4 ms·

Reading the article, I just kept asking myself whether San Francisco really needs more people. Despite all of the talk of economics and regulation, it isn't so

Reading the article, I just kept asking myself whether San Francisco really needs more people. Despite all of the talk of economics and regulation, it isn't so bad when people develop new hubs when a hub like San Francisco becomes saturated. Maybe its better to have more of them than a megapolis.

rwallace 13y ago
I disagree, but if that's how it's going to be, then let it be done by immigration quota. If something isn't actually going to be a free market, it is better to be honest about that. A pretend free market is the worst of both worlds.
- michaelfeathers 13y ago
  As much as I believe in free markets, I think zoning is useful thing. I live in South Florida and we have a couple of areas with very little zoning. They are funky and great to live in now, but eventually they will gentrify. On the other hand, there are heavily zoned areas don't have the sort of quirk I love and never will. The sweet spot is hard to achieve with or without zoning. I think that if zoning was pulled completely from San Francisco it would turn into a glass and metal city within 20 years - something as (to me) monstrous as Canary Wharf in London. I'd hate to see that happen. For what it's worth, I used to be rather libertarian until I realized that ultimately there's a market in governance too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_Cat_Trilogy#Tanstagi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_Cat_Trilogy#... It's nice when there's enough diversity for people to pick the sort of place they want to live in, zoned or not zoned.
fennecfoxen 13y ago
Bah. San Francisco is an inanimate geographical region. It has no needs, and inanimate objects hate it when you anthropomorphize them. Instead of asking "does san francisco need more people" let's put actual actors into these decisions. Would it be beneficial to the set of individuals currently residing in San Francisco to have more housing stock in San Francisco? Would it be beneficial to others in the Bay Area, or to humanity at large? The answers to these questions may be different. Indeed, that is sort of the premise of the article: existing residents benefit greatly from the various restrictions on building, to the detriment of all others. :P
- michaelfeathers 13y ago
  That is what I meant. The anthropomorphism was a shorthand. :)
lotsofmangos 13y ago
The world population is growing. People have to live somewhere and one place stopping growth locally just means twice the problem somewhere else.
- michaelfeathers 13y ago
  It's just planting new saplings instead of overgrowing a tree.
  - lotsofmangos 13y ago
    Do that and they will merge into low density sprawl with no space left unpaved. We desperately need to build up.
    - michaelfeathers 13y ago
      Census Bureau: 94.6 Percent of U.S. Is Rural Open Space http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2003/07/01/census-bureau-946-percent-us-rural-open-space http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2003/07/01/censu...

rwallace 13y ago

I disagree, but if that's how it's going to be, then let it be done by immigration quota. If something isn't actually going to be a free market, it is better to be honest about that. A pretend free market is the worst of both worlds.

michaelfeathers 13y ago
As much as I believe in free markets, I think zoning is useful thing. I live in South Florida and we have a couple of areas with very little zoning. They are funky and great to live in now, but eventually they will gentrify. On the other hand, there are heavily zoned areas don't have the sort of quirk I love and never will. The sweet spot is hard to achieve with or without zoning. I think that if zoning was pulled completely from San Francisco it would turn into a glass and metal city within 20 years - something as (to me) monstrous as Canary Wharf in London. I'd hate to see that happen. For what it's worth, I used to be rather libertarian until I realized that ultimately there's a market in governance too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_Cat_Trilogy#Tanstagi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_Cat_Trilogy#... It's nice when there's enough diversity for people to pick the sort of place they want to live in, zoned or not zoned.

fennecfoxen 13y ago

Bah. San Francisco is an inanimate geographical region. It has no needs, and inanimate objects hate it when you anthropomorphize them. Instead of asking "does san francisco need more people" let's put actual actors into these decisions. Would it be beneficial to the set of individuals currently residing in San Francisco to have more housing stock in San Francisco? Would it be beneficial to others in the Bay Area, or to humanity at large? The answers to these questions may be different. Indeed, that is sort of the premise of the article: existing residents benefit greatly from the various restrictions on building, to the detriment of all others. :P

michaelfeathers 13y ago
That is what I meant. The anthropomorphism was a shorthand. :)

lotsofmangos 13y ago

The world population is growing. People have to live somewhere and one place stopping growth locally just means twice the problem somewhere else.

michaelfeathers 13y ago
It's just planting new saplings instead of overgrowing a tree.
- lotsofmangos 13y ago
  Do that and they will merge into low density sprawl with no space left unpaved. We desperately need to build up.
  - michaelfeathers 13y ago
    Census Bureau: 94.6 Percent of U.S. Is Rural Open Space http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2003/07/01/census-bureau-946-percent-us-rural-open-space http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2003/07/01/censu...