6 ms·

Many people here in SF have been saying this is the direction we've been heading for quite a bit(if it hasn't happened already): SF becomes Manhattan, the surro

by debt 12y ago

Many people here in SF have been saying this is the direction we've been heading for quite a bit(if it hasn't happened already): SF becomes Manhattan, the surround Bay Area become the boroughs.

Punoxysm 12y ago
Needs better transit for that to happen.
- hack_edu 12y ago
  Good luck boring subways, tunnels, and right-of-ways through mountains, sand dunes, and silt! Buses are the only reasonable answer and much more modular to adjust to changing demands as years go by. A traffic system that programmatically prioritizes for public transportation, along with traffic citations issued by camera and automation (sorry) is what we need.
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    BART is already built through the very same ground. MUNI already has multiple tunnels through the "mountains" in the middle of SF. BART even runs directly through artificial landfill without issue. The seismic activity of California certainly exposes more challenges, but there's no good reason why underground transport is impossible in SF. Bus Rapid Transit is a cheap way to look like you're doing something about transit in a growing city when in reality you're just kicking the problem down the line.
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      BART isn't really "underground" though, right? I was pretty sure for 99% of its track it never goes deeper into the ground than an underpass.
      - potatolicious 12y ago
        Outside of SF yeah, a lot of BART is elevated or separated at-grade, but in the city proper it's definitely legitimately underground. Which is the same as NYC - subways in the central bits, elevated/at-grade rail as you get further out and land less scarce.
  - tzs 12y ago
    > Buses are the only reasonable answer and much more modular to adjust to changing demands as years go by The problem with buses is bus routes are too easy to change or eliminate. To get me to give up my car, a public transportation system needs to have good coverage of where I need to go, when I need to go, and there has to be good reason for me to believe that it will stay this way. Buses can provide the good coverage, but it is almost impossible to provide the assurance that this will continue. If some route I depended on when I picked where to live has a ridership decline, some bean counter can cut that route, or move it a few blocks over to try to get more riders. I can't easily move my house a few blocks over to match the new route. For buses to really work, there has to a strong commitment to stability of routes and schedules, so that people can base long term plans on them. I don't think most US cities have the political and financial stability to make that commitment.
michaelochurch 12y ago
San Francisco has no right to compare itself to New York. None at all. New York has a legitimate demand problem, seeing as it's the capital of the world. California has an artificial demand problem due to NIMBYs who corrupt zoning boards, oppose reasonable development at every turn, and live in the past while paying lip service to "building the future". (It also has a problem with corrupt/dirty foreign money swelling into the housing market, but that's an issue in New York as well.) New York has solid public transportation. You don't need a car if you live there. People bitch about the MTA, but it's remarkably cheap compared to having a car anywhere in the US, and remarkably convenient considering how much access it provides. San Francisco is a city where you need a car, but can't afford it. Parking costs are so bad that many garages post their 15 minute rates (often around $3.00). New York is hard-core urban and owns the positives and negatives that comes from it, and New York runs itself. San Francisco companies are run from the suburbs-- specifically, from an office park called "Sand Hill Road" in a stretch of land that really ought to be reclaimed by the cows and orange trees, because the people living there are contributing nothing but additional work for the sewer system. Manhattan is what it is, take it or leave it. (And there's nothing wrong with leaving it.) California is fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical, because it's full of people who pretend to be liberal but are, in many ways, worse than the Manhattan old board when it comes to elitism. New York isn't perfect. There's a lot that's badly designed or unpleasant about it, but if you compare it to the cataclysmic mismanagement of California at all levels, it's a breath of fresh air.
- forca 12y ago
  Well said. I couldn't agree more. I have always loathed California. It all seems so fake and far reaching, while NYC, as you say, is brutally honest in what it presents: lead, follow, or get out of the way.
  - michaelochurch 12y ago
    New York is a place that forces you to accept that human life is mindlessly, ludicrously, and inexcusably unfair. It's not there in the abstract ("lifestyle" shows about rich losers, poverty on other continents) but quite visible, every day. It's in front of you, and it's not easy to accept, but after a while you learn from it and tune out the idiocy, while keeping the insights that make you a better person. In the suburbs (and the mentality that is now dominant in San Francisco is suburban, because the locals have been priced out by fratty douchebags and basic bitches) people have enough distance from what's going on that they don't have to acknowledge the facts of social injustice. They can persist in the delusional belief that "the rich" are more successful versions of themselves, and not preselected winners who've had social connections and resources delivered to them since before birth. I don't loathe "California", insofar as many people I like live there and it's a big state with some beautiful national parks. I'm just disgusted by what it has become, and especially by the utter defeat of the technology/engineer culture in Silicon Valley at the hands of MBA C-students and people flushed out of McKinsey.
ritchiea 12y ago
That's an oversimplification of the differences between San Francisco and New York. To begin with, it's a lot easier to travel between boroughs in New York than it is to travel between cities in the bay area. The coverage and availability of the public transportation system is much better in New York (the MTA runs 24 hours). In addition, the bridges are shorter and thus easier to bike or walk over. The length of the Bay Bridge is a kilometer more than the combined lengths of the Brooklyn, Manhattan & Williamsburg bridges, all of which connect Brooklyn & Manhattan. And that's without even mentioning the ease of travel between Manhattan & Queens or Manhattan & the Bronx. And there's also the lack of new housing development in San Francisco that is a function of public policy. There is tons of new housing going up in the affluent parts of Brooklyn and the prices are rising in spite of that. In short the bay area structurally is not fit to be as unified as New York is for citizens & commuters and San Francisco has policy changes it could make to accomodate the rising population that it has not taken.
- lambdasquirrel 12y ago
  If you were to color in the sparsely populated hills and mountains of the Bay Area as water, you would get an interesting map that makes the place look almost like a bunch of island chains. There are breaks in places like Hillsdale and San Bruno Mountain that disconnect the peninsula from SF, and that is not as obvious a gap as the bay. What you say about the bridge length is interesting because I think most people don't realize the scale of distance between these island chains.
rayiner 12y ago
NIMBY's will never let SF become Manhattan (I.e. dense commercial surrounded by dense residential surrounded by dense suburbs connected by extensive subway and rail). You'll just pay Manhattan prices for sprawling hell because nobody will let anything get built. SF's future looks more like D.C. not Manhattan.
potatolicious 12y ago
SF wouldn't be in this situation if it was willing to become Manhattan. If even one neighborhood in SF became as dense at the Upper West Side the entire housing crisis would evaporate overnight. Ditto on office space. If SOMA built up like Midtown - or screw Midtown, just SoHo - we wouldn't be looking at these insane office rents. But of course, Manhattanization is a dirty word in SF, largely because rent control lets you pass the buck on macro problems in the housing market. You got yours, sucks to be the guys who need an apartment now.
Symmetry 12y ago
SF has quite a ways to go before it becomes Manhattan, it's half as dense as Brooklyn (17,867/sq mi vs 36732)
- seanmccann 12y ago
  SF neighborhoods like Richmond, Sunset, etc, really bring down the density. When I think of the Manhattanization of SF, it's really just the 2x4 NE corner. The density of the Tenderloin is 71k/sq mi.
morgante 12y ago
> Many people here in SF have been saying this is the direction we've been heading for quite a bit(if it hasn't happened already): SF becomes Manhattan, the surround Bay Area become the boroughs. That's extremely far off the mark. Rent is so high in SF precisely because it's not like Manhattan. Even Brooklyn is denser than SF. That's ludicrous, when you consider the supply & demand of housing. In New York, housing almost follows the free market. Yes, rent is expensive, but that's too be expected considering the consistently high demand and that apartments can't be instantaneously constructed. SF is just as expensive, despite have an order of magnitude less demand. It's a completely supply-driven problem, and until that supply problem is fixed you're going to see rents well in excess of Manhattan (for a far shittier city, with way fewer amenities).
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > SF is just as expensive, despite have an order of magnitude less demand. It's a completely supply-driven problem, and until that supply problem is fixed you're going to see rents well in excess of Manhattan (for a far shittier city, with way fewer amenities). People who would rather live in Manhattan know where to go -- but, you know, there are people who consider higher density a negative feature that weighs against other amenities, rather than a positive or neutral feature. Not everyone has the same preferences matrix, and plenty of people see San Francisco as preferable to New York. > In New York, housing almost follows the free market. That New York is free or rent control, zoning laws, etc., etc., etc. is, well, news. The regulation in New York may be driven by different preferences -- and perhaps by preferences more in line with yours -- but it is no less present.

by debt 12y ago

Many people here in SF have been saying this is the direction we've been heading for quite a bit(if it hasn't happened already): SF becomes Manhattan, the surround Bay Area become the boroughs.

Punoxysm 12y ago

Needs better transit for that to happen.

hack_edu 12y ago
Good luck boring subways, tunnels, and right-of-ways through mountains, sand dunes, and silt! Buses are the only reasonable answer and much more modular to adjust to changing demands as years go by. A traffic system that programmatically prioritizes for public transportation, along with traffic citations issued by camera and automation (sorry) is what we need.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  BART is already built through the very same ground. MUNI already has multiple tunnels through the "mountains" in the middle of SF. BART even runs directly through artificial landfill without issue. The seismic activity of California certainly exposes more challenges, but there's no good reason why underground transport is impossible in SF. Bus Rapid Transit is a cheap way to look like you're doing something about transit in a growing city when in reality you're just kicking the problem down the line.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    BART isn't really "underground" though, right? I was pretty sure for 99% of its track it never goes deeper into the ground than an underpass.
    - potatolicious 12y ago
      Outside of SF yeah, a lot of BART is elevated or separated at-grade, but in the city proper it's definitely legitimately underground. Which is the same as NYC - subways in the central bits, elevated/at-grade rail as you get further out and land less scarce.
- tzs 12y ago
  > Buses are the only reasonable answer and much more modular to adjust to changing demands as years go by The problem with buses is bus routes are too easy to change or eliminate. To get me to give up my car, a public transportation system needs to have good coverage of where I need to go, when I need to go, and there has to be good reason for me to believe that it will stay this way. Buses can provide the good coverage, but it is almost impossible to provide the assurance that this will continue. If some route I depended on when I picked where to live has a ridership decline, some bean counter can cut that route, or move it a few blocks over to try to get more riders. I can't easily move my house a few blocks over to match the new route. For buses to really work, there has to a strong commitment to stability of routes and schedules, so that people can base long term plans on them. I don't think most US cities have the political and financial stability to make that commitment.

michaelochurch 12y ago

San Francisco has no right to compare itself to New York. None at all. New York has a legitimate demand problem, seeing as it's the capital of the world. California has an artificial demand problem due to NIMBYs who corrupt zoning boards, oppose reasonable development at every turn, and live in the past while paying lip service to "building the future". (It also has a problem with corrupt/dirty foreign money swelling into the housing market, but that's an issue in New York as well.) New York has solid public transportation. You don't need a car if you live there. People bitch about the MTA, but it's remarkably cheap compared to having a car anywhere in the US, and remarkably convenient considering how much access it provides. San Francisco is a city where you need a car, but can't afford it. Parking costs are so bad that many garages post their 15 minute rates (often around $3.00). New York is hard-core urban and owns the positives and negatives that comes from it, and New York runs itself. San Francisco companies are run from the suburbs-- specifically, from an office park called "Sand Hill Road" in a stretch of land that really ought to be reclaimed by the cows and orange trees, because the people living there are contributing nothing but additional work for the sewer system. Manhattan is what it is, take it or leave it. (And there's nothing wrong with leaving it.) California is fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical, because it's full of people who pretend to be liberal but are, in many ways, worse than the Manhattan old board when it comes to elitism. New York isn't perfect. There's a lot that's badly designed or unpleasant about it, but if you compare it to the cataclysmic mismanagement of California at all levels, it's a breath of fresh air.

forca 12y ago
Well said. I couldn't agree more. I have always loathed California. It all seems so fake and far reaching, while NYC, as you say, is brutally honest in what it presents: lead, follow, or get out of the way.
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  New York is a place that forces you to accept that human life is mindlessly, ludicrously, and inexcusably unfair. It's not there in the abstract ("lifestyle" shows about rich losers, poverty on other continents) but quite visible, every day. It's in front of you, and it's not easy to accept, but after a while you learn from it and tune out the idiocy, while keeping the insights that make you a better person. In the suburbs (and the mentality that is now dominant in San Francisco is suburban, because the locals have been priced out by fratty douchebags and basic bitches) people have enough distance from what's going on that they don't have to acknowledge the facts of social injustice. They can persist in the delusional belief that "the rich" are more successful versions of themselves, and not preselected winners who've had social connections and resources delivered to them since before birth. I don't loathe "California", insofar as many people I like live there and it's a big state with some beautiful national parks. I'm just disgusted by what it has become, and especially by the utter defeat of the technology/engineer culture in Silicon Valley at the hands of MBA C-students and people flushed out of McKinsey.

ritchiea 12y ago

That's an oversimplification of the differences between San Francisco and New York. To begin with, it's a lot easier to travel between boroughs in New York than it is to travel between cities in the bay area. The coverage and availability of the public transportation system is much better in New York (the MTA runs 24 hours). In addition, the bridges are shorter and thus easier to bike or walk over. The length of the Bay Bridge is a kilometer more than the combined lengths of the Brooklyn, Manhattan & Williamsburg bridges, all of which connect Brooklyn & Manhattan. And that's without even mentioning the ease of travel between Manhattan & Queens or Manhattan & the Bronx. And there's also the lack of new housing development in San Francisco that is a function of public policy. There is tons of new housing going up in the affluent parts of Brooklyn and the prices are rising in spite of that. In short the bay area structurally is not fit to be as unified as New York is for citizens & commuters and San Francisco has policy changes it could make to accomodate the rising population that it has not taken.

lambdasquirrel 12y ago
If you were to color in the sparsely populated hills and mountains of the Bay Area as water, you would get an interesting map that makes the place look almost like a bunch of island chains. There are breaks in places like Hillsdale and San Bruno Mountain that disconnect the peninsula from SF, and that is not as obvious a gap as the bay. What you say about the bridge length is interesting because I think most people don't realize the scale of distance between these island chains.

rayiner 12y ago

NIMBY's will never let SF become Manhattan (I.e. dense commercial surrounded by dense residential surrounded by dense suburbs connected by extensive subway and rail). You'll just pay Manhattan prices for sprawling hell because nobody will let anything get built. SF's future looks more like D.C. not Manhattan.

potatolicious 12y ago

SF wouldn't be in this situation if it was willing to become Manhattan. If even one neighborhood in SF became as dense at the Upper West Side the entire housing crisis would evaporate overnight. Ditto on office space. If SOMA built up like Midtown - or screw Midtown, just SoHo - we wouldn't be looking at these insane office rents. But of course, Manhattanization is a dirty word in SF, largely because rent control lets you pass the buck on macro problems in the housing market. You got yours, sucks to be the guys who need an apartment now.

Symmetry 12y ago

SF has quite a ways to go before it becomes Manhattan, it's half as dense as Brooklyn (17,867/sq mi vs 36732)

seanmccann 12y ago
SF neighborhoods like Richmond, Sunset, etc, really bring down the density. When I think of the Manhattanization of SF, it's really just the 2x4 NE corner. The density of the Tenderloin is 71k/sq mi.

morgante 12y ago

> Many people here in SF have been saying this is the direction we've been heading for quite a bit(if it hasn't happened already): SF becomes Manhattan, the surround Bay Area become the boroughs. That's extremely far off the mark. Rent is so high in SF precisely because it's not like Manhattan. Even Brooklyn is denser than SF. That's ludicrous, when you consider the supply & demand of housing. In New York, housing almost follows the free market. Yes, rent is expensive, but that's too be expected considering the consistently high demand and that apartments can't be instantaneously constructed. SF is just as expensive, despite have an order of magnitude less demand. It's a completely supply-driven problem, and until that supply problem is fixed you're going to see rents well in excess of Manhattan (for a far shittier city, with way fewer amenities).

dragonwriter 12y ago
> SF is just as expensive, despite have an order of magnitude less demand. It's a completely supply-driven problem, and until that supply problem is fixed you're going to see rents well in excess of Manhattan (for a far shittier city, with way fewer amenities). People who would rather live in Manhattan know where to go -- but, you know, there are people who consider higher density a negative feature that weighs against other amenities, rather than a positive or neutral feature. Not everyone has the same preferences matrix, and plenty of people see San Francisco as preferable to New York. > In New York, housing almost follows the free market. That New York is free or rent control, zoning laws, etc., etc., etc. is, well, news. The regulation in New York may be driven by different preferences -- and perhaps by preferences more in line with yours -- but it is no less present.