4 ms·

In case you haven't noticed sf is bounded by the Pacific Ocean. It can't just grow and it already has a very high housing density. The only area that can absorb

by hnriot 14y ago

In case you haven't noticed sf is bounded by the Pacific Ocean. It can't just grow and it already has a very high housing density. The only area that can absorb new housing is china basin (3rd st) and that is being developed. The rest is already full. Do we really want or feel that more people in sf is a good thing? Why not live down the peninsula or the east bay where there's an unlimited amount of space.

saosebastiao 14y ago
Even as early as the turn of the 20th century, there was private development on every single acre that was privately owned in Manhattan. It still grew and continued to be developed. You don't have to worry...if people stop liking cities, they will move to the peninsula or the east bay.
greggman 14y ago
It's certainly possible to grow SF up like NYC or HK. Both are bounded by water and yet manage to make more living quarters. As for whether building up and having more people is a good thing that really depends on the people, the culture and the management of the city. Personally Tokyo an awesome place to live with all kinds of activity, culture, etc and it has a population density much higher than SF so it's certainly true that an SF that grows up could be a great place.
- WildUtah 14y ago
  okyo an awesome place to live with all kinds of activity, culture, etc and it has a population density much higher than SF so it's certainly true that an SF that grows up could be a great place. But Tokyo's average building height is lower than San Francisco's already. Tokyo did not grow "up." Tokyo has double the density of SF by having much, much less parking and much narrower streets. Eighty-five percent of street miles -- or kilometers -- in Tokyo are single lane streets, not single lane each way or single with a parking lane but true single lane. Tokyo also has no truck with SF's absurd excess of easy, cheap, and free parking. Building up harms quality of life. If you want more density, and you do, then you need to eliminate parking and turn it into housing.
  - eshvk 14y ago
    > But Tokyo's average building height is lower than San Francisco's already. Tokyo did not grow "up." This is very interesting. I did not actually know this. However, the city will never go for this. They make a ton of money through parking fees, citations etc to turn this city into a car free zone. Also, although SF has a large number of exceptions, most Americans have a love affair with cars.
  - quanticle 14y ago
    >Building up harms quality of life. Proof? There is no shortage of demand for housing in Manhattan, despite massive "building up" there.
forrestthewoods 14y ago
There is extremely high demand and artificially limited supply. Without corruption land and buildings would be purchased at fair market value and additional housing units would be built up in their place. As it stands the few real estate owners can continuously increase prices without further investment because corrupt politics prevents any new competition. San Francisco has a love affair with beat-up 100 year old victorian houses and outrageously high prices. If I owned one of those houses I also wouldn't want to let any new real estate developers into my Cool Kids Club.
- dguaraglia 14y ago
  Excuse me, how is that a problem again? The same could be said of any exclusive area in the US. If you find San Francisco extremely expensive, then move elsewhere. Seriously.
rayiner 14y ago
And Manhattan is an island. And it has twice as many people as SF, and it isn't even full (pretty sparse on the west side around Washington Heights).
- viscanti 14y ago
  Manhattan also has significantly less potential for destructive earthquakes than San Francisco, making it much easier to build tall buildings. It's not just a matter of being bordered by water. A big part of it has to do with no one wanting to rent or build a 20+ story building in San Francisco. That tends to limit population density.
  - davidw 14y ago
    If you look at what fell over during the 89 earthquake in SF, it wasn't the tall buildings.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The problem isn't that you can't build 20+ story buildings in an earthquake zone or that people wouldn't want to live in them (see Japan, Taiwan, etc), but rather that nobody in San Francisco can get permits to build them.
  - greggman 14y ago
    Tokyo has far more earthquakes and far more tall buildings than SF. Besides SF has plenty of tall buildings even now. Is there something special about the existing tall buildings that would be different from new tall buildings? I guess I'm not quite following your point. As far as I know none of the existing tall buildings are having trouble finding people to rent them
    - 001sky 14y ago
      yes, there is sand and silt under parts of SF. new york is built on granite. the geologies are different. in sf you have to dig 15 stories for a basement. so its not just the seismic issues, but other factors of geology and geography: eg. you have the topo issues (hills). Then you have the SF summer/winds. Lastly, you have an existing stock of Victorian (actually, edwardian in most places) architecture that is worth keeping, for cultural reasons (/arguably).
eshvk 14y ago
> In case you haven't noticed sf is bounded by the Pacific Ocean. It can't just grow and it already has a very high housing density. The only area that can absorb new housing is china basin (3rd st) and that is being developed. The rest is already full. No, it doesn't. I live in the Haight (which is a key cultural mecca of the city). While, there certainly are gorgeous Victorian era houses (The Painted Ladies), most of the buildings are look like cute, unstable, four - five floor buildings which were probably built in the fifties or the sixties (Or certainly look like it). IMO, this place could do with a few shiny high rises. I am convinced that it should be possible to design a place that doesn't offend the aesthetic sensibilities of a neighborhood whilst helping organic growth. > Do we really want or feel that more people in sf is a good thing? Why not live down the peninsula or the east bay where there's an unlimited amount of space. This is not going to solve the problem. I used to ponder about why Austin which has roughly the same size and population as SF is not as packed or doesn't have as shitty a public transport system. I think there is a reason for that: It is because San Francisco acts like a cultural magnet for the rest of the bay, which means that irrespective of who actually lives/works here in the city, the presence of unlimited amount of space or job opportunities in the rest of the bay is not going to depress demand. I know people living in South/East bay, who keep looking for places. All these requests are driving up our rents and that hasn't been affected by the space constraints outside the city.
quanticle 14y ago
And Manhattan is an island. Yet, somehow, Manhattan has found a way to hold far more people than San Francisco. I

by hnriot 14y ago

saosebastiao 14y ago

Even as early as the turn of the 20th century, there was private development on every single acre that was privately owned in Manhattan. It still grew and continued to be developed. You don't have to worry...if people stop liking cities, they will move to the peninsula or the east bay.

greggman 14y ago

It's certainly possible to grow SF up like NYC or HK. Both are bounded by water and yet manage to make more living quarters. As for whether building up and having more people is a good thing that really depends on the people, the culture and the management of the city. Personally Tokyo an awesome place to live with all kinds of activity, culture, etc and it has a population density much higher than SF so it's certainly true that an SF that grows up could be a great place.

WildUtah 14y ago
okyo an awesome place to live with all kinds of activity, culture, etc and it has a population density much higher than SF so it's certainly true that an SF that grows up could be a great place. But Tokyo's average building height is lower than San Francisco's already. Tokyo did not grow "up." Tokyo has double the density of SF by having much, much less parking and much narrower streets. Eighty-five percent of street miles -- or kilometers -- in Tokyo are single lane streets, not single lane each way or single with a parking lane but true single lane. Tokyo also has no truck with SF's absurd excess of easy, cheap, and free parking. Building up harms quality of life. If you want more density, and you do, then you need to eliminate parking and turn it into housing.
- eshvk 14y ago
  > But Tokyo's average building height is lower than San Francisco's already. Tokyo did not grow "up." This is very interesting. I did not actually know this. However, the city will never go for this. They make a ton of money through parking fees, citations etc to turn this city into a car free zone. Also, although SF has a large number of exceptions, most Americans have a love affair with cars.
- quanticle 14y ago
  >Building up harms quality of life. Proof? There is no shortage of demand for housing in Manhattan, despite massive "building up" there.

forrestthewoods 14y ago

There is extremely high demand and artificially limited supply. Without corruption land and buildings would be purchased at fair market value and additional housing units would be built up in their place. As it stands the few real estate owners can continuously increase prices without further investment because corrupt politics prevents any new competition. San Francisco has a love affair with beat-up 100 year old victorian houses and outrageously high prices. If I owned one of those houses I also wouldn't want to let any new real estate developers into my Cool Kids Club.

dguaraglia 14y ago
Excuse me, how is that a problem again? The same could be said of any exclusive area in the US. If you find San Francisco extremely expensive, then move elsewhere. Seriously.

rayiner 14y ago

And Manhattan is an island. And it has twice as many people as SF, and it isn't even full (pretty sparse on the west side around Washington Heights).

viscanti 14y ago
Manhattan also has significantly less potential for destructive earthquakes than San Francisco, making it much easier to build tall buildings. It's not just a matter of being bordered by water. A big part of it has to do with no one wanting to rent or build a 20+ story building in San Francisco. That tends to limit population density.
- davidw 14y ago
  If you look at what fell over during the 89 earthquake in SF, it wasn't the tall buildings.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The problem isn't that you can't build 20+ story buildings in an earthquake zone or that people wouldn't want to live in them (see Japan, Taiwan, etc), but rather that nobody in San Francisco can get permits to build them.
- greggman 14y ago
  Tokyo has far more earthquakes and far more tall buildings than SF. Besides SF has plenty of tall buildings even now. Is there something special about the existing tall buildings that would be different from new tall buildings? I guess I'm not quite following your point. As far as I know none of the existing tall buildings are having trouble finding people to rent them
  - 001sky 14y ago
    yes, there is sand and silt under parts of SF. new york is built on granite. the geologies are different. in sf you have to dig 15 stories for a basement. so its not just the seismic issues, but other factors of geology and geography: eg. you have the topo issues (hills). Then you have the SF summer/winds. Lastly, you have an existing stock of Victorian (actually, edwardian in most places) architecture that is worth keeping, for cultural reasons (/arguably).

eshvk 14y ago

> In case you haven't noticed sf is bounded by the Pacific Ocean. It can't just grow and it already has a very high housing density. The only area that can absorb new housing is china basin (3rd st) and that is being developed. The rest is already full. No, it doesn't. I live in the Haight (which is a key cultural mecca of the city). While, there certainly are gorgeous Victorian era houses (The Painted Ladies), most of the buildings are look like cute, unstable, four - five floor buildings which were probably built in the fifties or the sixties (Or certainly look like it). IMO, this place could do with a few shiny high rises. I am convinced that it should be possible to design a place that doesn't offend the aesthetic sensibilities of a neighborhood whilst helping organic growth. > Do we really want or feel that more people in sf is a good thing? Why not live down the peninsula or the east bay where there's an unlimited amount of space. This is not going to solve the problem. I used to ponder about why Austin which has roughly the same size and population as SF is not as packed or doesn't have as shitty a public transport system. I think there is a reason for that: It is because San Francisco acts like a cultural magnet for the rest of the bay, which means that irrespective of who actually lives/works here in the city, the presence of unlimited amount of space or job opportunities in the rest of the bay is not going to depress demand. I know people living in South/East bay, who keep looking for places. All these requests are driving up our rents and that hasn't been affected by the space constraints outside the city.

quanticle 14y ago

And Manhattan is an island. Yet, somehow, Manhattan has found a way to hold far more people than San Francisco. I