4 ms·

Article has great points, but I must remind everyone of the unbelievably rapid pace the city is already being developed. Business in SOMA, let alone its status

Article has great points, but I must remind everyone of the unbelievably rapid pace the city is already being developed. Business in SOMA, let alone its status as an extension of the Valley itself, practically didn't exist 15 years ago; the real estate boom saw a huge number of affordable(ish) apartments turned into crazy-expensive condos that can sit vacant for months before a purchase, and the real estate bubble never popped on single-family homes in the more appealing neighborhoods. This has a nearly immeasurable effect on its demographics and tax base that the city can hardly keep up with. It also wouldn't hurt if resources were allocated for construction projects to be much more accelerated. I don't understand why large-building construction takes 3x as long in this city as others (and no, its not just permits/redtape). Is more, and rapid, development critical today? Sure, maybe. Do I support it? Yes. But its complicated...

asdfdsa1234 13y ago
Can you explain why the city getting more tax revenue and its demographics becoming more affluent are a problem for it to keep up with?
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  Rich people tend to be more effective NIMBY-ites.
  - jff 13y ago
    The existing San Franciscans seem to be pretty effective NIMBY-ites too... and for a city that seems so proud of being progressive, they can be pretty damn reactionary about changing anything.
- hack_edu 13y ago
  I won't admit to being an expert, but public policy is a balancing act that doesn't seem to be keeping pace with the residential and business demographic shifts. Giuliani did an impecable job at it in New York, but its hard to see how his plans could be applied in such a different city and context.
rayiner 13y ago
It's incredible to me that people think San Francisco is all that dense or rapidly developing. It has half the people of Manhattan in twice the area yet still rents between the two cities are approaching parity. Much of the city is a glorified suburb and needs to be razed and developed into proper civilization as quickly as they can work the bulldozers.
- wilfra 13y ago
  A lot of people like San Francisco the way it is. Razing half the city and building skyscrapers is their worst nightmare. Especially if doing so would just be a way to temporarily house more tech workers in the middle of what may be another bubble. After people flooded the city and drove up rents during the dot com boom and then fled the city when the bubble burst, real San Franciscans were still there. And if it happens again, they'll still be there afterward. And in 50 or 100 years, they and their families will still be there. How many coders working at startups in the city today can say the same? Who do you think should have more say in the future of the city? Those who care deeply about it's past, present and future - or those who are only looking out for their own short and medium term housing needs? The old guard - who have the power - wont allow your suggestion to happen in our lifetime. The best you can hope for is slow, methodical babysteps in that direction.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    California is an undivided sovereign entity--the City of San Francisco is merely an administrative subdivision. The relevant constituency is the population of California, and any Californian who wants to live in San Francisco should be able to do so without protectionist zoning regulations that put up artificial roadblocks to migration.
    - wilfra 13y ago
      You can try making that argument to the folks who handle zoning for the City of San Francisco. Seems unlikely that will persuade them to let you demolish half the city, but it's worth a shot I guess.
- 13y ago

asdfdsa1234 13y ago

Can you explain why the city getting more tax revenue and its demographics becoming more affluent are a problem for it to keep up with?

bradleyjg 13y ago
Rich people tend to be more effective NIMBY-ites.
- jff 13y ago
  The existing San Franciscans seem to be pretty effective NIMBY-ites too... and for a city that seems so proud of being progressive, they can be pretty damn reactionary about changing anything.
hack_edu 13y ago
I won't admit to being an expert, but public policy is a balancing act that doesn't seem to be keeping pace with the residential and business demographic shifts. Giuliani did an impecable job at it in New York, but its hard to see how his plans could be applied in such a different city and context.

rayiner 13y ago

It's incredible to me that people think San Francisco is all that dense or rapidly developing. It has half the people of Manhattan in twice the area yet still rents between the two cities are approaching parity. Much of the city is a glorified suburb and needs to be razed and developed into proper civilization as quickly as they can work the bulldozers.

wilfra 13y ago
A lot of people like San Francisco the way it is. Razing half the city and building skyscrapers is their worst nightmare. Especially if doing so would just be a way to temporarily house more tech workers in the middle of what may be another bubble. After people flooded the city and drove up rents during the dot com boom and then fled the city when the bubble burst, real San Franciscans were still there. And if it happens again, they'll still be there afterward. And in 50 or 100 years, they and their families will still be there. How many coders working at startups in the city today can say the same? Who do you think should have more say in the future of the city? Those who care deeply about it's past, present and future - or those who are only looking out for their own short and medium term housing needs? The old guard - who have the power - wont allow your suggestion to happen in our lifetime. The best you can hope for is slow, methodical babysteps in that direction.
- rayiner 13y ago
  California is an undivided sovereign entity--the City of San Francisco is merely an administrative subdivision. The relevant constituency is the population of California, and any Californian who wants to live in San Francisco should be able to do so without protectionist zoning regulations that put up artificial roadblocks to migration.
  - wilfra 13y ago
    You can try making that argument to the folks who handle zoning for the City of San Francisco. Seems unlikely that will persuade them to let you demolish half the city, but it's worth a shot I guess.
13y ago