7 ms·

Godspeed you, Garry Tan! May the painted ladies be demolished and replaced with supertall skyscrapers jam-packed with cheap apartments, maker spaces, and start

by samr71 3y ago

Godspeed you, Garry Tan! May the painted ladies be demolished and replaced with supertall skyscrapers jam-packed with cheap apartments, maker spaces, and startup incubators! (I say this with no sarcasm. SF should look like Manhattan; allow a few historic houses but most gotta go.)

dotnet00 3y ago
If only Manhattan were known for cheap apartments
- akavi 3y ago
  Sounds to me like there’s demand for a second one then
moomoo11 3y ago
One earthquake later…
- newZWhoDis 3y ago
  Tall buildings fair better in earthquakes due to resonance.
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    Is anyone taking bets on Millennium Tower? Are those bets cheaper than insurance?
    - phendrenad2 3y ago
      Well, Millennium Tower is an outlier. A boondoggle. They should take it down and start over.
    - armchairhacker 3y ago
      Idk about Millennium Tower but see Taipei 101: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_101#Structural_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_101#Structural_design > Taipei 101 is designed to withstand typhoon winds and earthquake tremors that are common in the area in the east of Taiwan. Evergreen Consulting Engineering, the structural engineer, designed Taipei 101 to withstand gale winds of 60 meters per second (197 ft/s), (216 km/h or 134 mph), as well as the strongest earthquakes in a 2,500-year cycle. > During construction, on 31 March 2002, a 6.8-magnitude earthquake rocked Taipei; two construction cranes from the 56th floor, the highest floor at the time, toppled. Five people died in the accident, but an inspection showed no structural damage to the building, and construction soon resumed
    - baron816 3y ago
      The worst case scenario for Millennium Tower is that it will lean so much that the elevators don’t work anymore. That’s it.
7e 3y ago
[flagged]
- pohuing 3y ago
  The people have to live somewhere. Put them in a skyscraper instead of square miles of suburbs with sterile lawns and zero biodiversity.
  - TimedToasts 3y ago
    I cannot think of a region of this planet with LESS biodiversity than Manhattan/San Fran/megalopolii. "Concrete Jungle" is just a euphemism.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      But that region of low biodiversity prevents those humans from spreading across a huge swath of land and ruining biodiversity for thousands of miles in every direction
- ctoth 3y ago
  > Even better, don't build even more breeding habitat for an expanding population which is choking the earth. Ah, the anti-human shows through. I guess we should just ... what, with the people then?
- arcticbull 3y ago
  Literally the more developed a country is, the lower it's birth rate. More education, especially women's education, less religiosity and better contraceptive prevalence is all you need. The US is already at 1.6 births per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1 You don't need "less breeding habitat" you just need more development.
striking 3y ago
If you want to live in Manhattan, go live in Manhattan. I run by the Painted Ladies regularly as the sun rises and I love being able to see the skyline behind them. Sure, we should have higher density apartments in more areas, but they'll probably still all cost the same, the demand is pretty unlikely to be met and landlords will continue to charge insane rents no matter what. They'll probably all be luxury apartments as everyone is looking to maximize their profits.
- doomroot 3y ago
  Increasing any amount of supply will decrease prices while demand stays constant. Do you have reason to believe demand will grow at the same rate as new housing is built?
  - rurp 3y ago
    I mean, yes? Housing prices have continued to shoot up in many western cities despite large increases in housing supply. It's weird to me that the concept of induced demand is pretty common knowledge when it comes to road traffic, but mostly ignored in housing discussions.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      >I mean, yes? Housing prices have continued to shoot up in many western cities despite large increases in housing supply. Well yes, because we have decades of undersupply to correct! Of course a small step in the right direction doesn't magically fix everything. We need to build WAAAAYYY more, like to a vast overabundance, which capitalism unaided can never do because a builder will never start building a hundred rooms if that makes the market go down because that would ruin their profits elsewhere. I would be surprised if, after there is enough supply, there is an "induced demand" effect for housing. Humans take like 20 years to go from born to needing a house, and most people don't choose to have children when they otherwise wouldn't because of cheap housing.
  - nradov 3y ago
    As long as the Federal government has a de facto open borders policy, demand will continue growing. I'm not trying to start an off-topic debate about immigration policy here, but regardless of your feelings on that issue the reality is that today we have a lot of people crossing the border and looking for places to live. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-allowing-hundreds-of-thousands-of-venezuelans-in-the-country-to-work-legally https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-allowing-hundreds-of-...
woodruffw 3y ago
> May the painted ladies be demolished and replaced with supertall skyscrapers jam-packed with cheap apartments, maker spaces, and startup incubators! Without value judgement: Manhattan doesn't look like this. The parts you're thinking of (midtown and downtown) are full of luxury skyscrapers; the majority of the "cheap" (by relative standards) housing is in the north of the borough in 6-10 story apartment buildings.
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  I was just going to say this. This guy clearly doesn't know Manhattan real estate. A skyscraper full of cheap apartments in Manhattan? Only in the fever dreams of the relative peasants with 6 figure salaries. Besides, geotechnical engineering is your friend. A landscape of supertalls may not be the best way to go for San Fran's geography.
coding123 3y ago
We'll just have more leaning towers - SF land is horrible to build on, unless the foundation hammered in for months - even then I wouldn't trust it for tall skyscrapers.
nradov 3y ago
Do people who actually live and vote in San Francisco want to turn it into another Manhattan? If we want more super tall skyscrapers jam packed with cheap apartments and offices then why should they be built in SF specifically? Why not Bakersfield or Cleveland?
- paddy_m 3y ago
  San Francisco (and cities in general) are places of great opportunity. Limiting that opportunity only to incumbents who already live there is stifling to our nation as a whole, and it's cruel. As a thought experiment, what if we treated immigrants to the country in the same manner... "What if existing US residents don't want to turn it into Mexico by allowing Mexicans into the country. Why can't the Mexicans go to Canada or Guatemala". Allowing more housing to be built is key to allowing more opportunity in a vibrant and active community. Allowing more housing to be built reduces housing costs which lets people flourish. Dense urban areas obviate the need for a car, reducing greenhouse gasses and isolation. All of these are good things.
  - khazhoux 3y ago
    > San Francisco (and cities in general) are places of great opportunity. Limiting that opportunity only to incumbents who already live there is stifling to our nation as a whole, and it's cruel. Instead of punishing residents by doubling their population density (more traffic, more crowded schools, etc), the mega-companies (the "great opportunity") should start hiring elsewhere. And of course we're already seeing that happening post-pandemic. These companies need an endless supply of engineers, sales, and support staff to build out their ad-revenue engines, so that the execs can continue receiving their multi-million RSUs every year... and somehow the residents are cruel for not wanting their city and neighborhoods to change to accommodate them?
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      You're phrasing that as if the residents aren't thrilled to have the megacorporation there. They want the company there to drive up their house's value without having to deal with the consequences.
babl-yc 3y ago
San Francisco could add a ton of housing without adding super tall skyscrapers across the city. Maybe some YIMBYs want to Manhattanize SF but certainly not all of them. Paris has a height limit of 12 stories for most parts of the city https://www.archdaily.com/1002165/paris-reimposes-the-ban-on-skyscrapers-after-tour-triangle-controversy https://www.archdaily.com/1002165/paris-reimposes-the-ban-on... Hopefully the San Francisco BoS does their part and approves reasonable housing so it's not purely up to developers with SB 35/423.

by samr71 3y ago

dotnet00 3y ago

If only Manhattan were known for cheap apartments

akavi 3y ago
Sounds to me like there’s demand for a second one then

moomoo11 3y ago

One earthquake later…

newZWhoDis 3y ago
Tall buildings fair better in earthquakes due to resonance.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  Is anyone taking bets on Millennium Tower? Are those bets cheaper than insurance?
  - phendrenad2 3y ago
    Well, Millennium Tower is an outlier. A boondoggle. They should take it down and start over.
  - armchairhacker 3y ago
    Idk about Millennium Tower but see Taipei 101: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_101#Structural_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_101#Structural_design > Taipei 101 is designed to withstand typhoon winds and earthquake tremors that are common in the area in the east of Taiwan. Evergreen Consulting Engineering, the structural engineer, designed Taipei 101 to withstand gale winds of 60 meters per second (197 ft/s), (216 km/h or 134 mph), as well as the strongest earthquakes in a 2,500-year cycle. > During construction, on 31 March 2002, a 6.8-magnitude earthquake rocked Taipei; two construction cranes from the 56th floor, the highest floor at the time, toppled. Five people died in the accident, but an inspection showed no structural damage to the building, and construction soon resumed
  - baron816 3y ago
    The worst case scenario for Millennium Tower is that it will lean so much that the elevators don’t work anymore. That’s it.

7e 3y ago

[flagged]

pohuing 3y ago
The people have to live somewhere. Put them in a skyscraper instead of square miles of suburbs with sterile lawns and zero biodiversity.
- TimedToasts 3y ago
  I cannot think of a region of this planet with LESS biodiversity than Manhattan/San Fran/megalopolii. "Concrete Jungle" is just a euphemism.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    But that region of low biodiversity prevents those humans from spreading across a huge swath of land and ruining biodiversity for thousands of miles in every direction
ctoth 3y ago
> Even better, don't build even more breeding habitat for an expanding population which is choking the earth. Ah, the anti-human shows through. I guess we should just ... what, with the people then?
arcticbull 3y ago
Literally the more developed a country is, the lower it's birth rate. More education, especially women's education, less religiosity and better contraceptive prevalence is all you need. The US is already at 1.6 births per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1 You don't need "less breeding habitat" you just need more development.

striking 3y ago

If you want to live in Manhattan, go live in Manhattan. I run by the Painted Ladies regularly as the sun rises and I love being able to see the skyline behind them. Sure, we should have higher density apartments in more areas, but they'll probably still all cost the same, the demand is pretty unlikely to be met and landlords will continue to charge insane rents no matter what. They'll probably all be luxury apartments as everyone is looking to maximize their profits.

doomroot 3y ago
Increasing any amount of supply will decrease prices while demand stays constant. Do you have reason to believe demand will grow at the same rate as new housing is built?
- rurp 3y ago
  I mean, yes? Housing prices have continued to shoot up in many western cities despite large increases in housing supply. It's weird to me that the concept of induced demand is pretty common knowledge when it comes to road traffic, but mostly ignored in housing discussions.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    >I mean, yes? Housing prices have continued to shoot up in many western cities despite large increases in housing supply. Well yes, because we have decades of undersupply to correct! Of course a small step in the right direction doesn't magically fix everything. We need to build WAAAAYYY more, like to a vast overabundance, which capitalism unaided can never do because a builder will never start building a hundred rooms if that makes the market go down because that would ruin their profits elsewhere. I would be surprised if, after there is enough supply, there is an "induced demand" effect for housing. Humans take like 20 years to go from born to needing a house, and most people don't choose to have children when they otherwise wouldn't because of cheap housing.
- nradov 3y ago
  As long as the Federal government has a de facto open borders policy, demand will continue growing. I'm not trying to start an off-topic debate about immigration policy here, but regardless of your feelings on that issue the reality is that today we have a lot of people crossing the border and looking for places to live. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-allowing-hundreds-of-thousands-of-venezuelans-in-the-country-to-work-legally https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-allowing-hundreds-of-...

woodruffw 3y ago

> May the painted ladies be demolished and replaced with supertall skyscrapers jam-packed with cheap apartments, maker spaces, and startup incubators! Without value judgement: Manhattan doesn't look like this. The parts you're thinking of (midtown and downtown) are full of luxury skyscrapers; the majority of the "cheap" (by relative standards) housing is in the north of the borough in 6-10 story apartment buildings.

bilbo0s 3y ago
I was just going to say this. This guy clearly doesn't know Manhattan real estate. A skyscraper full of cheap apartments in Manhattan? Only in the fever dreams of the relative peasants with 6 figure salaries. Besides, geotechnical engineering is your friend. A landscape of supertalls may not be the best way to go for San Fran's geography.

coding123 3y ago

We'll just have more leaning towers - SF land is horrible to build on, unless the foundation hammered in for months - even then I wouldn't trust it for tall skyscrapers.

nradov 3y ago

Do people who actually live and vote in San Francisco want to turn it into another Manhattan? If we want more super tall skyscrapers jam packed with cheap apartments and offices then why should they be built in SF specifically? Why not Bakersfield or Cleveland?

paddy_m 3y ago
San Francisco (and cities in general) are places of great opportunity. Limiting that opportunity only to incumbents who already live there is stifling to our nation as a whole, and it's cruel. As a thought experiment, what if we treated immigrants to the country in the same manner... "What if existing US residents don't want to turn it into Mexico by allowing Mexicans into the country. Why can't the Mexicans go to Canada or Guatemala". Allowing more housing to be built is key to allowing more opportunity in a vibrant and active community. Allowing more housing to be built reduces housing costs which lets people flourish. Dense urban areas obviate the need for a car, reducing greenhouse gasses and isolation. All of these are good things.
- khazhoux 3y ago
  > San Francisco (and cities in general) are places of great opportunity. Limiting that opportunity only to incumbents who already live there is stifling to our nation as a whole, and it's cruel. Instead of punishing residents by doubling their population density (more traffic, more crowded schools, etc), the mega-companies (the "great opportunity") should start hiring elsewhere. And of course we're already seeing that happening post-pandemic. These companies need an endless supply of engineers, sales, and support staff to build out their ad-revenue engines, so that the execs can continue receiving their multi-million RSUs every year... and somehow the residents are cruel for not wanting their city and neighborhoods to change to accommodate them?
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    You're phrasing that as if the residents aren't thrilled to have the megacorporation there. They want the company there to drive up their house's value without having to deal with the consequences.

babl-yc 3y ago

San Francisco could add a ton of housing without adding super tall skyscrapers across the city. Maybe some YIMBYs want to Manhattanize SF but certainly not all of them. Paris has a height limit of 12 stories for most parts of the city https://www.archdaily.com/1002165/paris-reimposes-the-ban-on-skyscrapers-after-tour-triangle-controversy https://www.archdaily.com/1002165/paris-reimposes-the-ban-on... Hopefully the San Francisco BoS does their part and approves reasonable housing so it's not purely up to developers with SB 35/423.