4 ms·

" I don’t have any answers to how to make it better. I’m not even sure it can be made better. " Sorry, but isn't the answer just to change the zoning laws prev

" I don’t have any answers to how to make it better. I’m not even sure it can be made better. " Sorry, but isn't the answer just to change the zoning laws preventing residential buildings over 3 stories from being built in most neighborhoods? This seems pretty straightforward.

dredmorbius 13y ago
There are ultimately other constraints on density. For California, as with much of the West, water is an ultimate limit. Though the argument that San Francisco cannot increase housing densities on account of water access is ... even in this drought year ... likely invalid. Largely as the housing is being constructed elsewhere within the same larger watershed. There are other constraints. San Francisco traffic, parking, and transit are all fairly strained as it is, particularly in the the denser core of the City (downtown, SOMA, Mission). Access from the outer neighborhoods to the core can be as long or longer than suburban commutes, though bicycles offer a pretty good year-round alternative. For San Francisco, biting the bullet and allowing additional housing to be built, yes, even housing that is primarily marketed to the nouveau riche and upscale, would likely relieve much of the pressure for the rest of the community. Another solution, of course, would be to provide more housing and more attractive housing throughout the rest of the region. As Geoffrey Nunberg recently commented icily, Palo Alto is a wonderful place to raise a car (and PA is positively urban compared to much of the greater, or should I say, worser, Silicon Valley). While much of SF is limited to heights of 3 stories, the Valley is, with very, very few scattered exceptions, one. Accepting that it is in fact part of a larger megapolis and acting like it would be a net benefit. Too would be for employers to locate to other locations accessible via transit. Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, and other stops along BART have the benefit of a commute system with high levels of service and a broad collection region. And yet the bulk of tech jobs continue to be located either along the 101 corridor (a hellhole), in the South Bay, or, increasingly, in San Francisco. With the exception of the last, transit is a barely viable option, and even within SF, unless you're in the dense cores (again: downtown, SOMA, Mission), access to what transit there is down the Peninsula is highly limited. The dedicated company shuttles are an extremely appropriate response to the situation, and the outrage against them wholly misplaced. Is this a bubble? Probably. Are some of the new arrivals annoying and socially maladroit? Quite. Does that change any of my commentary? No. San Francisco isn't the only region faced with high housing costs: New York, London, and Mumbai all have similar (and arguably worse) challenges. There are many parts of the world, and numerous of those within the US, which would love to have these problems. Addressing the situation rationally, unfortunately, seems difficult to impossible, and sadly many of the tantrum-throwing children (on all sides of the issue) draw the most attention. Shame on the media for that.

dredmorbius 13y ago

There are ultimately other constraints on density. For California, as with much of the West, water is an ultimate limit. Though the argument that San Francisco cannot increase housing densities on account of water access is ... even in this drought year ... likely invalid. Largely as the housing is being constructed elsewhere within the same larger watershed. There are other constraints. San Francisco traffic, parking, and transit are all fairly strained as it is, particularly in the the denser core of the City (downtown, SOMA, Mission). Access from the outer neighborhoods to the core can be as long or longer than suburban commutes, though bicycles offer a pretty good year-round alternative. For San Francisco, biting the bullet and allowing additional housing to be built, yes, even housing that is primarily marketed to the nouveau riche and upscale, would likely relieve much of the pressure for the rest of the community. Another solution, of course, would be to provide more housing and more attractive housing throughout the rest of the region. As Geoffrey Nunberg recently commented icily, Palo Alto is a wonderful place to raise a car (and PA is positively urban compared to much of the greater, or should I say, worser, Silicon Valley). While much of SF is limited to heights of 3 stories, the Valley is, with very, very few scattered exceptions, one. Accepting that it is in fact part of a larger megapolis and acting like it would be a net benefit. Too would be for employers to locate to other locations accessible via transit. Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, and other stops along BART have the benefit of a commute system with high levels of service and a broad collection region. And yet the bulk of tech jobs continue to be located either along the 101 corridor (a hellhole), in the South Bay, or, increasingly, in San Francisco. With the exception of the last, transit is a barely viable option, and even within SF, unless you're in the dense cores (again: downtown, SOMA, Mission), access to what transit there is down the Peninsula is highly limited. The dedicated company shuttles are an extremely appropriate response to the situation, and the outrage against them wholly misplaced. Is this a bubble? Probably. Are some of the new arrivals annoying and socially maladroit? Quite. Does that change any of my commentary? No. San Francisco isn't the only region faced with high housing costs: New York, London, and Mumbai all have similar (and arguably worse) challenges. There are many parts of the world, and numerous of those within the US, which would love to have these problems. Addressing the situation rationally, unfortunately, seems difficult to impossible, and sadly many of the tantrum-throwing children (on all sides of the issue) draw the most attention. Shame on the media for that.