4 ms·

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 g

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.

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.