6 ms·

Especially for a city that is explicitly progressive, why the "all rapid change is bad, it must take decades or centuries, otherwise it's not natural" approach?

Especially for a city that is explicitly progressive, why the "all rapid change is bad, it must take decades or centuries, otherwise it's not natural" approach? Germany's large cities have similar issues where they don't want to start building new districts because it'd be artificial and not naturally grown building by building. And it's better to have rents double every 10 years, apparently. I don't get the "why", but the approach is fairly explicit -- and politicians get reelected while following it, so I guess it's what "the people" want.

bradlys 4y ago
Well - to be more clear - SF is socially progressive. It is incredibly fiscally conservative. It is part of Silicon Valley - a neoliberal paradise. The whole area is incredibly classically liberal and not socialist leaning at all... After all - becoming a tycoon is everyone's wet dream there.
- klipt 4y ago
  > SF is socially progressive. It is incredibly fiscally conservative Wouldn't "fiscally conservative" mean low taxes and low spending? I believe SF spends about $57,000 annually per homeless person which doesn't sound very fiscally conservative. Of course a lot of that money goes missing while being funneled through the homeless industrial complex...
  - bradlys 4y ago
    > low taxes and low spending? Almost no one in power in the USA is actually low taxes and low spending. Maybe a few libertarians scattered throughout the country that managed to get a seat but they're a very small minority. Everyone is all about high taxes and high spending. It's just "high taxes for thee but not for me". So, for instance, republicans will repeal taxes on the rich and large corporations even when we already tax the middle class W2 earners more than the rich already. Similarly, republicans are huge for the MIC. So much for being fiscally conservative when they want to spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars on a stupid boondoggle airplane that no one gives a shit about. Democrats have the same issues. They also have a hardon for the MIC and spending on stupid shit. The dems in SF will spend it on stupid trashcans or whatever nonsense that doesn't move the bar at all. They will tax the hell out of the working class and spend the money on shit that doesn't improve the material conditions of everyday people. It's why we can't have healthcare. Both parties have no interest because that doesn't make their lobbyists money.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > no one in power in the USA is actually low taxes and low spending Wyoming says hello.
      - CogitoCogito 4y ago
        Given that Wyoming makes up around 0.2% of the US population, I guess the original claim that "almost[!] no one in power in the USA is actually low taxes and low spending" might be pretty reasonable.
      - UncleEntity 4y ago
        After the Great Recession Arizona did a “temporary” increase in (sales, I believe) tax to make up for the deficit and it really was temporary. Coming from California temporary tax means “until the heat death of the universe” so I was very surprised.
MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
Quickly throwing up cheap mass housing without also organically growing the services and rest of the community is how you get food deserts and ghettos though. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just pointing out where it's gone wrong in the past and why people may be hesitant to try again.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  "Food deserts and ghettos" are also the outcome of broader housing scarcity and lack of amenities. Where the only cheap areas around are those that have become cheap merely by virtue of being terrible to live in, and are since stuck in that vicious cycle.
- jorvi 4y ago
  That is how things happen in the US. In most North-Western European countries, city planning and zoning is taken very seriously.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    Not so, there are blighted areas even in places like London.
    - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
      Don't the suburbs/banlieues of Paris have quite the reputation as well?
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Food deserts are the result of theft driving away low margin businesses that don't want to absorb the hit.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    This is a popular trope, but companies have already begun walking back their claims of rampant theft[0]. There are increased profits when building in more prosperous areas, so one might understand why companies choose to do so given limited resources. But lower profits in inner cities are not always about theft so much as a lack of cash. 0. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/walgreens-may-have-cried-too-much-last-year-about-theft-cfo-says-11673030443 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/walgreens-may-have-cried-t...
jjav 4y ago
> I don't get the "why", but the approach is fairly explicit -- and politicians get reelected while following it, so I guess it's what "the people" want. Consider every time you have moved into a new place to live. What kind of research did you do and what factors did you consider when prioritizing multiple option down to the final selection? It's possible you might say (since I don't know you) that you only look at price per square foot and do a sort based on that and take the cheapest option and that's that. Most people don't do that though. They consider the neighborhood as a whole, nearby facilities, the character of the location (e.g. lots of 24hr pubs or quiet tree-lined street, etc). So the surroundings matter a whole lot to a lot of people. So people don't often want to go through the whole process of researching, selecting a place and moving to it, just to have the whole neighborhood torn down and redone in a different way a few months later. Might be better, but it's still different, so it doesn't check the same boxes they so painstakingly researched before moving. So when you say you don't get the "why", it's just human nature. A lot of people want to settle into a stable-ish home, where things around it change slowly, not at a hectic pace that makes it seem not-home anymore.
- luckylion 4y ago
  I understand the individual's reason why they don't want a high-rise in their backyard. But having a new development 3km down the road really doesn't affect your home. But in cities with lower ownership percentage, everybody is feeling the heat when you just cannot afford to move if you're not a top earner because your current flat would cost twice as much since you moved in ten years ago. Rent as a percentage of income steadily rises, 30% was the maximum recommended value, which is now considered good, 50% is now accepted. Germany has relatively low incomes and high taxes, people are clearly feeling it. Yet still, they re-elect politicians who block large-scale developments in open areas. I've lived in Hamburg, they have plenty of space that can be easily developed and integrated into the public transportation network, but they don't. They wouldn't even need to build it themselves, they'd just need to allow private investors or housing coops to build. But they don't, because ... I don't know. Change is bad? It's too good of a topic to bemoan and win elections with, because people are too simple to see that they've been running the government for 50 of the past 55 years? Landlords paying them off? I don't know.

bradlys 4y ago

Well - to be more clear - SF is socially progressive. It is incredibly fiscally conservative. It is part of Silicon Valley - a neoliberal paradise. The whole area is incredibly classically liberal and not socialist leaning at all... After all - becoming a tycoon is everyone's wet dream there.

klipt 4y ago
> SF is socially progressive. It is incredibly fiscally conservative Wouldn't "fiscally conservative" mean low taxes and low spending? I believe SF spends about $57,000 annually per homeless person which doesn't sound very fiscally conservative. Of course a lot of that money goes missing while being funneled through the homeless industrial complex...
- bradlys 4y ago
  > low taxes and low spending? Almost no one in power in the USA is actually low taxes and low spending. Maybe a few libertarians scattered throughout the country that managed to get a seat but they're a very small minority. Everyone is all about high taxes and high spending. It's just "high taxes for thee but not for me". So, for instance, republicans will repeal taxes on the rich and large corporations even when we already tax the middle class W2 earners more than the rich already. Similarly, republicans are huge for the MIC. So much for being fiscally conservative when they want to spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars on a stupid boondoggle airplane that no one gives a shit about. Democrats have the same issues. They also have a hardon for the MIC and spending on stupid shit. The dems in SF will spend it on stupid trashcans or whatever nonsense that doesn't move the bar at all. They will tax the hell out of the working class and spend the money on shit that doesn't improve the material conditions of everyday people. It's why we can't have healthcare. Both parties have no interest because that doesn't make their lobbyists money.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > no one in power in the USA is actually low taxes and low spending Wyoming says hello.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      Given that Wyoming makes up around 0.2% of the US population, I guess the original claim that "almost[!] no one in power in the USA is actually low taxes and low spending" might be pretty reasonable.
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      After the Great Recession Arizona did a “temporary” increase in (sales, I believe) tax to make up for the deficit and it really was temporary. Coming from California temporary tax means “until the heat death of the universe” so I was very surprised.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago

Quickly throwing up cheap mass housing without also organically growing the services and rest of the community is how you get food deserts and ghettos though. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just pointing out where it's gone wrong in the past and why people may be hesitant to try again.

zozbot234 4y ago
"Food deserts and ghettos" are also the outcome of broader housing scarcity and lack of amenities. Where the only cheap areas around are those that have become cheap merely by virtue of being terrible to live in, and are since stuck in that vicious cycle.
jorvi 4y ago
That is how things happen in the US. In most North-Western European countries, city planning and zoning is taken very seriously.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Not so, there are blighted areas even in places like London.
  - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
    Don't the suburbs/banlieues of Paris have quite the reputation as well?
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Food deserts are the result of theft driving away low margin businesses that don't want to absorb the hit.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  This is a popular trope, but companies have already begun walking back their claims of rampant theft[0]. There are increased profits when building in more prosperous areas, so one might understand why companies choose to do so given limited resources. But lower profits in inner cities are not always about theft so much as a lack of cash. 0. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/walgreens-may-have-cried-too-much-last-year-about-theft-cfo-says-11673030443 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/walgreens-may-have-cried-t...

jjav 4y ago

> I don't get the "why", but the approach is fairly explicit -- and politicians get reelected while following it, so I guess it's what "the people" want. Consider every time you have moved into a new place to live. What kind of research did you do and what factors did you consider when prioritizing multiple option down to the final selection? It's possible you might say (since I don't know you) that you only look at price per square foot and do a sort based on that and take the cheapest option and that's that. Most people don't do that though. They consider the neighborhood as a whole, nearby facilities, the character of the location (e.g. lots of 24hr pubs or quiet tree-lined street, etc). So the surroundings matter a whole lot to a lot of people. So people don't often want to go through the whole process of researching, selecting a place and moving to it, just to have the whole neighborhood torn down and redone in a different way a few months later. Might be better, but it's still different, so it doesn't check the same boxes they so painstakingly researched before moving. So when you say you don't get the "why", it's just human nature. A lot of people want to settle into a stable-ish home, where things around it change slowly, not at a hectic pace that makes it seem not-home anymore.

luckylion 4y ago
I understand the individual's reason why they don't want a high-rise in their backyard. But having a new development 3km down the road really doesn't affect your home. But in cities with lower ownership percentage, everybody is feeling the heat when you just cannot afford to move if you're not a top earner because your current flat would cost twice as much since you moved in ten years ago. Rent as a percentage of income steadily rises, 30% was the maximum recommended value, which is now considered good, 50% is now accepted. Germany has relatively low incomes and high taxes, people are clearly feeling it. Yet still, they re-elect politicians who block large-scale developments in open areas. I've lived in Hamburg, they have plenty of space that can be easily developed and integrated into the public transportation network, but they don't. They wouldn't even need to build it themselves, they'd just need to allow private investors or housing coops to build. But they don't, because ... I don't know. Change is bad? It's too good of a topic to bemoan and win elections with, because people are too simple to see that they've been running the government for 50 of the past 55 years? Landlords paying them off? I don't know.