4 ms·

They forgot to include the part where there's a neighborhood that's 10 minutes away by train with no meal restrictions, but the Junpero-ans don't want to eat th

by timr 13y ago

They forgot to include the part where there's a neighborhood that's 10 minutes away by train with no meal restrictions, but the Junpero-ans don't want to eat there, because it isn't a popular place to eat, and it's harder to eat with their friends. They'd rather pay outrageous prices to eat in Junipero than get on a dirty train. Also, let's not forget all the tiny, artisinal birdcage companies that are buying up a non-trivial percentage of the available meal credits on the black market, so that they can feed their employees free lunches during the daytime. Maybe as many as 40% of the meals being served in some neighborhoods are being used for birdcage company cafeterias. But really, this is a stupid metaphor, because in city that's less than 50 square miles, lack of available real estate isn't a manufactured problem.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Lack of available living space is a manufactured problem. All SF needs to do to solve this problem is allow construction at the population density of Hoboken, NJ (39k/mile^2). Hoboken is not exactly a dense megacity.
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  It might be manufactured, but building high-density housing is not going to bring any prices down. I lived in downtown Sacramento for a few years. I moved into new high(er) density apartments [0] the first year they were built. I paid $1000/month for a 400 sq ft studio with parking. For price reference, later I rented a more traditional apartment that was twice as big, several blocks away for only $650. The takeaway is that until everyone who can pay ridiculous prices has housing, prices are going nowhere but up in SF. Decent middle-class apartments with a couple bedrooms in Mountain View are $3k+. Prices are expensive because the SF bay area is awesome. It has a massive number of high paying jobs, ridiculous natural beauty, a gorgeous climate, tons of culture, diversity, and history. Contrast to Stockton, a mere 90 miles away, where you can buy a 2,000 sq ft 4bd house for $276k [1]. But Stockton's got none of the appeal of the SF bay, and it certainly doesn't have the jobs that SV does. People will fight hand over fist to get into SF, nobody's sprinting to live in Stockton. (nothing personal against Stockton). [0] http://1801l.com/ http://1801l.com/ [1] http://www.redfin.com/CA/Stockton/9467-Ravenna-Ln-95212/home/19720757 http://www.redfin.com/CA/Stockton/9467-Ravenna-Ln-95212/home...
  - SamReidHughes 13y ago
    > It might be manufactured, but building high-density housing is not going to bring any prices down. Where's the part of your post that backs up this statement?
    - Domenic_S 13y ago
      Um. The entire post. Takeaway: density doesn't cause affordability. Examples: Nob Hill and Telegraph Hill in SF, Wilshire Corridor in LA, and downtown SD. All examples of expensive areas where housing densities are high. Manhattan is quite dense and nobody asserts that it is affordable. Affordability is a separate issue from density.
      - SamReidHughes 13y ago
        All you've done is tell a story about how upscale apartments cost more per square foot than traditional apartments. > The takeaway is that until everyone who can pay ridiculous prices has housing, prices are going nowhere but up in SF. Decent middle-class apartments with a couple bedrooms in Mountain View are $3k+. So you're saying that adding more housing will make prices stop going up. So why do you simultaneously claim that building more housing won't bring prices down?
- timr 13y ago
  San Francisco is unevenly distributed. The western 2/3rds of the city are low density. The third of the city where people are fighting to live (SOMA, Mission, etc.) are already high density. So people are talking about "building up" and thinking of high rises in the Mission, but the real "density problem" in SF are the western neighborhoods.

by timr 13y ago

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Lack of available living space is a manufactured problem. All SF needs to do to solve this problem is allow construction at the population density of Hoboken, NJ (39k/mile^2). Hoboken is not exactly a dense megacity.

Domenic_S 13y ago
It might be manufactured, but building high-density housing is not going to bring any prices down. I lived in downtown Sacramento for a few years. I moved into new high(er) density apartments [0] the first year they were built. I paid $1000/month for a 400 sq ft studio with parking. For price reference, later I rented a more traditional apartment that was twice as big, several blocks away for only $650. The takeaway is that until everyone who can pay ridiculous prices has housing, prices are going nowhere but up in SF. Decent middle-class apartments with a couple bedrooms in Mountain View are $3k+. Prices are expensive because the SF bay area is awesome. It has a massive number of high paying jobs, ridiculous natural beauty, a gorgeous climate, tons of culture, diversity, and history. Contrast to Stockton, a mere 90 miles away, where you can buy a 2,000 sq ft 4bd house for $276k [1]. But Stockton's got none of the appeal of the SF bay, and it certainly doesn't have the jobs that SV does. People will fight hand over fist to get into SF, nobody's sprinting to live in Stockton. (nothing personal against Stockton). [0] http://1801l.com/ http://1801l.com/ [1] http://www.redfin.com/CA/Stockton/9467-Ravenna-Ln-95212/home/19720757 http://www.redfin.com/CA/Stockton/9467-Ravenna-Ln-95212/home...
- SamReidHughes 13y ago
  > It might be manufactured, but building high-density housing is not going to bring any prices down. Where's the part of your post that backs up this statement?
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    Um. The entire post. Takeaway: density doesn't cause affordability. Examples: Nob Hill and Telegraph Hill in SF, Wilshire Corridor in LA, and downtown SD. All examples of expensive areas where housing densities are high. Manhattan is quite dense and nobody asserts that it is affordable. Affordability is a separate issue from density.
    - SamReidHughes 13y ago
      All you've done is tell a story about how upscale apartments cost more per square foot than traditional apartments. > The takeaway is that until everyone who can pay ridiculous prices has housing, prices are going nowhere but up in SF. Decent middle-class apartments with a couple bedrooms in Mountain View are $3k+. So you're saying that adding more housing will make prices stop going up. So why do you simultaneously claim that building more housing won't bring prices down?
timr 13y ago
San Francisco is unevenly distributed. The western 2/3rds of the city are low density. The third of the city where people are fighting to live (SOMA, Mission, etc.) are already high density. So people are talking about "building up" and thinking of high rises in the Mission, but the real "density problem" in SF are the western neighborhoods.