11 ms·

I had to have a chuckle at these numbers... "The population is also growing. From 2000 to 2010, 28,500 new San Franciscans arrived in the city. From 2010 to 20

I had to have a chuckle at these numbers... "The population is also growing. From 2000 to 2010, 28,500 new San Franciscans arrived in the city. From 2010 to 2012, the city welcomed another 20,600 inhabitants in just three years." Oh, is that all? I live in Austin, TX, the #1 destination in the U.S. for people aged 25-34. [1] You got 28,500 people in 10 years? We get that many new people every year. In fact, perhaps even as often as every 6 months; 158 people move to Austin every day by another estimate. [2] You have to increase the supply of rental and housing units in order to accommodate population growth. Austin is struggling with it, too, but condos are springing up downtown. San Francisco has no choice; Austin is barely managing to handle the growth, and we're a growth-happy boom town teeming with young folks. (Yes, it's pretty awesome to run a startup here too--I'm having a blast!) You must build more housing. If you are an SF resident, vote people in who will support new housing. Vote out the politicians who curb growth with ridiculous laws. Otherwise, all the cool people will end up in Austin (and other cities that can better manage the growth. ;) [1]: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/for-people-on-the-move-austin-is-a-place-to-stop-a/nW75T/ http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/for-people-on-the-m... [2]: http://www.realtyaustin.com/blog/how-to-keep-up-with-158-people-moving-to-austin-per-day.html http://www.realtyaustin.com/blog/how-to-keep-up-with-158-peo...

bicknergseng 13y ago
Austin: 3,262.86 people/sq mi SF: 17,620.2/sq mi Austin: 272 sq mi, growing SF: 46.87 sq mi, fixed on 3 sides by water and a 4th by other metropolises Not saying that SF's development managers don't need to rethink their restrictive development policies, but comparing any city that doesn't have fixed boundaries to SF is pretty apples and oranges.
- HelloMcFly 13y ago
  I think it makes it even more relevant. Fast growth isn't easy on cities, but at least places like Austin have the luxury of being able to grow out and up. San Francisco has little opportunity to grow out, so the need to grow vertically is even more pressing.
novum 13y ago
I live in SF and it's certainly far from perfect. California no doubt has its share of problems too. But as noted in comments below, I would never -- not ever -- consider living in a state run by people like Rick Perry.
- flyt 13y ago
  Texas isn't really run by Rick Perry, it has a weak governor system. The legislature is the major problem.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Yeah, but he said "people like", and don't most of them qualify?
- jborden13 13y ago
  You're in luck - he's leaving next year: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/rick-perry-2014-reelection-texas-governor-93829.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/rick-perry-2014-reelec... When should we expect you? Just kidding, you'll be out of the country shortly because he'll be President </sarcasm>
- saryant 13y ago
  As noted by another commenter, the governor of Texas has very little power compared to most other governors. The Speaker of the House wields most of the power in Texas.
- jacoblyles 13y ago
  Texas seems much better managed than California, judging by the news. And it does it without an income tax. Sounds pretty good to me. I'm not bothered by a governor with an accent, as long as he keeps the books balanced, the crime down, and the red tape light.
- brownbat 13y ago
  Are there a bunch of uplifting stories about Californian, and specifically SFran, governance I'm missing?
emmett 13y ago
The issue is that SF can't sprawl like Austin, and there is a large contingent of people who don't want density. Personally I support increased density and housing in SF, but it's an uphill battle with the other residents who want to fight the "Manhattanization" of SF.
- joonix 13y ago
  There is nothing really lending SF towards big-mega-dense city status. Manhattan has bedrock and flat terrain, which is great for building underground subways and tall buildings and letting people walk around. SF has hilly terrain and earthquakes. I hate to say it, but maybe we should just leave SF to be sort of a "jewel." Let the tech companies and employees who can afford to live there remain. Then, why not pick a place like Oakland or Alameda or perhaps somewhere more south of San Francisco, and build the mega dense business center of our dreams? Maybe it makes more sense to recognize that SF is beautiful, rare, and limited in space, and leave it be. After all, it's basically the size of some "elite" neighborhoods in other big cities. Do the poor have a right to be accommodated in SF? There is a ton of space around it that can be developed more affordably and let's not forget about the rest of the country. No, I don't live in SF. I just don't see why it should be turned into a New York clone.
  - samstave 13y ago
    Keep your grubby hands off Alameda!!! Which really is the jewel in the bay area. SHhhh.... Actually - what I would prefer is to create a massive floating platform and build a large number of micro-apartments on this platform - with workspace, conference rooms, cafes and grocery. Put this floating place just off shore and let singles and couples rent the places.
  - nostrademons 13y ago
    That's Marin, where all the rich professionals who work in SF live, and where they intentionally prevent development because they like their bucolic atmosphere.
    - 13y ago
minimax 13y ago
It's true there is some new housing availability in the form of condos in central Austin, but my experience was that the majority of new Austinites moved into houses in the suburbs -- Round Rock, Pflugerville, Cedar Park, Buda, Kyle, etc. Suburban Austin is starting to look a lot like suburban Houston, and all that sprawl comes with its attendant problems. It's also not clear what Austin is going to do in the long term about it's water problems. Austin is a great town, but you can't just sit there and say "Hey SF, why can't you be more like Austin?"
- reeses 13y ago
  Most comparisons I hear involving Austin run along the lines of "the San Francisco of Texas," or "next to San Francisco..." Except surfing. No one ever talks about surfing in the Austin area.
  - drivingmenuts 13y ago
    Bubba don't surf.
  - BryantD 13y ago
    But on the flip side, nobody ever talks about barbecue in San Francisco, so it balances out. (Hill Country Barbecue in Menlo Park is pretty solid, wouldn't be laughed out of Austin.)
- nilkn 13y ago
  Suburbia is not always sexy, but it is very cost-effective for residents and it provides options for people that want or need them. Houston gets flak for its miles of suburbs, but if you want to live in a nice wooded neighborhood right in the middle there are a number to choose from: Bellaire, West University Place, Memorial, Hunter's Creek Village, and of course River Oaks. Just be prepared to shell out 3-4x as much as you'd need to out in a suburb. Make that 4-10x for River Oaks. Suburbia exists in places like Houston for two reasons: (1) there's space for it; (2) the vast majority of people don't believe in paying upwards of a million dollars (or more) for a house even if they can afford it. They'd prefer to commute than blow that kind of money just to not commute. The interesting problem that places like San Francisco and NYC face is that there simply aren't cheap suburbs. You've got a lot of people making a whole heck of a lot of money, but they have to be geographically located right in that particular place to continue making that money. There are so many of them that the prices skyrocket even outside the city proper. In the end, almost ironically, that money ends up losing a lot of its value because through competition with one another they all end up pushing housing prices to their limits.
thecatgoesmoo 13y ago
Your [1] link is hardly a source, and I don't think I'd call Austin the #1 destination for ... well, anyone. As another user posted, the density of SF is much greater, and it isn't getting any bigger.
hindsightbias 13y ago
> You must build more housing Funny, downtown Austin hasn't gotten any more affordable with all that fabulous building... I guess we should further experiment in 78704. If we bulldoze it, it will be cheaper.

bicknergseng 13y ago

Austin: 3,262.86 people/sq mi SF: 17,620.2/sq mi Austin: 272 sq mi, growing SF: 46.87 sq mi, fixed on 3 sides by water and a 4th by other metropolises Not saying that SF's development managers don't need to rethink their restrictive development policies, but comparing any city that doesn't have fixed boundaries to SF is pretty apples and oranges.

HelloMcFly 13y ago
I think it makes it even more relevant. Fast growth isn't easy on cities, but at least places like Austin have the luxury of being able to grow out and up. San Francisco has little opportunity to grow out, so the need to grow vertically is even more pressing.

novum 13y ago

I live in SF and it's certainly far from perfect. California no doubt has its share of problems too. But as noted in comments below, I would never -- not ever -- consider living in a state run by people like Rick Perry.

flyt 13y ago
Texas isn't really run by Rick Perry, it has a weak governor system. The legislature is the major problem.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Yeah, but he said "people like", and don't most of them qualify?
jborden13 13y ago
You're in luck - he's leaving next year: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/rick-perry-2014-reelection-texas-governor-93829.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/rick-perry-2014-reelec... When should we expect you? Just kidding, you'll be out of the country shortly because he'll be President </sarcasm>
saryant 13y ago
As noted by another commenter, the governor of Texas has very little power compared to most other governors. The Speaker of the House wields most of the power in Texas.
jacoblyles 13y ago
Texas seems much better managed than California, judging by the news. And it does it without an income tax. Sounds pretty good to me. I'm not bothered by a governor with an accent, as long as he keeps the books balanced, the crime down, and the red tape light.
brownbat 13y ago
Are there a bunch of uplifting stories about Californian, and specifically SFran, governance I'm missing?

emmett 13y ago

The issue is that SF can't sprawl like Austin, and there is a large contingent of people who don't want density. Personally I support increased density and housing in SF, but it's an uphill battle with the other residents who want to fight the "Manhattanization" of SF.

joonix 13y ago
There is nothing really lending SF towards big-mega-dense city status. Manhattan has bedrock and flat terrain, which is great for building underground subways and tall buildings and letting people walk around. SF has hilly terrain and earthquakes. I hate to say it, but maybe we should just leave SF to be sort of a "jewel." Let the tech companies and employees who can afford to live there remain. Then, why not pick a place like Oakland or Alameda or perhaps somewhere more south of San Francisco, and build the mega dense business center of our dreams? Maybe it makes more sense to recognize that SF is beautiful, rare, and limited in space, and leave it be. After all, it's basically the size of some "elite" neighborhoods in other big cities. Do the poor have a right to be accommodated in SF? There is a ton of space around it that can be developed more affordably and let's not forget about the rest of the country. No, I don't live in SF. I just don't see why it should be turned into a New York clone.
- samstave 13y ago
  Keep your grubby hands off Alameda!!! Which really is the jewel in the bay area. SHhhh.... Actually - what I would prefer is to create a massive floating platform and build a large number of micro-apartments on this platform - with workspace, conference rooms, cafes and grocery. Put this floating place just off shore and let singles and couples rent the places.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  That's Marin, where all the rich professionals who work in SF live, and where they intentionally prevent development because they like their bucolic atmosphere.
  - 13y ago

minimax 13y ago

It's true there is some new housing availability in the form of condos in central Austin, but my experience was that the majority of new Austinites moved into houses in the suburbs -- Round Rock, Pflugerville, Cedar Park, Buda, Kyle, etc. Suburban Austin is starting to look a lot like suburban Houston, and all that sprawl comes with its attendant problems. It's also not clear what Austin is going to do in the long term about it's water problems. Austin is a great town, but you can't just sit there and say "Hey SF, why can't you be more like Austin?"

reeses 13y ago
Most comparisons I hear involving Austin run along the lines of "the San Francisco of Texas," or "next to San Francisco..." Except surfing. No one ever talks about surfing in the Austin area.
- drivingmenuts 13y ago
  Bubba don't surf.
- BryantD 13y ago
  But on the flip side, nobody ever talks about barbecue in San Francisco, so it balances out. (Hill Country Barbecue in Menlo Park is pretty solid, wouldn't be laughed out of Austin.)
nilkn 13y ago
Suburbia is not always sexy, but it is very cost-effective for residents and it provides options for people that want or need them. Houston gets flak for its miles of suburbs, but if you want to live in a nice wooded neighborhood right in the middle there are a number to choose from: Bellaire, West University Place, Memorial, Hunter's Creek Village, and of course River Oaks. Just be prepared to shell out 3-4x as much as you'd need to out in a suburb. Make that 4-10x for River Oaks. Suburbia exists in places like Houston for two reasons: (1) there's space for it; (2) the vast majority of people don't believe in paying upwards of a million dollars (or more) for a house even if they can afford it. They'd prefer to commute than blow that kind of money just to not commute. The interesting problem that places like San Francisco and NYC face is that there simply aren't cheap suburbs. You've got a lot of people making a whole heck of a lot of money, but they have to be geographically located right in that particular place to continue making that money. There are so many of them that the prices skyrocket even outside the city proper. In the end, almost ironically, that money ends up losing a lot of its value because through competition with one another they all end up pushing housing prices to their limits.

thecatgoesmoo 13y ago

Your [1] link is hardly a source, and I don't think I'd call Austin the #1 destination for ... well, anyone. As another user posted, the density of SF is much greater, and it isn't getting any bigger.

hindsightbias 13y ago

> You must build more housing Funny, downtown Austin hasn't gotten any more affordable with all that fabulous building... I guess we should further experiment in 78704. If we bulldoze it, it will be cheaper.