5 ms·

The real problem is not Google (or Apple, FB, etc) but the limits on development of new housing and rent control. I live in London, and outside of my window I c

by pisarzp 13y ago

The real problem is not Google (or Apple, FB, etc) but the limits on development of new housing and rent control. I live in London, and outside of my window I can see now 5 new huge developments. Because of massive influx of people prices are increasing, but at much slower rate. I lived for 4 months in SF last year, and my crappy flat was more expensive then in London. What is worse, I rented it in a sketchy deal from a woman, who wasn't even an owner. She rented a flat for a long time, and due to rent control she was paying probably a fraction of what she should be. So she lived in Oakland and sublet flat in Mission. I understand that people don't want 'character of city' to change, but with gentrification it is changing anyway. Best cities in the world are always growing, but SF seems to be very stubborn and want's to be a kid forever.

jusben1369 13y ago
People need to stop with this. Higher urban density is "not" the answer. It puts an incredible amount of strain on every other service around it from roads, education, sewage, water, police, hospitals etc. It never ends (or doesn't end well) It's the velocity of change, not change itself, that's the problem for SF. Not sure about your dodgy rent controlled landlord but sounds like without here you can't afford to have experienced 4 months of SF.
- tomp 13y ago
  > Higher urban density is "not" the answer. In the larger picture, that's totally correct, but that is something that the governments should sort out, e.g. by incentivising the corporations to start opening offices in less dense areas. As long as the largest quantity of available jobs and the best paying jobs (the former is in part a consequence of the latter) are available in the biggest cities (London, New York, LA, SF, Hong Kong, Tokyo, ...) it will be in every person's individual interest to move there.
- gumby 13y ago
  Actually higher densities are more efficient in terms of land use, energy use and the cost of providing services (transportation etc). People aggregate in cities for a reason. More sprawl stresses the environment far more.
  - icegreentea 13y ago
    There are two different stresses. In terms of long-term maintenance of infrastructure, it's generally cheaper in denser areas. However, if you try to build up a medium density area to high density, then it can take tremendous capital costs to re-scale the infrastructure, since a) You're not just paying for the new one, you have to tear the old one out b) The old one is probably full of nasty surprises that'll drive your cost and time up in unpredictable ways c) Since it's already fairly built up, it's going to really disruptive.
    - gumby 13y ago
      Your comment refers to only a few of the factors. Yes you have to tear down old city buildings to make new ones, but your alternative is to tear up virgin land. In addition you only look at capex (the capital cost of building new housing). Don't forget the opex -- transportation, heating, etc. Finally there are the externalities: the loss of open space, the environmental impact of sprawl, the roads needed to reach these distributed communities. So the cool thing is we have a field called "economics" which is not always right but does have a framework for discussing these issues. And economics, along with city planning, architecture, environmental science and plenty of other fields have been brought to bear on this problem. I would give you some links, but there is so much literature on this field that it's not even worth it. If you'd like to make a fact-based, rather than emotion-based, decision, do a bit of research on your own.
      - icegreentea 13y ago
        I am trying to make a fact based observation of how actual decision making is done, not on what the best decisions to actually make are. My point is that is many cities cannot afford the capital expenditures, or are unwilling to take them on, but would rather accept the higher operating costs in the long run. I agree that increasing density is a sensible thing to do in general. My point was that the city of San Francisco's specific situation, which must also include political realities may prevent it from taking the best course of action as dictated by all the fields that you mention. After all, we are talking about a country that likes to skimp on infrastructure maintenance costs until they nearly reach disaster situations, and then forced to shell out way more in rushed emergency maintenance, and then rushed infrastructure upgrade - hardly the most sensible decisions.
- asveikau 13y ago
  Gumby already said it but it's worth repeating: there is economics research out there that shows that as density increases, a bunch of things you mention (roads, sewage, water) actually become more efficient, and that the gain in efficiency outpaces the growth in density.
  - jusben1369 13y ago
    So if you triple the population of SF without any updates things will work more smoothly? I use an extreme example to highlight the fact that those studies talk about incremental gains not hyper growth that SF is or will experience (if all this new housing was approved)

by pisarzp 13y ago

jusben1369 13y ago

People need to stop with this. Higher urban density is "not" the answer. It puts an incredible amount of strain on every other service around it from roads, education, sewage, water, police, hospitals etc. It never ends (or doesn't end well) It's the velocity of change, not change itself, that's the problem for SF. Not sure about your dodgy rent controlled landlord but sounds like without here you can't afford to have experienced 4 months of SF.

tomp 13y ago
> Higher urban density is "not" the answer. In the larger picture, that's totally correct, but that is something that the governments should sort out, e.g. by incentivising the corporations to start opening offices in less dense areas. As long as the largest quantity of available jobs and the best paying jobs (the former is in part a consequence of the latter) are available in the biggest cities (London, New York, LA, SF, Hong Kong, Tokyo, ...) it will be in every person's individual interest to move there.
gumby 13y ago
Actually higher densities are more efficient in terms of land use, energy use and the cost of providing services (transportation etc). People aggregate in cities for a reason. More sprawl stresses the environment far more.
- icegreentea 13y ago
  There are two different stresses. In terms of long-term maintenance of infrastructure, it's generally cheaper in denser areas. However, if you try to build up a medium density area to high density, then it can take tremendous capital costs to re-scale the infrastructure, since a) You're not just paying for the new one, you have to tear the old one out b) The old one is probably full of nasty surprises that'll drive your cost and time up in unpredictable ways c) Since it's already fairly built up, it's going to really disruptive.
  - gumby 13y ago
    Your comment refers to only a few of the factors. Yes you have to tear down old city buildings to make new ones, but your alternative is to tear up virgin land. In addition you only look at capex (the capital cost of building new housing). Don't forget the opex -- transportation, heating, etc. Finally there are the externalities: the loss of open space, the environmental impact of sprawl, the roads needed to reach these distributed communities. So the cool thing is we have a field called "economics" which is not always right but does have a framework for discussing these issues. And economics, along with city planning, architecture, environmental science and plenty of other fields have been brought to bear on this problem. I would give you some links, but there is so much literature on this field that it's not even worth it. If you'd like to make a fact-based, rather than emotion-based, decision, do a bit of research on your own.
    - icegreentea 13y ago
      I am trying to make a fact based observation of how actual decision making is done, not on what the best decisions to actually make are. My point is that is many cities cannot afford the capital expenditures, or are unwilling to take them on, but would rather accept the higher operating costs in the long run. I agree that increasing density is a sensible thing to do in general. My point was that the city of San Francisco's specific situation, which must also include political realities may prevent it from taking the best course of action as dictated by all the fields that you mention. After all, we are talking about a country that likes to skimp on infrastructure maintenance costs until they nearly reach disaster situations, and then forced to shell out way more in rushed emergency maintenance, and then rushed infrastructure upgrade - hardly the most sensible decisions.
asveikau 13y ago
Gumby already said it but it's worth repeating: there is economics research out there that shows that as density increases, a bunch of things you mention (roads, sewage, water) actually become more efficient, and that the gain in efficiency outpaces the growth in density.
- jusben1369 13y ago
  So if you triple the population of SF without any updates things will work more smoothly? I use an extreme example to highlight the fact that those studies talk about incremental gains not hyper growth that SF is or will experience (if all this new housing was approved)