4 ms·
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 hou
by 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 agoThere 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 agoKeep 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 agoThat's Marin, where all the rich professionals who work in SF live, and where they intentionally prevent development because they like their bucolic atmosphere.
- sanoli 13y agoSo that's what that Dead Kennedys song was about..!
- michaelochurch 13y agoNo, I don't live in SF. I just don't see why it should be turned into a New York clone. I've lived in New York for 7 years and I'll be leaving (at least for a while) soon and there is exactly one major negative of New York: the cost of real estate. Of course, there are cultural problems-- douchebags, shitty cutthroat people, unimaginative technology scene-- but all of that garbage flows directly from the extreme cost of living. Given that San Francisco has now been fully infected by the one major negative of Manhattan, and is already experiencing the attendant cultural complications, it really has nothing to lose by fully Manhattanizing.
- Apocryphon 13y agoThat's a grand idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5032555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5032555 the author has said that there's a far more modest development plan somewhat mirroring his proposal: http://www.grandboulevard.net http://www.grandboulevard.net
- melling 13y agoMake it extremely convenient to travel to and from SF from a couple of directions at a distance of 25-50 miles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
- thwarted 13y agoAnd they could still call it the "Shanghai Maglev", considering San Francisco's history with Shanghaiing[0]. Although, in a way, the Bay Area is already Shanghaied without a solid method of medium distance transportation. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghaiing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghaiing
- samstave 13y agoIn-valley transport actually sucks. I commute from Alameda to Mountain View - it takes 2.5 hours via public transport. :( (37 miles). Bike --> Bart --> Cal-Train --> Bike (and reverse, $20 total) This is one thing that interestingly has been both ignored and solved by tech companies. FB, Goog, Gene - they all have very effective troop transport. But by-in-large, silicon valley has done nothing to provide a solution to the problems with transportation and data access. (WRT data access: DSL wasn't available in the heart of SV for several years after it was widely avaialble. Cellular coverage from AT&T has had the SAME EXACT dead spots on 280 and 101 corridors for TEN FREAKING YEARS! -- No widely available wifi, data coverage on CalTrain and Bart is horrendous!)
- melling 13y ago37 miles should be about 15 minutes on the Google Maglev. Maybe Apple will chip in.
- samstave 13y agoMy badge doesn't work :(
- textminer 13y agoI commute from Oakland to Menlo Park. It's kooky how it's either a 40 minute drive (consistently) or a 100 minute bike->BART->shuttle, the latter being way more stressful due to transitions and multiple failure modes.
- rayiner 13y agoHow about the Chicago-ization? If San Francisco were as dense as the densest 47 square miles of Chicago, it could fit 1.1 million people: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak1exuXV7898dDRWUHNlZEZWeDdQdW9ZTW0xdV9ZbGc&usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak1exuXV7898dDR.... Manhattan is a different world of density. The daytime population (which is what you think of when you think Manhattan-like density) is over 3 million people in 22 square miles. Midtown Manhattan is probably at 200k+ people per square mile in the day time. My neighborhood in Chicago was ~50k per square mile, and it could seem pretty empty on the weekend (skyscrapers aside). If San Francisco were developed to that density uniformly, it could fit 2m+ people.
- clicks 13y agoSince you have considerable insight into politics, what do you reckon is the solution? What could be done to change zoning laws? What are the steps to take, policy-wise and politically, for San Francisco to able to Chicago-ize?
- rayiner 13y agoIn my opinion, city governments are about personalities. Mayors can wield tremendous authority, so a single person can drastically reshape a city (e.g. Giuliani and Bloomberg in New York). So I guess the hope for San Francisco would be to find a politically opportunistic mayor who realizes that: 1) tech could become to San Francisco what finance is to New York; 2) most of those tech yuppies want to live in a modern city not a quaint charming one, and moves aggressively to court that demographic. Of course any such reform is a long shot. It's hard to change the character of a city. The best hope for San Francisco is for the tech industry to find it worth staying in the city despite the costs (like finance has done with New York). Otherwise, you might just see a lot of that growth shift to friendlier places like Seattle.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoThis is exactly right. SF could embrace the notion that it was going to be the Manhattan of the West Coast and that would really change both the economics and the whole feel of the bay area. (it would actually be larger than San Jose in terms of population) Or not, SF politics (like many California cities) are pretty dysfunctional.