6 ms·

I guess my problem is I rather like Manhattan and if rents got cheaper in the process it seems like wins all around to me :-) I understand that other people do

• flomo 12y ago
  Keep in mind this didn't just start up when Twitter moved into town. It's a long war that has been fought for 50-60 years now, and the preservation forces have won nearly every battle and aren't planning on surrendering. I upvoted kijin's comment. If you want to build another Manhattan full of gigantic buildings with computer cubicles and tiny apartments, do it in LA or somewhere, because it's probably never going to happen in SF.
• sbov 12y ago
  Is this really what would happen? I guess if they could mass produce them all at once it might. But it seems like every new condo or apartment building that is built in SF is more expensive than everything else already available.
  • njr123 12y ago
    Yeah, but they push down the rents on the older apartments. At least thats the way it worked in my city, which has a similar housing situation.
    • akgerber 12y ago
      New construction is unlikely to push down rents anywhere in the current market environment in SF. But it does limit upward pressure on rents elsewhere. The bigger supply also is likely to lead to big price cuts during the next crash. And new construction becomes old within a few years. There are plenty of perfectly serviceable condo towers of unfashionable age in downtown Chicago with very reasonably priced apartments.
    • orky56 12y ago
      The problem is that they are rent-controlled. The article actually states that those newer properties are majority market-based. The gap between the market rate and the rent-control rate actually increases. This puts pressure on landlords to increase rents for these rent-controlled tenants using 1 of the 8 means prompting evictions. This is what is causing the unrest, despite allocating a significant percentage of new developments to affordable housing.
• sliverstorm 12y ago
  The standard NIMBY-ism is "Yes, please Manhattanize and lower rents! But not in my neighborhood, do it in other parts of town". (repeated by all residents of the city) Just look at BART. Very popular in the polls, approved in a landslide, dismal ridership. Why? Because everybody thought that other people riding BART was a great idea- they had no intention of riding themselves.
  • muzz 12y ago
    Your BART example is the opposite of NIMBY-ism: wanting/allowing something in your back yard that is not used by you. NIMBY-ism about BART was manifested by the peninsula towns, which refused to allow BART in the first place (due to misguided fears of easy access to their towns by transients, potential criminals, etc.)
    • sliverstorm 12y ago
      It's still the NIMBY-ism mentality though. "I want this change, and I want other people to bear the brunt of it", i.e. other people will be the riders.
      • muzz 12y ago
        How are the riders, who willfully chose to do so, some how bearing the "brunt"? As opposed to those whose homes and businesses were Eminent Domain'd to make way for the construction, their nearby neighbors who now have loud above-ground train noise beginning at 5am, etc.
        • sliverstorm 12y ago
          By being the ones to make the lifestyle change and travel by public transit. Sure, public transit isn't torture, but the point is person A is always eager to volunteer person B for change that benefits person A. (And person B feels the same way about person A) Also, I doubt much eminent domain was exercised/abused during the construction. Have you noticed the way the tracks weave, go underground here, run in the middle of a freeway there? Terminals in the outskirts of town? They certainly exercised that power, but it's not like BART runs right through the middle of town.
• Symmetry 12y ago
  SF would really only need to build up to the density of Brooklyn to house everyone reasonably, no need for Manhattanization (at least for a few decades).