7 ms·

> i was under the impression no additional housing is being built and that was a major problem. People act like it is, the reality is different. Why do people

> i was under the impression no additional housing is being built and that was a major problem. People act like it is, the reality is different. Why do people all need to live in SF? Serious question, why? There are small towns throughout the country within 30-45 min of a major city. If you want to go further out, you can find small towns / cities everywhere. I'm currently living a fair distance from any major city and can still get literally anything I can imagine delivered. It's cheaper, taxes are cheaper, food is cheaper, fuel is cheaper, I have more land, I can see trees / stars. Yet within a brief drive I can be in the center of a major city with all it entails. San Francisco is fairly dystopian. I used to live there, walking over human waste, people getting head in the street. Naked women rolling around after a bender, a persons leg rotting off. This was my daily walk through SF to work. Now, I see cows, sit in the grass and still make more money and am away from the tragedy. I think most people think building more buildings would solve the homeless problem. The reality is that dispersing production would save the city. I.e. limiting growth and having strict policing. The homeless would leave / be swept up and arrested. The housing would be expensive, but wealthy people would still live there. Then Sacramento, San Diego, Colorado, Texas, etc. is where people would move. This would help wealth inequality (spreading the wealth) and improve mental / societal health.

mc32 4y ago
Many people think "idealistically" but sometimes forget to ground it in reality. People often don't realize that the "utopia" of the Soviet Union where everyone got a guaranteed apartment, pay and a job, was in many ways behind Mexico for example (not to knock on Mexico) but in the USSR and the second world with it's then "UBI"-like system, people could afford less living space and food variety than your median person in Mexico. Often in second world economies, you were forced to live with strangers (not multi-gen families) in the same appt. You could not afford a second hand car and many luxuries were reserved for Politburo, Scientists and those in the nomenklatura. But some "thinkers" believe that if only SF and other big cities would build complexes like the USSR, except that they would look more like SoMa mid-rises than the more utilitarian Soviet Apt blocks we could fit and satisfy everyone who wants to live in SF and other large cities.
- sophacles 4y ago
  Imagine confusing a concept like UBI that uses tax dollars skimmed off a decentralized economy with a centralized planned economy. Even funnier when you are also comparing a democracy with an authoritarian strongman regime. You do you though.
  - mc32 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - sophacles 4y ago
      Strange, I'm not Bernie. I don't know why you would try to gotcha my statements based on someone else's, different statements from decades ago. Would you mind telling me how some people talking 30-40 years ago has anything to do with me and my observation?
- kingkawn 4y ago
  Dear future anthropologists; a collection of empty American archetypes about soviet life, found naturally in the wild
  - mc32 4y ago
    Yep sorry forgot to mention that was the good part in the tier one cities... Once you went out to the countryside and beyond the Urals, it actually got even more interesting.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  I have no idea what you're thinking. Across the world, people live happily (lots of them, anyway) in large scale apartment complexes. As long ago as the turn of the 20th century, people like Gaudi were already taking that a step further and designing beautiful apartment buildings: https://www.lapedrera.com/en/la-pedrera https://www.lapedrera.com/en/la-pedrera Notice how La Pedrera is surrounded by other less aesthetic yet still fully occupied apartment buildings? There are hundreds of cities worldwide filled with people living in relatively affordable non-single-family housing, nothing like the structures or experience of the Soviet Union. Building denser housing does not mean that we will be living in some soviet-era world. Why on earth would you think this?
bobthepanda 4y ago
different people value different amenities. > I have more land, I can see trees / stars. This could be a good amenity for you, but not for everyone. Me, I don't really like the idea of having to maintain all that land as well as having to drive everywhere because everything is so far apart. An amenity I need that I definitely would not be able to get in a small town would be access to a Chinese grocer. As someone who is ethnic Chinese, I have recipes that need ingredients that either aren't normally found in regular US markets or are available in poor quality and at higher prices. Delivery of niche goods is astronomically expensive. That limits me to a few major cities. > Then Sacramento, San Diego, Colorado, Texas, etc. is where people would move. This would help wealth inequality (spreading the wealth) and improve mental / societal health. The first part is happening, the second part isn't. If anything, some of them are starting to see San Francisco type problems, and it didn't take very long for them to get there because there are so many Californians that it takes a small percentage of CA's population to go and massively disrupt a smaller city.
- citilife 4y ago
  I think it's fair that people value different things. BUT my point is that we shouldn't assume everyone needs to live in the same location to obtain their wants. > An amenity I need that I definitely would not be able to get in a small town would be access to a Chinese grocer. As someone who is ethnic Chinese, I have recipes that need ingredients that either aren't normally found in regular US markets or are available in poor quality and at higher prices. Delivery of niche goods is astronomically expensive. That limits me to a few major cities. I live near a town of 15,000 people, they have a Chinese grocer, multiple Mexican grocers, an African grocer and several home style greek restaurants, thai restaurants, some great sushi, etc. The U.S. is very diverse and there are different people everywhere. Like I said, I can drive 40 min and be in a multi-million person city while still living out in the country. When I lived in SF it would still take me 30-60 min to get to many places via public transit. I guess if you really need "high quality" niche goods, sure... But I've never had an issue lol
  - fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
    Where is this place, if you don’t mind me asking?
deanCommie 4y ago
> Serious question, why? You're not very serious if you don't realize that this is an extraordinarily privileged position based on your position in the socioeconomic ladder. > I'm currently living a fair distance from any major city and can still get literally anything I can imagine delivered. It's cheaper, taxes are cheaper, food is cheaper, fuel is cheaper, It's cheaper FOR YOU based on your job that you can do remotely, and comparing to the lifestyle you maintained in San Francisco. Do you seriously believe that every janitor, parking lot attendant, nurse, and waiter, could move to the small town you are discussing and commute in for work? Here's a headline for you: "A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M. Like many in the housing-starved San Francisco region, Sheila James has moved far inland, gaining affordable space at the price of a brutal commute." [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/business/economy/san-francisco-commute.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/business/economy/san-fran... or https://archive.ph/MNxzg https://archive.ph/MNxzg > San Francisco is fairly dystopian. I used to live there, walking over human waste, people getting head in the street. Naked women rolling around after a bender, a persons leg rotting off. This was my daily walk through SF to work. Now, I see cows, sit in the grass and still make more money and am away from the tragedy. You're so close > taxes are cheaper But so far. The reason why your new area doesn't have any people with drug, mental health and poverty issue is because you don't pay enough taxes for the social programs that allow these people to survive in San Francisco. Which, like Seattle, Vancouver, and LA tend to concentrate human misery in North American not because they attract misery but because they're the only places on the continent where these human beings can SURVIVE. Homeless people struggle to not die in the winter in most of the East. The Deep south has no social programs or jobs. Once you get to the SouthWest, the local policies is just to put homeless people on the bus to California. Which is where everyone - from homeless to billionaire - has the best outcomes for health and life expectancy. Yes, one way of dealing with human misery, is to be able to afford to put it out of your sight and out of mind, and not deal with the structural issues that create them. It's great that you get to ignore them to live your best life. But don't think that a society can be created where those things don't exist, just by moving to a more pastoral/agrarian lifestyle. What you describe is not scalable to the rest of society without massive social programs the kind that don't exist across America (and likely never will)
- 4y ago
fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
I’m a homosexual. Living in cities provides a network and security that living in more remote and rural places does not. One day (hopefully) cultural circumstances will change and I can avail myself of the benefits you mentioned, but at present living in culturally unpredictable places is simply a gamble whose return is not worth the roll.
nitwit005 4y ago
Everyone did move further from SF. That's where all the bay area sprawl came from. That farm land got filled in with housing, so now there's not much countryside anymore. People then moved even further away, causing the sprawl to spread out even more. We're well on our way to being a giant low density megacity as a result.
ravitation 4y ago
> Why do people all need to live in SF? No, the serious question is why aren't more people living in SF, instead of the sprawl of low-density suburbs and pseudo-suburbs that surround the Bay Area? The tiny area that makes up the City and County of San Francisco is relatively high density for its size, but the fall off in density once you leave the county (which occupies only the tip of the San Francisco peninsula) is precipitous. > People act like it is, the reality is different. No, people act like it is, because it really is... When you're talking about building high-density housing in the actual city (or medium-density in the suburbs with reasonable transit options)... Which is literally always what they are actually talking about. No one is talking about there being problems building low-density housing in the middle of nowhere. > San Francisco is fairly dystopian. If it is dystopian, it is not because of density. There are numerous higher density parts of the world that do not struggle with the issues San Francisco does. It has nothing to do with people's inability to see cows. It has to do with the US' refusal to support the things that facilitate living in cities. > This would help wealth inequality (spreading the wealth) and improve mental / societal health. The idea that increased suburbanization would have any positive effect on wealth inequality is completely absurd.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The tiny area that makes up the City and County of San Francisco is relatively high density for its size, Somewhat, but not to the extent you'd expect of an metropolitan core (which it arguably isn't, it's more just the cultural core of the Bay Area.) The City and County of San Francisco is the most dense county in California, but not the most dense city in the Bay Area, or even the densest area of similar size in the Bay Area. A similar sized slice of Santa Clara County including all of San Jose would still be higher density if the entire 50ish mi² outside of San Jose was completely depopulated. The urban core of Alameda County (the continuous strip consisting of the cities of Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville, Alameda, Piedmont, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, and Hayward) has greater population and greater population density than San Francisco, too.

mc32 4y ago

Many people think "idealistically" but sometimes forget to ground it in reality. People often don't realize that the "utopia" of the Soviet Union where everyone got a guaranteed apartment, pay and a job, was in many ways behind Mexico for example (not to knock on Mexico) but in the USSR and the second world with it's then "UBI"-like system, people could afford less living space and food variety than your median person in Mexico. Often in second world economies, you were forced to live with strangers (not multi-gen families) in the same appt. You could not afford a second hand car and many luxuries were reserved for Politburo, Scientists and those in the nomenklatura. But some "thinkers" believe that if only SF and other big cities would build complexes like the USSR, except that they would look more like SoMa mid-rises than the more utilitarian Soviet Apt blocks we could fit and satisfy everyone who wants to live in SF and other large cities.

sophacles 4y ago
Imagine confusing a concept like UBI that uses tax dollars skimmed off a decentralized economy with a centralized planned economy. Even funnier when you are also comparing a democracy with an authoritarian strongman regime. You do you though.
- mc32 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - sophacles 4y ago
    Strange, I'm not Bernie. I don't know why you would try to gotcha my statements based on someone else's, different statements from decades ago. Would you mind telling me how some people talking 30-40 years ago has anything to do with me and my observation?
kingkawn 4y ago
Dear future anthropologists; a collection of empty American archetypes about soviet life, found naturally in the wild
- mc32 4y ago
  Yep sorry forgot to mention that was the good part in the tier one cities... Once you went out to the countryside and beyond the Urals, it actually got even more interesting.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
I have no idea what you're thinking. Across the world, people live happily (lots of them, anyway) in large scale apartment complexes. As long ago as the turn of the 20th century, people like Gaudi were already taking that a step further and designing beautiful apartment buildings: https://www.lapedrera.com/en/la-pedrera https://www.lapedrera.com/en/la-pedrera Notice how La Pedrera is surrounded by other less aesthetic yet still fully occupied apartment buildings? There are hundreds of cities worldwide filled with people living in relatively affordable non-single-family housing, nothing like the structures or experience of the Soviet Union. Building denser housing does not mean that we will be living in some soviet-era world. Why on earth would you think this?

bobthepanda 4y ago

different people value different amenities. > I have more land, I can see trees / stars. This could be a good amenity for you, but not for everyone. Me, I don't really like the idea of having to maintain all that land as well as having to drive everywhere because everything is so far apart. An amenity I need that I definitely would not be able to get in a small town would be access to a Chinese grocer. As someone who is ethnic Chinese, I have recipes that need ingredients that either aren't normally found in regular US markets or are available in poor quality and at higher prices. Delivery of niche goods is astronomically expensive. That limits me to a few major cities. > Then Sacramento, San Diego, Colorado, Texas, etc. is where people would move. This would help wealth inequality (spreading the wealth) and improve mental / societal health. The first part is happening, the second part isn't. If anything, some of them are starting to see San Francisco type problems, and it didn't take very long for them to get there because there are so many Californians that it takes a small percentage of CA's population to go and massively disrupt a smaller city.

citilife 4y ago
I think it's fair that people value different things. BUT my point is that we shouldn't assume everyone needs to live in the same location to obtain their wants. > An amenity I need that I definitely would not be able to get in a small town would be access to a Chinese grocer. As someone who is ethnic Chinese, I have recipes that need ingredients that either aren't normally found in regular US markets or are available in poor quality and at higher prices. Delivery of niche goods is astronomically expensive. That limits me to a few major cities. I live near a town of 15,000 people, they have a Chinese grocer, multiple Mexican grocers, an African grocer and several home style greek restaurants, thai restaurants, some great sushi, etc. The U.S. is very diverse and there are different people everywhere. Like I said, I can drive 40 min and be in a multi-million person city while still living out in the country. When I lived in SF it would still take me 30-60 min to get to many places via public transit. I guess if you really need "high quality" niche goods, sure... But I've never had an issue lol
- fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
  Where is this place, if you don’t mind me asking?

deanCommie 4y ago

> Serious question, why? You're not very serious if you don't realize that this is an extraordinarily privileged position based on your position in the socioeconomic ladder. > I'm currently living a fair distance from any major city and can still get literally anything I can imagine delivered. It's cheaper, taxes are cheaper, food is cheaper, fuel is cheaper, It's cheaper FOR YOU based on your job that you can do remotely, and comparing to the lifestyle you maintained in San Francisco. Do you seriously believe that every janitor, parking lot attendant, nurse, and waiter, could move to the small town you are discussing and commute in for work? Here's a headline for you: "A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M. Like many in the housing-starved San Francisco region, Sheila James has moved far inland, gaining affordable space at the price of a brutal commute." [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/business/economy/san-francisco-commute.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/business/economy/san-fran... or https://archive.ph/MNxzg https://archive.ph/MNxzg > San Francisco is fairly dystopian. I used to live there, walking over human waste, people getting head in the street. Naked women rolling around after a bender, a persons leg rotting off. This was my daily walk through SF to work. Now, I see cows, sit in the grass and still make more money and am away from the tragedy. You're so close > taxes are cheaper But so far. The reason why your new area doesn't have any people with drug, mental health and poverty issue is because you don't pay enough taxes for the social programs that allow these people to survive in San Francisco. Which, like Seattle, Vancouver, and LA tend to concentrate human misery in North American not because they attract misery but because they're the only places on the continent where these human beings can SURVIVE. Homeless people struggle to not die in the winter in most of the East. The Deep south has no social programs or jobs. Once you get to the SouthWest, the local policies is just to put homeless people on the bus to California. Which is where everyone - from homeless to billionaire - has the best outcomes for health and life expectancy. Yes, one way of dealing with human misery, is to be able to afford to put it out of your sight and out of mind, and not deal with the structural issues that create them. It's great that you get to ignore them to live your best life. But don't think that a society can be created where those things don't exist, just by moving to a more pastoral/agrarian lifestyle. What you describe is not scalable to the rest of society without massive social programs the kind that don't exist across America (and likely never will)

4y ago

fleetwoodsnack 4y ago

I’m a homosexual. Living in cities provides a network and security that living in more remote and rural places does not. One day (hopefully) cultural circumstances will change and I can avail myself of the benefits you mentioned, but at present living in culturally unpredictable places is simply a gamble whose return is not worth the roll.

nitwit005 4y ago

Everyone did move further from SF. That's where all the bay area sprawl came from. That farm land got filled in with housing, so now there's not much countryside anymore. People then moved even further away, causing the sprawl to spread out even more. We're well on our way to being a giant low density megacity as a result.

ravitation 4y ago

> Why do people all need to live in SF? No, the serious question is why aren't more people living in SF, instead of the sprawl of low-density suburbs and pseudo-suburbs that surround the Bay Area? The tiny area that makes up the City and County of San Francisco is relatively high density for its size, but the fall off in density once you leave the county (which occupies only the tip of the San Francisco peninsula) is precipitous. > People act like it is, the reality is different. No, people act like it is, because it really is... When you're talking about building high-density housing in the actual city (or medium-density in the suburbs with reasonable transit options)... Which is literally always what they are actually talking about. No one is talking about there being problems building low-density housing in the middle of nowhere. > San Francisco is fairly dystopian. If it is dystopian, it is not because of density. There are numerous higher density parts of the world that do not struggle with the issues San Francisco does. It has nothing to do with people's inability to see cows. It has to do with the US' refusal to support the things that facilitate living in cities. > This would help wealth inequality (spreading the wealth) and improve mental / societal health. The idea that increased suburbanization would have any positive effect on wealth inequality is completely absurd.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The tiny area that makes up the City and County of San Francisco is relatively high density for its size, Somewhat, but not to the extent you'd expect of an metropolitan core (which it arguably isn't, it's more just the cultural core of the Bay Area.) The City and County of San Francisco is the most dense county in California, but not the most dense city in the Bay Area, or even the densest area of similar size in the Bay Area. A similar sized slice of Santa Clara County including all of San Jose would still be higher density if the entire 50ish mi² outside of San Jose was completely depopulated. The urban core of Alameda County (the continuous strip consisting of the cities of Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville, Alameda, Piedmont, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, and Hayward) has greater population and greater population density than San Francisco, too.