3 ms·
Where would you put them? The demand is IN SF, not in the hills outside, or in Oakland.
by cube13 14y ago
Where would you put them? The demand is IN SF, not in the hills outside, or in Oakland.
- w1ntermute 14y agoHow about building upwards? Learn to think in three dimensions.
- cube13 14y agoEarthquake territory, which severely limits how far up you can go.
- w1ntermute 14y agoBullshit. That isn't a problem for Tokyo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Tokyo_Panorama_night.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Tokyo_Panorama... I remember someone from Vancouver saying the same thing about that city in a previous HN thread on this topic. Earthquakes are just an excuse used by NIMBYs who want to preserve their oh so precious "bay view".
- davidw 14y agoWhich is why the financial district was wiped off the map during the 1989 earthquake, whereas lower units such as those in the marina survived without problems?
- malandrew 14y agoThe Marina was wiped off the map in the 89 earthquake. It's built entirely on landfill and suffers from terrible liquefaction. The buildings there suffered bad structural damage and many people who lived in the Marina at the time moved elsewhere because of all the damage, making room for all the yuppies that took over that neighborhood. So long as the foundation is bedrock, there is nothing preventing the building of highrises in San Francisco. We have the technology.
- jvm 14y agoThere is actually tons of demand in silicon valley but development there is mostly illegal. Mountain View recently rejected Google's request for mixed use zoning in the Googleplex which IMO is just gratuitous nimbyism (it's not even in anyone's back yard!). This is probably related to so many silicon valley types living in SF instead of anywhere near their work.