11 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. I was told by an SF
by 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.