3 ms·

This article is just referring to just one building. But it does have a point and may be showing a trend to something like "the free market works". Until citi

by jmclnx 3y ago

This article is just referring to just one building. But it does have a point and may be showing a trend to something like "the free market works". Until cities solve the rent crisis, I believe this will happen more and more. I think the only way to solve that is to build and build, but NIMBY people and Companies who love high rent prices seem to do all they can to stop the building of Apartments. But, in SF case, it may be a good thing. Having a city like that in a severe earthquake zone is rather foolish. I can hope people wake up and move to more environmentally stable areas of the US. By that I mean places with low risk of earthquakes, flooding and droughts. They do exist, but no one wants to live in those areas.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Having a city like that in a severe earthquake zone is rather foolish What is this based on? Tokyo, Jakarta, Manila and Los Angeles are more or similarly seismically active as San Francisco [1]. > They do exist, but no one wants to live in those areas Because they’re fundamentally less productive. Natural harbours, fertile soil, striking vistas—each is related to geography, geology and economic potential. Landlocked, sterile, featureless terrain is less productive, less appealing and less valuable than natural port near volcanic soil and new mountains. [1] https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/articles/cities-most-likely-to-be-hit-by-an-earthquake.html https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/articles/cities-most-likely-t...
- prpl 3y ago
  …Santiago, Mexico City, Rome, Athens, Seattle, …
  - foogazi 3y ago
    > Mexico City, Rome, Athens, Definitely not landlocked, or sterile. Seats of millennial civilizations for a reason
brookst 3y ago
Where are these paradisical places with no natural disasters and livable climates?
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  Um. Maybe Pittsburgh? Appalachia? I'm drawing a blank. Pretty much all of the mid-west is susceptible to tornadoes. The east and southeast to hurricanes. The west to earthquakes. The northeast to those crazy blizzards they sometimes get.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > I'm drawing a blank Because it doesn’t exist. You don’t build a city where you fortress. The oceans that give rise to natural harbours and ports also bring risk of floods and tsunami. Similarly for fertile riparian. The same seismology that raises the mountains which squeeze rain from clouds and provide stunning vistas also level badly-built homes. The risks can be mitigated, but never eliminated. Look at the list of natural-disaster safe cities in America, and find a sea of low GDP per capita [1]. In an unexpected place we find the old adage reaffirmed: risk and reward come together. [1] https://www.rockethomes.com/blog/housing-market/safest-places-to-live-to-avoid-natural-disaster https://www.rockethomes.com/blog/housing-market/safest-place...
  - shagie 3y ago
    > Pretty much all of the mid-west is susceptible to tornadoes. And some good sized earthquakes too. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/new-madrid-seismic-zone https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/new-madrid-... // https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34701813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34701813 And from https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/cool-earthquake-facts https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/cool-earthq... > Earthquakes occur in the central portion of the United States too! Some very powerful earthquakes occurred along the New Madrid fault in the Mississippi Valley in 1811-1812. Because of the crustal structure in the Central US which efficiently propagates seismic energy, shaking from earthquakes in this part of the country are felt at a much greater distance from the epicenters than similar size quakes in the Western US. And yes, while the entire west coast is red in the risk category... there is a good sized blob in the midwest. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-131-02/CUShazard.html https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-131-02/CUShazard.html
pclmulqdq 3y ago
I think you may be calibrating for the wrong thing in terms of sampling. The idea that this is "just one building" doesn't mean that it isn't a representative sample: this one building represents hundreds of leases, if not a few thousand. If the aggregate value of those leases is down 75%, that means something.
0max 3y ago
I have faith in the Builder's Remedy and how that invalidates local control when a required housing element plan isn't submitted. Papers in Marin are cringing about the high rise going up on Sloat Boulevard in SF's Parkside/Outer Sunset, I hope Marin ends up worse than Santa Monica with the remedy.

by jmclnx 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Having a city like that in a severe earthquake zone is rather foolish What is this based on? Tokyo, Jakarta, Manila and Los Angeles are more or similarly seismically active as San Francisco [1]. > They do exist, but no one wants to live in those areas Because they’re fundamentally less productive. Natural harbours, fertile soil, striking vistas—each is related to geography, geology and economic potential. Landlocked, sterile, featureless terrain is less productive, less appealing and less valuable than natural port near volcanic soil and new mountains. [1] https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/articles/cities-most-likely-to-be-hit-by-an-earthquake.html https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/articles/cities-most-likely-t...

prpl 3y ago
…Santiago, Mexico City, Rome, Athens, Seattle, …
- foogazi 3y ago
  > Mexico City, Rome, Athens, Definitely not landlocked, or sterile. Seats of millennial civilizations for a reason

brookst 3y ago

Where are these paradisical places with no natural disasters and livable climates?

bcrosby95 3y ago
Um. Maybe Pittsburgh? Appalachia? I'm drawing a blank. Pretty much all of the mid-west is susceptible to tornadoes. The east and southeast to hurricanes. The west to earthquakes. The northeast to those crazy blizzards they sometimes get.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I'm drawing a blank Because it doesn’t exist. You don’t build a city where you fortress. The oceans that give rise to natural harbours and ports also bring risk of floods and tsunami. Similarly for fertile riparian. The same seismology that raises the mountains which squeeze rain from clouds and provide stunning vistas also level badly-built homes. The risks can be mitigated, but never eliminated. Look at the list of natural-disaster safe cities in America, and find a sea of low GDP per capita [1]. In an unexpected place we find the old adage reaffirmed: risk and reward come together. [1] https://www.rockethomes.com/blog/housing-market/safest-places-to-live-to-avoid-natural-disaster https://www.rockethomes.com/blog/housing-market/safest-place...
- shagie 3y ago
  > Pretty much all of the mid-west is susceptible to tornadoes. And some good sized earthquakes too. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/new-madrid-seismic-zone https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/new-madrid-... // https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34701813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34701813 And from https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/cool-earthquake-facts https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/cool-earthq... > Earthquakes occur in the central portion of the United States too! Some very powerful earthquakes occurred along the New Madrid fault in the Mississippi Valley in 1811-1812. Because of the crustal structure in the Central US which efficiently propagates seismic energy, shaking from earthquakes in this part of the country are felt at a much greater distance from the epicenters than similar size quakes in the Western US. And yes, while the entire west coast is red in the risk category... there is a good sized blob in the midwest. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-131-02/CUShazard.html https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-131-02/CUShazard.html

pclmulqdq 3y ago

I think you may be calibrating for the wrong thing in terms of sampling. The idea that this is "just one building" doesn't mean that it isn't a representative sample: this one building represents hundreds of leases, if not a few thousand. If the aggregate value of those leases is down 75%, that means something.

0max 3y ago

I have faith in the Builder's Remedy and how that invalidates local control when a required housing element plan isn't submitted. Papers in Marin are cringing about the high rise going up on Sloat Boulevard in SF's Parkside/Outer Sunset, I hope Marin ends up worse than Santa Monica with the remedy.