4 ms·

You are likely correct. This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the

You are likely correct. This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. Crime is a problem to solve in any Western urban area and is particularly bad here now. Congestion is another problem to solve. Manhattan has solved both to a degree. I’d imagine we can too.

cyberax 3y ago
> This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. The thing is, there are plenty of much nicer places even in CA. Just go north a bit, and there's plenty of space to build housing near Napa or Sacramento. Yet people somehow have to be crammed into the SFBA. Why?
- quesera 3y ago
  Because Sacramento is hot, suburban, and has limited employment options. And Napa is dry, rural, and has no employment options. SFBA OTOH: Temperate, verdant, urban, and swimming in jobs. I do like Sacramento and Napa. But they are very different lifestyles, despite being so close. Also, it's very difficult to build in Napa, due to water availability. Sacramento is easier, and it gets even easier as you get farther out...but fewer people want to.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > And Napa is dry, rural Napa is more green than the SFBA in general. It also is about as hot as most of the Bay Area outside of SF. > and has no jobs. Good. Keep asking questions. What caused the lack of jobs?
    - quesera 3y ago
      Napa County has acute water availability problems. SF County and most of Alameda County (the most populated parts) generally do not. I didn't say Napa was hot. Sacramento is hot. But SFBA comprises a large area and large climatic variations. I don't think it's meaningful to consider all 9 (or 13) counties in comparisons, because all things become true. Cold, hot, humid, dry, windy, placid, densely populated, sparsely so. If you're asking why SF is SF and Sacramento is Sacramento, then I don't think there is a satisfying answer. If you're trying to lead me to a preexisting conclusion, I'd prefer that you just engage directly.
      - cyberax 3y ago
        The thing is, climate doesn't matter. Vegetation doesn't matter. Good looks don't matter. All that matters is proximity to jobs. Sacramento doesn't have a lot of them (although that is changing now), so it's not attracting significantly more population.
        quesera 3y ago
        This doesn't make sense to me. Taking it further -- all that matters is proximity to trade routes. SF has (had) a port, and so it grew first. Jobs resulted. The effects were compounded over years. Sacramento has a river. The river is why Sacramento is not Vacaville. Also, it was selected as the state capital (partially for the available and inexpensive land!), which has greatly accelerated its growth. Sacramento is the fastest-growing city in CA. It's actually almost as populous as SF, though of course much less dense. And the job market is good, but the jobs are not the same kind as in SF (and fewer are applicable to the typical HN denizen). I really don't know what you're going for here. Different places are different, for myriad reasons. It's not as one-dimensional as you seem to suggest.
cyberax 3y ago
> Crime is a problem to solve in any Western urban area and is particularly bad here now. I said a lot about housing, now let's talk about crime. None of the ultra-liberal West Coast cities will be able to solve it within this decade. It'd likely require a Federal-level intervention by the National Guard, ordered by the Emperor Eric Trump (Long May He Rule). Dealing with drug and gang crimes requires strict law enforcement with zero tolerance for nonsense. And I don't see Democratic governments doing that. They'll just keep ineffectually repeating nonsense about "solving the root causes", "system racism", "affordable housing", and so on.

cyberax 3y ago

> This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. The thing is, there are plenty of much nicer places even in CA. Just go north a bit, and there's plenty of space to build housing near Napa or Sacramento. Yet people somehow have to be crammed into the SFBA. Why?

quesera 3y ago
Because Sacramento is hot, suburban, and has limited employment options. And Napa is dry, rural, and has no employment options. SFBA OTOH: Temperate, verdant, urban, and swimming in jobs. I do like Sacramento and Napa. But they are very different lifestyles, despite being so close. Also, it's very difficult to build in Napa, due to water availability. Sacramento is easier, and it gets even easier as you get farther out...but fewer people want to.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > And Napa is dry, rural Napa is more green than the SFBA in general. It also is about as hot as most of the Bay Area outside of SF. > and has no jobs. Good. Keep asking questions. What caused the lack of jobs?
  - quesera 3y ago
    Napa County has acute water availability problems. SF County and most of Alameda County (the most populated parts) generally do not. I didn't say Napa was hot. Sacramento is hot. But SFBA comprises a large area and large climatic variations. I don't think it's meaningful to consider all 9 (or 13) counties in comparisons, because all things become true. Cold, hot, humid, dry, windy, placid, densely populated, sparsely so. If you're asking why SF is SF and Sacramento is Sacramento, then I don't think there is a satisfying answer. If you're trying to lead me to a preexisting conclusion, I'd prefer that you just engage directly.
    - cyberax 3y ago
      The thing is, climate doesn't matter. Vegetation doesn't matter. Good looks don't matter. All that matters is proximity to jobs. Sacramento doesn't have a lot of them (although that is changing now), so it's not attracting significantly more population.
      - quesera 3y ago
        This doesn't make sense to me. Taking it further -- all that matters is proximity to trade routes. SF has (had) a port, and so it grew first. Jobs resulted. The effects were compounded over years. Sacramento has a river. The river is why Sacramento is not Vacaville. Also, it was selected as the state capital (partially for the available and inexpensive land!), which has greatly accelerated its growth. Sacramento is the fastest-growing city in CA. It's actually almost as populous as SF, though of course much less dense. And the job market is good, but the jobs are not the same kind as in SF (and fewer are applicable to the typical HN denizen). I really don't know what you're going for here. Different places are different, for myriad reasons. It's not as one-dimensional as you seem to suggest.

cyberax 3y ago

> Crime is a problem to solve in any Western urban area and is particularly bad here now. I said a lot about housing, now let's talk about crime. None of the ultra-liberal West Coast cities will be able to solve it within this decade. It'd likely require a Federal-level intervention by the National Guard, ordered by the Emperor Eric Trump (Long May He Rule). Dealing with drug and gang crimes requires strict law enforcement with zero tolerance for nonsense. And I don't see Democratic governments doing that. They'll just keep ineffectually repeating nonsense about "solving the root causes", "system racism", "affordable housing", and so on.