6 ms·

I've long thought that the bay area's major problem is not necessarily problems with San Francisco proper (though the strong aversion to high-rises while compla

I've long thought that the bay area's major problem is not necessarily problems with San Francisco proper (though the strong aversion to high-rises while complaining about the increasingly cut-throat and expensive real estate market is hilarious to me), but that the "outer boroughs" are so incredibly unattractive because the transit system is incredibly inadequate. Living in Queens, Brooklyn, hell even Jersey is an incredibly reasonable option if you live in New York. You trade some commuting time for lower prices, and certainly Flushing doesn't have the same appeal as SoHo. But it's never a question of "oh my god it's after midnight how am I going to get home?" like I experienced when living in the bay area. It almost seems like San Francisco has a huge aversion to becoming a metropolis, but the problem is that the city really doesn't have a choice in the matter.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
"It almost seems like San Francisco has a huge aversion to becoming a metropolis, but the problem is that the city really doesn't have a choice in the matter." You've hit the nail on the head. Something will have to give, as while rents can go up forever, citizen's income won't.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > You've hit the nail on the head. Something will have to give, as while rents can go up forever, citizen's income won't. Since the income of people who will choose to live in the city places an upper limit on market rents, this is pretty clearly untrue -- either rents can go up forever and so can citizen's incomes or neither can go up forever. I think that, given sufficient transit infrastructure to allow people who can't afford to live in the city proper to commute in to perform essential jobs to support those who do live in the city, that -- whether it is desirable or not -- the situation is more that both rents and the income of residents of the City and County of San Francisco can go up without bound, as residing in the City itself becomes more and more elite/exclusive.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    I apologize that my comment was not clear. The income of existing citizens will reach an upper limit, and they'll be pushed out by those with much higher income bounds. In San Francisco's quest to preserve its character, its pushing out the very people who create the character, and its turning itself into London proper, where only the very wealthy can afford to reside. Citation re: London: http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/09/mapping-gentrification http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/09/mapping-gentr...
ChuckMcM 13y ago
"It almost seems like San Francisco has a huge aversion to becoming a metropolis, but the problem is that the city really doesn't have a choice in the matter." I've lived in the Bay Area for 30 years and this is my take on it as well. The city of San Francisco (and by that I mean its government) sounds like a 35 year old insisting they are still a teenager. The most interesting thing to watch was that some development "snuck in" in the south of market area and that really really surprised people in terms of people living there. When I moved here SoMa was 'warehouses, drunks, and a train station." Now it is a growing and thriving community of the new executive class. Oops.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
cylinder 13y ago
This is exactly the problem. If people stop thinking of SF as its own city and rather just an expensive neighborhood in the larger "city" of the Bay Area, they wouldn't clamor so much about high costs. It's the lack of good transit connecting all these scattered neighborhoods that is the main problem.
habosa 13y ago
This. Transportation in the bay area is awful. I lived in San Jose and it would take me 2+ hours to get to SF by public transit, even at peak times. If I was in SF after midnight, I was literally stuck for the night. One time I had to take an airport SuperShuttle back to SJC just to get anywhere near my apt. because I tried to leave SF at 11pm on a Sunday. I can't even imagine what would happen if it was that hard to get between Newark and NYC.
- jowiar 13y ago
  San Jose to SF is, by East Coast standards, a pretty long ways. Newark to New York is about 10 miles. SF to San Jose is about 50 - more comparable to New York to New Brunswick or Trenton or Stamford. Find me a 50-ish-mile distance in the US that is easier to cover by public transit than SF/San Jose. Boston/Providence? DC/Baltimore? Philadelphia/Wilmington? New York/Trenton? Comparable at best, but in all cases, you're generally talking the absolute far edge of regional rail that runs hourly at best.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    The far-end (~50 miles) of the mainline regional rail line in Philly (used to be the R5, I forget what it's called after they renamed it) has half-hour coverage in the mornings for commutes, settling back on hourly during the day. To be fair that is unusually good coverage, but it is certainly possible to do elsewhere.
    - Apocryphon 13y ago
      Certainly with the wealth of the Bay Area, it be a shame if we didn't at least try to create such a system for convenience.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Part of the difference may be that several of the communities along the R5 near Philly are affluent for the area (or in general, in some cases (Gladwyne)). Transit to poorer areas like Upper Darby isn't quite as nice.
LordHumungous 13y ago
I recently spent some time in SF for the first time, coming from Seattle, and I was amazed to find that the transit is barely on par with Seattle's (which is not a compliment) despite the fact that SF is a much denser, more urban city. Bart is a joke- there's a single line within the actual city.

toomuchtodo 13y ago

"It almost seems like San Francisco has a huge aversion to becoming a metropolis, but the problem is that the city really doesn't have a choice in the matter." You've hit the nail on the head. Something will have to give, as while rents can go up forever, citizen's income won't.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> You've hit the nail on the head. Something will have to give, as while rents can go up forever, citizen's income won't. Since the income of people who will choose to live in the city places an upper limit on market rents, this is pretty clearly untrue -- either rents can go up forever and so can citizen's incomes or neither can go up forever. I think that, given sufficient transit infrastructure to allow people who can't afford to live in the city proper to commute in to perform essential jobs to support those who do live in the city, that -- whether it is desirable or not -- the situation is more that both rents and the income of residents of the City and County of San Francisco can go up without bound, as residing in the City itself becomes more and more elite/exclusive.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  I apologize that my comment was not clear. The income of existing citizens will reach an upper limit, and they'll be pushed out by those with much higher income bounds. In San Francisco's quest to preserve its character, its pushing out the very people who create the character, and its turning itself into London proper, where only the very wealthy can afford to reside. Citation re: London: http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/09/mapping-gentrification http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/09/mapping-gentr...

ChuckMcM 13y ago

"It almost seems like San Francisco has a huge aversion to becoming a metropolis, but the problem is that the city really doesn't have a choice in the matter." I've lived in the Bay Area for 30 years and this is my take on it as well. The city of San Francisco (and by that I mean its government) sounds like a 35 year old insisting they are still a teenager. The most interesting thing to watch was that some development "snuck in" in the south of market area and that really really surprised people in terms of people living there. When I moved here SoMa was 'warehouses, drunks, and a train station." Now it is a growing and thriving community of the new executive class. Oops.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

cylinder 13y ago

This is exactly the problem. If people stop thinking of SF as its own city and rather just an expensive neighborhood in the larger "city" of the Bay Area, they wouldn't clamor so much about high costs. It's the lack of good transit connecting all these scattered neighborhoods that is the main problem.

habosa 13y ago

This. Transportation in the bay area is awful. I lived in San Jose and it would take me 2+ hours to get to SF by public transit, even at peak times. If I was in SF after midnight, I was literally stuck for the night. One time I had to take an airport SuperShuttle back to SJC just to get anywhere near my apt. because I tried to leave SF at 11pm on a Sunday. I can't even imagine what would happen if it was that hard to get between Newark and NYC.

jowiar 13y ago
San Jose to SF is, by East Coast standards, a pretty long ways. Newark to New York is about 10 miles. SF to San Jose is about 50 - more comparable to New York to New Brunswick or Trenton or Stamford. Find me a 50-ish-mile distance in the US that is easier to cover by public transit than SF/San Jose. Boston/Providence? DC/Baltimore? Philadelphia/Wilmington? New York/Trenton? Comparable at best, but in all cases, you're generally talking the absolute far edge of regional rail that runs hourly at best.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The far-end (~50 miles) of the mainline regional rail line in Philly (used to be the R5, I forget what it's called after they renamed it) has half-hour coverage in the mornings for commutes, settling back on hourly during the day. To be fair that is unusually good coverage, but it is certainly possible to do elsewhere.
  - Apocryphon 13y ago
    Certainly with the wealth of the Bay Area, it be a shame if we didn't at least try to create such a system for convenience.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Part of the difference may be that several of the communities along the R5 near Philly are affluent for the area (or in general, in some cases (Gladwyne)). Transit to poorer areas like Upper Darby isn't quite as nice.

LordHumungous 13y ago

I recently spent some time in SF for the first time, coming from Seattle, and I was amazed to find that the transit is barely on par with Seattle's (which is not a compliment) despite the fact that SF is a much denser, more urban city. Bart is a joke- there's a single line within the actual city.