4 ms·
The point is not dominance contests, the point is people want to keep their low density housing even as housing costs rise in their city. Imagine if you lived
by sliverstorm 13y ago
The point is not dominance contests, the point is people want to keep their low density housing even as housing costs rise in their city.
Imagine if you lived in Hawaii, and the island was just starting to become popular because it is so nice. Everyone was moving there, and rents were going through the roof because there is nowhere to expand. What you want isn't Manhattan sky-rises on your little island; you want cheap, pre-discovery Hawaii with its thatch huts and casual atmosphere back.
- mc32 13y agoAh, yes, let's have our 50's idyll back. That's what we need. The world obviously has not changed a bit since, so the neighborhoods don't need to meet any change.
- sliverstorm 13y agoI didn't say it was a tenable position, just pointing out what I believe the complaint is actually about.
- drob 13y agoIn general, I agree that building up can harm the character of a neighborhood, but this is often presented in the context of SF and Oakland as a false choice. The difference between skyrocketing prices and stable ones is on the order of 3,000 new units per year, not 30,000. This is a goal we can hit with skyrises restricted to one part of town, or with three family homes in place of a lot of single family homes, or in a number of other tasteful ways. It's not as if 500,000 techies are moving to Oakland at once. It's a slow trickle, but, with a fixed supply, prices spike.
- ameister14 13y agoHawaii is an interesting example. You should check out this supreme court case: (HHA v. Midkiff) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/467/229 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/467/229 Basically, a few people owned a majority of the homes on Hawaii, and there was a supreme court case about the right of the state to seize and redistribute them.
- sliverstorm 13y agoI'm not sure I can see strong ties between that case and this issue, but it is an interesting case! Thank you for the link :)
- 27182818284 13y ago>The point is not dominance contests, the point is people want to keep their low density housing even as housing costs rise in their city. I was told by an SF native that the problem was also one of wanting to keep older housing rather—some historic styling reasons. Does anyone know more about that aspect? I mean every city / town has historically designated homes, is there a more aggressive form of general legislation like that preventing new housing?
- WalterSear 13y agoFWIW, the unhip parts of San Francisco have had relatively stable rent and housing costs. It's just the 'cool' parts that took off, and then the 'cool' parts of Oakland. The last time I looked, it was only slightly pricier where I live in SF, compared to even 10 years ago, when I moved here.
- yapcguy 13y agoI don't think it's preventing new housing. Take a look at all the new developments going up along Market St and in SOMA. They are very ugly. Absolutely no character whatsoever. Not sure what the legislation is regarding maintaining existing buildings. Twitter has hung an awful sign outside their historic building. Butt ugly.
- WalterSear 13y agoExcept Oakland really sucked before the late 90s/early 2000s gentrification happened. In other words, they don't want pre-discovery Hawaii back - they want post-discovery Hawaii back and for all these latecomers with more money than them to fuck off.
- sliverstorm 13y agoRight, Hawaii is not a perfect parallel, but rather how I expect things look like through their eyes. Their perception is their reality.