5 ms·
I don't understand why people keep saying SF "needs" more density. Why? I'm assuming because the cost of living is so high? That is primarily caused by the P
by lubujackson 14y ago
I don't understand why people keep saying SF "needs" more density. Why? I'm assuming because the cost of living is so high? That is primarily caused by the Ponzi scheme of renter rights that make it so anyone renting for more than a few years is hugely disincentivized to move because they will lose their cheap rent, since their rents can never be increased to meet the market. So people stay in their crappy old apartment rather than upgrading, which reduces the inventory and drives up prices for everyone else.
Secondly, you don't just build apartments and you're done - a density increase requires more services to handle those new people. That's supermarkets, restaurants, hospitals, police, etc. All of that needs to be built up as well and usually isn't considered. If you DON'T add any of that, all you have done is reduce the services available for everyone in that area. What's the advantage of this again?
Finally, comparing the density of SF to Manhattan is not remotely accurate. Manhattan is the highest density part of NYC. SF contains a number of huge parks, mountainous areas like Twin Peaks, deeply residential areas like St. Francis Wood, etc. If you compare the density of the Mission vs. Greenwich Village or something like that, I could see it being relevant, but SF vs Manhattan is apples to oranges.
- iamwil 14y agoI came in to say your second point. For a given area, people often complain about parking, and jump to having more parking structures as a solution. But when you have more parking structures, you'll need wider roads.
- rayiner 14y agoManhattan is precisely the right thing to compare to San Francisco. San Francisco's borders are drawn in a way that encompasses what in other cities would just be the dense inner neighborhoods. E.g. Oakland is a separate city while Queens is part of New York City proper, but they're functionally and geographically equivalent. If you go neighborhood by neighborhood, you'll see that San Francisco isn't really very dense. No neighborhood besides Chinatown and the Tenderloin are more than 50,000 per square mile, and popular areas like the Mission are only 25,000 per square mile. In New York, the UES and UWS are over 100,000 per square mile. Greenwich Village/SoHo (same community area) is 60,000 per square mile. Chelsea is about 45,000 per square mile.
- juiceandjuice 14y agoThe tenderloin is 72,000 sq/mi.
- rayiner 14y agoCorrected.
- kansface 14y agoRenters rights play a comparatively small role in limiting supply. Last year, the city built something like 400 new units and removed something like 200. IE, the city could only accommodate something like 400 new residents last year. More than that number moved into the city. Quite a few of the new residents are also paid 6 figure salaries.
- rdouble 14y agoPeople compare the densities of SF and Manhattan because SF is the 2nd densest city outside of New York.