4 ms·

And that's what chafes me about using San Francisco as an example. SF is already far more dense than the other eight Bay Area counties. Look at Brisbane in Sa

And that's what chafes me about using San Francisco as an example. SF is already far more dense than the other eight Bay Area counties. Look at Brisbane in San Mateo County for instance. A developer wanted to build out some mixed use stuff on a plot of land including about 4,500 homes and the city countered with a plan for zero homes. San Francisco alone cannot remedy a regional housing crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Baylands_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Baylands_development

lazyasciiart 3y ago
Good news, the state has required every city in the state to zone for additional housing. That's why Brisbane went ahead and approved a revised plan for ~2000 homes in 2018, complaining that they were only doing so because of state pressure. Nobody is asking San Francisco alone to do anything.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  Nobody is asking San Francisco alone to do anything. Only three Bay Area jurisdictions (of 109) were ready by the Jan 31 deadline this year. Thirty-four failed to even get drafts in by the earlier deadline. By April the number of jurisdictions in compliance rose to… sixteen. And yet, here we are discussing an article about San Francisco while completely ignoring the regional picture. San Francisco has an overall population density of ~17,000 people/sq mi, Brisbane 1,600. Atherton? Under 1,500. So, yes, focusing on San Francisco as HN seems wont to do is utterly ridiculous.
  - smugma 3y ago
    Yes, this is an article about S.F. There are other articles about Woodside trying to say its whole town is Mountain Lion habitat, Los Altos, Palo Alto, etc. Here’s a recent one (their mayor is as bad as the NIMBY SF BoS): https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/11/21/high-rise-development-proposed-for-mollie-stones-site-in-palo-alto https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/11/21/high-rise-dev...
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      And yet somehow magically HN discussion trends towards big, bad San Francisco. Go figure. For those keeping score at home: San Francisco has a population density of over 17,000 people per square mile. Woodside? 460. For all of its corruption and inaction San Francisco's already done far more than the surrounding communities.
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        Because densifying a major metro that's already pretty dense is totally logical. The rest of the Bay Area should be much denser too, its 83% zoned single-family. However they have a much longer road ahead building infrastructure that SF already has. Putting the density with the rest of the density is totally rational. Brooklyn has 38,000 people per square mile. Queens is 22,000 people per square mile. Manhattan is 73,000 people per square mile. Hoboken is 48,000 people per square mile. SF is not dense. SF should be the Manhattan of the Bay Area and instead it's got the density of like East LA. The problem when people pull this stat is that we should really be comparing the density of the Bay Area to other major metros - not just SF. SF is a tiny little postage stamp. It's much more comparable to one of the NY Boroughs. It's just that SF city/county is gerrymandered out of the other peninsula counties. When we do the logical and look at the SF-SJ-OAK MSA it has a population density of 700/sqmi, as compared to New York City at 29,302/sqmi. It's comparable to Augusta, GA, or Norman, OK. If we compare at the densest are in the SF-SJ-OAK MSA, San Francisco at 17,000/sqmi - to New York City's Manhattan at 73,000/sqmi - the picture looks awfully different. SF is woefully underdeveloped, and the MSA is devastatingly underdeveloped.
      - jjav 3y ago
        > For those keeping score at home: San Francisco has a population density of over 17,000 people per square mile. Woodside? 460. Also, San Francisco is a city, Woodside isn't. I thought the urbanist argument is to build densely in the cities, so that would mean in SF, not in Woodside.
angled 3y ago
270 ha, 4400 homes? For shame! Tung Chung East, part of a new development on the northern edge of Lantau Island in Hong Kong, is reclaiming ~130 ha and building ~62000 units, housing ~184k people. > The TCNTE was originally planned with 49 400 housing units with public / private housing split of 63:37. To meet keen housing demand and optimise infrastructural investments, we have recently reviewed the technical feasibility of intensifying the development density of TCNTE housing sites. With the spare infrastructural capacity so identified and revision of the public housing flat design, we are able to increase the overall housing yield from 49 400 units to 62 100 units for estimated total population of 184 000 subject to subsequent planning approvals to be obtained. The increase of 12 700 units will all be public housing with the resultant public/private housing split adjusted to 72:28. In terms of commercial facilities, the TCNTE will provide about 877 000 square metres (m2) floorspace generating some 40 000 jobs. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr20-21/english/fc/pwsc/papers/p20-24e.pdf https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr20-21/english/fc/pwsc/papers/p20-... https://www.tung-chung.hk/ https://www.tung-chung.hk/ build up, not out!
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  4,400 homes proposed. The city of Brisbane settled for half that.
  - angled 3y ago
    Even worse...

lazyasciiart 3y ago

Good news, the state has required every city in the state to zone for additional housing. That's why Brisbane went ahead and approved a revised plan for ~2000 homes in 2018, complaining that they were only doing so because of state pressure. Nobody is asking San Francisco alone to do anything.

inferiorhuman 3y ago
Nobody is asking San Francisco alone to do anything. Only three Bay Area jurisdictions (of 109) were ready by the Jan 31 deadline this year. Thirty-four failed to even get drafts in by the earlier deadline. By April the number of jurisdictions in compliance rose to… sixteen. And yet, here we are discussing an article about San Francisco while completely ignoring the regional picture. San Francisco has an overall population density of ~17,000 people/sq mi, Brisbane 1,600. Atherton? Under 1,500. So, yes, focusing on San Francisco as HN seems wont to do is utterly ridiculous.
- smugma 3y ago
  Yes, this is an article about S.F. There are other articles about Woodside trying to say its whole town is Mountain Lion habitat, Los Altos, Palo Alto, etc. Here’s a recent one (their mayor is as bad as the NIMBY SF BoS): https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/11/21/high-rise-development-proposed-for-mollie-stones-site-in-palo-alto https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/11/21/high-rise-dev...
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    And yet somehow magically HN discussion trends towards big, bad San Francisco. Go figure. For those keeping score at home: San Francisco has a population density of over 17,000 people per square mile. Woodside? 460. For all of its corruption and inaction San Francisco's already done far more than the surrounding communities.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      Because densifying a major metro that's already pretty dense is totally logical. The rest of the Bay Area should be much denser too, its 83% zoned single-family. However they have a much longer road ahead building infrastructure that SF already has. Putting the density with the rest of the density is totally rational. Brooklyn has 38,000 people per square mile. Queens is 22,000 people per square mile. Manhattan is 73,000 people per square mile. Hoboken is 48,000 people per square mile. SF is not dense. SF should be the Manhattan of the Bay Area and instead it's got the density of like East LA. The problem when people pull this stat is that we should really be comparing the density of the Bay Area to other major metros - not just SF. SF is a tiny little postage stamp. It's much more comparable to one of the NY Boroughs. It's just that SF city/county is gerrymandered out of the other peninsula counties. When we do the logical and look at the SF-SJ-OAK MSA it has a population density of 700/sqmi, as compared to New York City at 29,302/sqmi. It's comparable to Augusta, GA, or Norman, OK. If we compare at the densest are in the SF-SJ-OAK MSA, San Francisco at 17,000/sqmi - to New York City's Manhattan at 73,000/sqmi - the picture looks awfully different. SF is woefully underdeveloped, and the MSA is devastatingly underdeveloped.
    - jjav 3y ago
      > For those keeping score at home: San Francisco has a population density of over 17,000 people per square mile. Woodside? 460. Also, San Francisco is a city, Woodside isn't. I thought the urbanist argument is to build densely in the cities, so that would mean in SF, not in Woodside.

angled 3y ago

270 ha, 4400 homes? For shame! Tung Chung East, part of a new development on the northern edge of Lantau Island in Hong Kong, is reclaiming ~130 ha and building ~62000 units, housing ~184k people. > The TCNTE was originally planned with 49 400 housing units with public / private housing split of 63:37. To meet keen housing demand and optimise infrastructural investments, we have recently reviewed the technical feasibility of intensifying the development density of TCNTE housing sites. With the spare infrastructural capacity so identified and revision of the public housing flat design, we are able to increase the overall housing yield from 49 400 units to 62 100 units for estimated total population of 184 000 subject to subsequent planning approvals to be obtained. The increase of 12 700 units will all be public housing with the resultant public/private housing split adjusted to 72:28. In terms of commercial facilities, the TCNTE will provide about 877 000 square metres (m2) floorspace generating some 40 000 jobs. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr20-21/english/fc/pwsc/papers/p20-24e.pdf https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr20-21/english/fc/pwsc/papers/p20-... https://www.tung-chung.hk/ https://www.tung-chung.hk/ build up, not out!

inferiorhuman 3y ago
4,400 homes proposed. The city of Brisbane settled for half that.
- angled 3y ago
  Even worse...