3 ms·

>Pretty much every state has zoning laws because among other things, people in suburbs don't want huge apartment complexes popping up next to them. Do you not

>Pretty much every state has zoning laws because among other things, people in suburbs don't want huge apartment complexes popping up next to them. Do you not get that it's all relative? If California was building enough homes for its population growth and now it isn't--that certainly impacts prices. This is why Japan has cheap homes--even though they have tough zoning laws. It's all a game of manipulation. Yes, other states have zoning laws, but they don't cripple new housing development. California has absurd laws that allow neighbors to challenge homes being built on empty lots or about the design choices of someone else's home. You claim to be for freedom in another comment then defend this? Which is it? Do you want an open market or not? Or are you just for what benefits you? That's fine, but be honest about it. > not everyone has to live in the same city, and there's always more land to build on This is the stupid and selfish talking again. This is why the Bay Area has workers living in Gilroy and Livermore commuting to SF and San Jose. This isn't good for anyone. San Francisco doesn't have to stay 2 stories tall... that's all a charade to prevent housing supply increasing. >But plenty (most? idk) of those who left the area still stayed elsewhere in CA. I actually don't disagree with this, but curious if you can cite anything because I had workers move to Florida, Montana, Colorado, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, NYC, Utah... and none of them ever returned. I do think a lot stayed in California--I for one moved from SF to Burlingame and then to Sacramento then to San Diego. I do think there would be some interesting migration patterns to track.

threatofrain 3y ago
SF is the 2nd densest place in the US, and is several times denser than Tokyo and London. The population is small but the land is even smaller. If you want to go anywhere in your car you might spend 10-15 minutes parking. The classic SF look is one of homes glued side by side with no room for trees. If SF wants to expand then they are due for a massive infrastructure overhaul. Meanwhile, what is wrong with building in San Jose?
- diogenescynic 3y ago
  > several times denser than Tokyo and London I just looked at the population density by square mile and SF is not that far ahead of Tokyo and I have a feeling those statistics are either old or inaccurate. There is exponentially more foot traffic in Tokyo and London than in SF, so while I see that the statistic you're referring to does exist--I would question whether they are using similar methodologies or there is something else throwing this off. Tokyo has skyscrapers all over and people everywhere. You can easily build more than two story row houses--and the quality of life would actually improve. That's why people find NYC desirable--the population density. >If you want to go anywhere in your car you might spend 10-15 minutes parking. So take public transportation? Not everyone needs to live in a SFH with a garage. >Meanwhile, what is wrong with building in San Jose? I for one don't want to live in San Jose. It's boring and the weather sucks. Why is this the solution to San Francisco's housing shortage? Why do they want to attract homeless people they can't help but not want to build houses for people who actually want to live there? Why can't San Francisco solve its own problems? Houses don't need to be artificially limited to 2 stories. They should increase housing limits to 6-8 stories and allow supply to increase to match demand. San Francisco just makes it difficult/impossible to build with useless permitting processes. The only people who benefit are existing home owners.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Also, SF's terrain isn't suitable for skyscrapers. They still have some, but they cost extra to build, and some have sunken.

threatofrain 3y ago

SF is the 2nd densest place in the US, and is several times denser than Tokyo and London. The population is small but the land is even smaller. If you want to go anywhere in your car you might spend 10-15 minutes parking. The classic SF look is one of homes glued side by side with no room for trees. If SF wants to expand then they are due for a massive infrastructure overhaul. Meanwhile, what is wrong with building in San Jose?

diogenescynic 3y ago
> several times denser than Tokyo and London I just looked at the population density by square mile and SF is not that far ahead of Tokyo and I have a feeling those statistics are either old or inaccurate. There is exponentially more foot traffic in Tokyo and London than in SF, so while I see that the statistic you're referring to does exist--I would question whether they are using similar methodologies or there is something else throwing this off. Tokyo has skyscrapers all over and people everywhere. You can easily build more than two story row houses--and the quality of life would actually improve. That's why people find NYC desirable--the population density. >If you want to go anywhere in your car you might spend 10-15 minutes parking. So take public transportation? Not everyone needs to live in a SFH with a garage. >Meanwhile, what is wrong with building in San Jose? I for one don't want to live in San Jose. It's boring and the weather sucks. Why is this the solution to San Francisco's housing shortage? Why do they want to attract homeless people they can't help but not want to build houses for people who actually want to live there? Why can't San Francisco solve its own problems? Houses don't need to be artificially limited to 2 stories. They should increase housing limits to 6-8 stories and allow supply to increase to match demand. San Francisco just makes it difficult/impossible to build with useless permitting processes. The only people who benefit are existing home owners.
hot_gril 3y ago
Also, SF's terrain isn't suitable for skyscrapers. They still have some, but they cost extra to build, and some have sunken.