4 ms·

Because San Francisco greatly perceives itself, and desperately wants to remain, as a small friendly hamlet of sorts. It wants to have its cake and eat it too:

Because San Francisco greatly perceives itself, and desperately wants to remain, as a small friendly hamlet of sorts. It wants to have its cake and eat it too: the prestige and economy of a world city, and the friendliness and pleasantness of a small town. Because also San Francisco perceives itself as radical - this is true both in SF tech and outside of it - and perceives mass urbanization as symptom of all that is stodgy, traditional, and old (see: Chicago, New York City, London, etc). "Manhattanization" is a pejorative with no defense in the city - "being like New York" is anathema to a large number of people, and suggesting that SF should be like other skyward cities is immediately painting a giant bulls-eye on your own head and a guarantee that you'll never be a meaningful participant in civic discourse. In simple words, SF hates skyward-building because its worst fear is becoming New York City. To answer your questions more directly: - The city government, in response to voter demand, opposes most development outside of the downtown core, where there are actually plenty of tall buildings (almost entirely commercial). As a (shitty) compromise they've marked out a section of previously underdeveloped light industry just south of downtown for active development. This is where most of the action is. It's also not connected to mass transit, and there's currently an expensive project underway to build a brand new subway line to connect this area of town. This, despite other parts of SF being underdeveloped and already accessible to transit. - The population of San Francisco, and this includes the techies, loudly opposes dense developments. San Francisco is well known for its picturesque neighborhoods of colorful old Victorian houses. The long-time residents are loathe to see this disappear in favor of mid-rises or high-rises, and the wealthy newcomers are loathe to lose what is an aesthetic gain. Neither side seems willing to admit that the price of their aesthetic preference comes directly out of their pocket book. Proposals to knock these houses down in favor of denser housing are opposed across the board and across the wealth spectrum. All of this is official policy: http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/index.htm http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/index.htm - specifically this one: "That existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods;"

buro9 13y ago
But yet there are great examples of cities that allow building, have increased the heights of buildings, and maintain the character of the city. Paris springs to mind, as does Edinburgh. So long as "character" isn't defined as "3 stories", it should be possible to build to 6 stories whilst maintaining façades, retail space, etc and yet doubling available space and improving the standard of housing that exists (oh man, that dodgy wiring in every place in Mission I've ever stayed). Do the residents realise the connection between scarcity and price, and that they are able to do something about it? From the stuff that appears on here, it seems that there is a lot of anger against large companies but little reflection that the root imbalance in supply is caused by policies set by the population (or at least, in their name).
- timr 13y ago
  "Do the residents realise the connection between scarcity and price, and that they are able to do something about it?" There's some truth to the parent comment (I've said parts of it myself), but it's also misleading. Yes, the city could stand to build up in places, but the people in the tech world are also totally delusional when it comes to choosing where to live and work. Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster neighborhoods, and ignoring all of the cheaper parts of town. Price sensitivity is almost completely absent. Notably, when people here talk about "bungalows" and "three-story buildings", what they're really talking about is the western half of the city (the part west of Mount Sutro). It's true that those neighborhoods are really low density, but it's also true that rents there are already much lower than in SOMA or the Mission. You can move to the Richmond and save hundreds of dollars a month in rent, but nobody wants to do that. There are good reasons for all of this, of course (transit, weather, etc.), but the point is that it isn't just "zoning laws" that are causing prices to spike here. There's good deal of irrationality on the demand side, too. You'd be surprised at the number of tech people who have never even visited neighborhoods like West Portal, even though they're on major transit lines. If it's not hip in San Francisco, it doesn't exist.
  - raldi 13y ago
    > the people in the tech world are also totally delusional when it comes to choosing where to live and work. Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster neighborhoods What's delusional about deciding a particular neighborhood is nice enough to merit its higher rent? Just because you have a different opinion from the people who live there regarding what they should spend their money on doesn't mean they're delusional.
raldi 13y ago
> The population of San Francisco, and this includes the techies, loudly opposes dense developments. Not the techies I know. In my experience, the vast majority of SF techies want high-density housing near excellent transit.
- malandrew 13y ago
  I was thinking the same. I can't think of one techie that thinks this way to be honest. The only ones that come close to thinking this way aren't anti-urbanization, but sit right in between both sides because they just don't care since they've made enough money to buy property and be insulated from the problems.

buro9 13y ago

But yet there are great examples of cities that allow building, have increased the heights of buildings, and maintain the character of the city. Paris springs to mind, as does Edinburgh. So long as "character" isn't defined as "3 stories", it should be possible to build to 6 stories whilst maintaining façades, retail space, etc and yet doubling available space and improving the standard of housing that exists (oh man, that dodgy wiring in every place in Mission I've ever stayed). Do the residents realise the connection between scarcity and price, and that they are able to do something about it? From the stuff that appears on here, it seems that there is a lot of anger against large companies but little reflection that the root imbalance in supply is caused by policies set by the population (or at least, in their name).

timr 13y ago
"Do the residents realise the connection between scarcity and price, and that they are able to do something about it?" There's some truth to the parent comment (I've said parts of it myself), but it's also misleading. Yes, the city could stand to build up in places, but the people in the tech world are also totally delusional when it comes to choosing where to live and work. Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster neighborhoods, and ignoring all of the cheaper parts of town. Price sensitivity is almost completely absent. Notably, when people here talk about "bungalows" and "three-story buildings", what they're really talking about is the western half of the city (the part west of Mount Sutro). It's true that those neighborhoods are really low density, but it's also true that rents there are already much lower than in SOMA or the Mission. You can move to the Richmond and save hundreds of dollars a month in rent, but nobody wants to do that. There are good reasons for all of this, of course (transit, weather, etc.), but the point is that it isn't just "zoning laws" that are causing prices to spike here. There's good deal of irrationality on the demand side, too. You'd be surprised at the number of tech people who have never even visited neighborhoods like West Portal, even though they're on major transit lines. If it's not hip in San Francisco, it doesn't exist.
- raldi 13y ago
  > the people in the tech world are also totally delusional when it comes to choosing where to live and work. Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster neighborhoods What's delusional about deciding a particular neighborhood is nice enough to merit its higher rent? Just because you have a different opinion from the people who live there regarding what they should spend their money on doesn't mean they're delusional.

raldi 13y ago

> The population of San Francisco, and this includes the techies, loudly opposes dense developments. Not the techies I know. In my experience, the vast majority of SF techies want high-density housing near excellent transit.

malandrew 13y ago
I was thinking the same. I can't think of one techie that thinks this way to be honest. The only ones that come close to thinking this way aren't anti-urbanization, but sit right in between both sides because they just don't care since they've made enough money to buy property and be insulated from the problems.