3 ms·

Build baby, build.

malandrew 13y ago
This. The tech boom isn't at fault here. The refusal to make the necessary changes that allow the housing supply to grow is to blame. Basically, San Francisco voters are responsible for the evictions, whether they be natives, long-time residents or recent tech transplants.
- smtddr 13y ago
  Grow at the expense of what though? So you tear down anything you can to increase SF's ability to hold all the things techies enjoy... and then one day, all this booming goes away and you're left with... http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3433 http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3433 ...kinda like the real-estate boom. Build houses anywhere & everywhere because everyone suddenly can afford a house(or at least get the loan)... then one day that isn't the case and you're left with a bunch of empty houses everywhere in places that could have been schools, parks, community centers, living areas for those of low-income. When you increase fancy apartments for techies, the businesses/services around them will also appear and take up more land. More jobs sure, but those salaries aren't going to be able to buy a place near their job ...since the location of the job is probably near the high-paid techies. I still don't understand that Gamestop on market street, SF. Someone needs to interview them and blog about it. Where do those employees live? How do they survive? I almost wish SF would enforce a limit on how many tech job holders are allowed to live in SF. Not necessarily the ultimate solution, but I think this gentrification needs to be throttled while someone comes up with the ultimate-solution... or just wait out this tech-boom and the problem would go away on its own.
  - d4vlx 13y ago
    Or you could get something like Manhattan, which seems more likely than a repeat of Dubai in 2009.
  - spikels 13y ago
    Reading socialistworld.net will only make you more confused about economic issues like these. I'd suggest any basic economics text as a good place to get started.
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
Build where? SF is hemmed in by hills and ocean. Housing is mostly low rise, but dense and very much in the style of Tokyo given similar issues (earthquakes). Then you have a bunch of beautiful Victorians to tear down before you can build some dense high rise housing. SF is quite dense already, not like the exclusive suburbs to the south.
- spikels 13y ago
  In a normal place this is accomplished by increasing building height, increasing the building's footprint and reducing the unit size. No additional land needs to be used and higher density increases efficiency of services such as mass transit as well reducing environmental impact. Unfortunately SF has some of the most restrictive zoning rules anywhere and, as described in the article, construction usually involves evicting tenants paying well below market rent. Given the highly litigious and politicized environment it is much more likely to get worse than better.
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  Up. SF is 4x less dense than Manhattan, for example.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    I mentioned Tokyo, which is as low rise as SF. You can build up on faults, but the construction costs (use more steel) are much higher, so it happens less often than geologically more stable locations (like NYC).

Build baby, build.

This. The tech boom isn't at fault here. The refusal to make the necessary changes that allow the housing supply to grow is to blame. Basically, San Francisco voters are responsible for the evictions, whether they be natives, long-time residents or recent tech transplants.

smtddr 13y ago
Grow at the expense of what though? So you tear down anything you can to increase SF's ability to hold all the things techies enjoy... and then one day, all this booming goes away and you're left with... http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3433 http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3433 ...kinda like the real-estate boom. Build houses anywhere & everywhere because everyone suddenly can afford a house(or at least get the loan)... then one day that isn't the case and you're left with a bunch of empty houses everywhere in places that could have been schools, parks, community centers, living areas for those of low-income. When you increase fancy apartments for techies, the businesses/services around them will also appear and take up more land. More jobs sure, but those salaries aren't going to be able to buy a place near their job ...since the location of the job is probably near the high-paid techies. I still don't understand that Gamestop on market street, SF. Someone needs to interview them and blog about it. Where do those employees live? How do they survive? I almost wish SF would enforce a limit on how many tech job holders are allowed to live in SF. Not necessarily the ultimate solution, but I think this gentrification needs to be throttled while someone comes up with the ultimate-solution... or just wait out this tech-boom and the problem would go away on its own.
- d4vlx 13y ago
  Or you could get something like Manhattan, which seems more likely than a repeat of Dubai in 2009.
- spikels 13y ago
  Reading socialistworld.net will only make you more confused about economic issues like these. I'd suggest any basic economics text as a good place to get started.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

Build where? SF is hemmed in by hills and ocean. Housing is mostly low rise, but dense and very much in the style of Tokyo given similar issues (earthquakes). Then you have a bunch of beautiful Victorians to tear down before you can build some dense high rise housing. SF is quite dense already, not like the exclusive suburbs to the south.

spikels 13y ago
In a normal place this is accomplished by increasing building height, increasing the building's footprint and reducing the unit size. No additional land needs to be used and higher density increases efficiency of services such as mass transit as well reducing environmental impact. Unfortunately SF has some of the most restrictive zoning rules anywhere and, as described in the article, construction usually involves evicting tenants paying well below market rent. Given the highly litigious and politicized environment it is much more likely to get worse than better.
tlrobinson 13y ago
Up. SF is 4x less dense than Manhattan, for example.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  I mentioned Tokyo, which is as low rise as SF. You can build up on faults, but the construction costs (use more steel) are much higher, so it happens less often than geologically more stable locations (like NYC).