin...)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

88913527 4y ago

A nuanced view of any sort of economic change will include analysis would objectively consider all the pro's-and-con's, and the media knows that con's sell better because of heightened emotional response.