4 ms·

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 t

by 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.
  - timr 13y ago
    It's delusional because the demand for real estate in these neighborhoods appears to be almost perfectly inelastic. People don't even think about moving anywhere else in the city, even when the cost/benefit equation tips in favor of living in another location.
    - raldi 13y ago
      The equation is different for each person. It sounds like it's tipped for you, but not them. Therefore, just because you make different decisions than they do, it doesn't mean either of you is deciding irrationally.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- malandrew 13y ago
  "Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster neighborhoods, and ignoring all of the cheaper parts of town." Those three hipster neighborhoods are probably the way they are because of their great access to public transit not only for traveling within the city but getting out of it via BART. No one ones to move to SF and live in a neighborhood with a suburban lifestyle that requires a car to maximize life's experiences. Living in places like the Richmond and the Sunset for example are more isolating than living in Oakland. Living at the top of most of San Francisco's hills is relatively isolating as well. Furthermore, hills aren't conducive to human-powered transportation like biking and skateboarding. Being able to quickly move around via the power of your own two feet via walking, pedaling or pushing is one of the draws of all cities. Every relatively flat neighborhood with great transportation is destined to gentrify. If you put a BART line under the Geary and California bus routes, all the neighborhoods in the far west would "hipsterfy" as well
  - timr 13y ago
    Yes, as I said, there are reasons that these neighborhoods are popular. Another reason is the weather: the Mission and SOMA tend to be sunnier than the rest of the city. These features, in a rational world, demand a certain price premium. But the outer neighborhoods have nice features, too (e.g. they have less filth and crime, and more nature), so there's a trade-off. That said, complaints about being "isolated" in the Sunset is mostly a lot of butthurt. The entire city of San Francisco is seven miles wide. There is literally no part of this city that could be considered "isolated", unless your definition of "the city" begins and ends in the Mission. And I say that as someone who lives without a car -- there are rail lines that run to the Sunset, West Portal, Glen Park, Ocean View and so on. You're maybe 30 minutes away from downtown, at most. Still, ask a 20-something coder to consider living in the Inner Sunset, and you'd think you'd asked him to move to North Dakota. No, the real problem is that most of the people flooding into SF are wealthy 20-somethings who will pay nearly any price to live right in the middle of the hippest entertainment districts in the city. They don't want to live near icky married people and children, they don't want to travel more than ten minutes to meet their friends for a drink, and they definitely don't want to go up or down any hills to get anywhere. There are basically two neighborhoods in the city that meet these constraints, and in both, rents are skyrocketing.
- xster 13y ago
  Argument's kinda extensible to say Huston is both cheap and well equipped as a city but neither them or you or I are in Huston. It's a bit of a stretch to say to wanting to live in areas with desirable weather is delusional.
zimpenfish 13y ago
Budapest is a good example - lots of 5/6 story apartment blocks right in the centre with (what seem to be) huge numbers of apartments and they look ok.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
raldi 13y ago
The key differences between Paris and SF in this regard are: 1. In Paris, nobody has a chip on their shoulder about a nearby larger city. In SF, sour grapes about all the attention NY and LA get led long ago to our population pretending they don't want to be a big city. (Even though now it's actually within our reach) 2. In SF, a large number of people drive everywhere but live in garageless houses -- or they have single-car garages but own multiple cars. They resist building because they don't want to compete for existing parking spaces. 3. SF lacks a decent underground train system, so anything that puts more cars on the road is hotly resisted, and people believe that a garageless building next to a train station will be filled with new car owners.

by buro9 13y ago

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.
- timr 13y ago
  It's delusional because the demand for real estate in these neighborhoods appears to be almost perfectly inelastic. People don't even think about moving anywhere else in the city, even when the cost/benefit equation tips in favor of living in another location.
  - raldi 13y ago
    The equation is different for each person. It sounds like it's tipped for you, but not them. Therefore, just because you make different decisions than they do, it doesn't mean either of you is deciding irrationally.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
malandrew 13y ago
"Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster neighborhoods, and ignoring all of the cheaper parts of town." Those three hipster neighborhoods are probably the way they are because of their great access to public transit not only for traveling within the city but getting out of it via BART. No one ones to move to SF and live in a neighborhood with a suburban lifestyle that requires a car to maximize life's experiences. Living in places like the Richmond and the Sunset for example are more isolating than living in Oakland. Living at the top of most of San Francisco's hills is relatively isolating as well. Furthermore, hills aren't conducive to human-powered transportation like biking and skateboarding. Being able to quickly move around via the power of your own two feet via walking, pedaling or pushing is one of the draws of all cities. Every relatively flat neighborhood with great transportation is destined to gentrify. If you put a BART line under the Geary and California bus routes, all the neighborhoods in the far west would "hipsterfy" as well
- timr 13y ago
  Yes, as I said, there are reasons that these neighborhoods are popular. Another reason is the weather: the Mission and SOMA tend to be sunnier than the rest of the city. These features, in a rational world, demand a certain price premium. But the outer neighborhoods have nice features, too (e.g. they have less filth and crime, and more nature), so there's a trade-off. That said, complaints about being "isolated" in the Sunset is mostly a lot of butthurt. The entire city of San Francisco is seven miles wide. There is literally no part of this city that could be considered "isolated", unless your definition of "the city" begins and ends in the Mission. And I say that as someone who lives without a car -- there are rail lines that run to the Sunset, West Portal, Glen Park, Ocean View and so on. You're maybe 30 minutes away from downtown, at most. Still, ask a 20-something coder to consider living in the Inner Sunset, and you'd think you'd asked him to move to North Dakota. No, the real problem is that most of the people flooding into SF are wealthy 20-somethings who will pay nearly any price to live right in the middle of the hippest entertainment districts in the city. They don't want to live near icky married people and children, they don't want to travel more than ten minutes to meet their friends for a drink, and they definitely don't want to go up or down any hills to get anywhere. There are basically two neighborhoods in the city that meet these constraints, and in both, rents are skyrocketing.
xster 13y ago
Argument's kinda extensible to say Huston is both cheap and well equipped as a city but neither them or you or I are in Huston. It's a bit of a stretch to say to wanting to live in areas with desirable weather is delusional.

zimpenfish 13y ago

Budapest is a good example - lots of 5/6 story apartment blocks right in the centre with (what seem to be) huge numbers of apartments and they look ok.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

raldi 13y ago

The key differences between Paris and SF in this regard are: 1. In Paris, nobody has a chip on their shoulder about a nearby larger city. In SF, sour grapes about all the attention NY and LA get led long ago to our population pretending they don't want to be a big city. (Even though now it's actually within our reach) 2. In SF, a large number of people drive everywhere but live in garageless houses -- or they have single-car garages but own multiple cars. They resist building because they don't want to compete for existing parking spaces. 3. SF lacks a decent underground train system, so anything that puts more cars on the road is hotly resisted, and people believe that a garageless building next to a train station will be filled with new car owners.