4 ms·

SF is very dense, only behind NY in the US. It's quite a bit denser than Tokyo and London. If SF wants to build then we need a massive public works project for

SF is very dense, only behind NY in the US. It's quite a bit denser than Tokyo and London. If SF wants to build then we need a massive public works project for London-class public transportation. Which does not exist anywhere in the US.

epistasis 3y ago
SF is not very dense. It could legalize Paris level of densities everywhere in its very small footprint. The entire western side is low density sprawl. It has a very tiny land area, there absolutely no reason all this very tiny land area can not have moderate density like in Pairs. As the city then develops, it could use the increased tax levels to build subways to replace bus lines. It could start making more effective use of its streets, banning storage of personal vehicles that obstruct traffic, for example. Greater population and better transit need to happen at the same time, not one before the other.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  SF is very dense because Paris and Tokyo are considered much larger jurisdictions. They aren't very fair comparisons anyways, where the latter are more the more the size of the entire Bay Area. Not everyone can live in SF, obviously.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    SF should worry about trying to house the number of people that want to live in SF, a solvable problem. The idea that "everyone" want to live in SF is ridiculous, almost no one, relative to everyone, wants to live in SF. Equally ridiculous is the idea that SF has allowed enough people to live there. > SF is very dense because Paris and Tokyo are considered much larger jurisdictions. I can't fully parse what you mean here, but it seems that the reality is exactly the opposite of what you intend, given the rest of you comment.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Enough people want to live in SF that there are lots of complaints about why SF can’t be even more dense than it is. I would have loved to live in SF when I was rooming in San Carlos, but I simply couldn’t afford it so Caltrain it was. SF has plenty of people, multi story housing, transit, traffic, already. It seems like a poor target for claiming its a city that isn’t dense enough. And given the problems people have now, it most definitely is at it’s carrying capacity. > I can't fully parse what you mean here, but it seems that the reality is exactly the opposite of what you intend, given the rest of you comment. Both Paris and Tokyo are large municipalities that cover as much area as the Bay Area, not the smaller area city of SF which is only the second most populous city in that area. Tokyo has 847 sqm compared to SF’s 47 sqm, they aren’t comparable. Paris is 1000 sqm.
yieldcrv 3y ago
That’s one of the steepest bell curves there is

epistasis 3y ago

SF is not very dense. It could legalize Paris level of densities everywhere in its very small footprint. The entire western side is low density sprawl. It has a very tiny land area, there absolutely no reason all this very tiny land area can not have moderate density like in Pairs. As the city then develops, it could use the increased tax levels to build subways to replace bus lines. It could start making more effective use of its streets, banning storage of personal vehicles that obstruct traffic, for example. Greater population and better transit need to happen at the same time, not one before the other.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
SF is very dense because Paris and Tokyo are considered much larger jurisdictions. They aren't very fair comparisons anyways, where the latter are more the more the size of the entire Bay Area. Not everyone can live in SF, obviously.
- epistasis 3y ago
  SF should worry about trying to house the number of people that want to live in SF, a solvable problem. The idea that "everyone" want to live in SF is ridiculous, almost no one, relative to everyone, wants to live in SF. Equally ridiculous is the idea that SF has allowed enough people to live there. > SF is very dense because Paris and Tokyo are considered much larger jurisdictions. I can't fully parse what you mean here, but it seems that the reality is exactly the opposite of what you intend, given the rest of you comment.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Enough people want to live in SF that there are lots of complaints about why SF can’t be even more dense than it is. I would have loved to live in SF when I was rooming in San Carlos, but I simply couldn’t afford it so Caltrain it was. SF has plenty of people, multi story housing, transit, traffic, already. It seems like a poor target for claiming its a city that isn’t dense enough. And given the problems people have now, it most definitely is at it’s carrying capacity. > I can't fully parse what you mean here, but it seems that the reality is exactly the opposite of what you intend, given the rest of you comment. Both Paris and Tokyo are large municipalities that cover as much area as the Bay Area, not the smaller area city of SF which is only the second most populous city in that area. Tokyo has 847 sqm compared to SF’s 47 sqm, they aren’t comparable. Paris is 1000 sqm.

yieldcrv 3y ago

That’s one of the steepest bell curves there is