3 ms·

Why does SF have that problem? To a significant degree, because more people can live in buildings like this: http://cache-graphicslib.viator.com/graphicslib/med

Why does SF have that problem? To a significant degree, because more people can live in buildings like this: http://cache-graphicslib.viator.com/graphicslib/media/c8/very-busy-paris-streets-photo_1489864-770tall.jpg http://cache-graphicslib.viator.com/graphicslib/media/c8/ver... than buildings like this: http://c718756.r56.cf2.rackcdn.com/26000/93334/2010-08-25/35b9b123d2a5a4838c5cab39f69780ce.jpg http://c718756.r56.cf2.rackcdn.com/26000/93334/2010-08-25/35... yet it's illegal to replace the latter with the former in SF. Unlike, say, Chicago in the 1880s.

dredmorbius 11y ago
The bulk of Chicago isn't highly multistory buildings, and most of the early skyscrapers were office towers, not residential. What Chicago has that San Francisco hasn't is land. The city sprawled both north and south along Lake Michigan, and westward. San Francisco has less space in the city proper, yes, but it also wasn't filled out fully until the 1950s. Now, of course, it is fully built up, and the only way to add more people is to grow up rather than out. Chicago, though, also has highly developed suburbs, which were principally served until the 1960s by commuter rail, radiating out in all directions. Contrast with SF which had only one line south (CalTrain) through what remains a comparatively sparsely developed area (the Peninsula), and limited East Bay service (though the Key System did exist until the 1950s). It's simply easier to build out more metropolitan infrastructure in the midwest. Chicago is also within reasonable rail distance of much of the East Coast. By the late 1850s, it was less than two day's travel from New York, and well under one by the 1930s (about the same, by rail, as now). http://railroads.unl.edu/documents/view_document.php?id=rail.str.0241 http://railroads.unl.edu/documents/view_document.php?id=rail... San Francisco was four weeks' travel in the 1850s, and still 3-4 days by the 1930s. Today, California is increasingly practically limited by water access.

dredmorbius 11y ago

The bulk of Chicago isn't highly multistory buildings, and most of the early skyscrapers were office towers, not residential. What Chicago has that San Francisco hasn't is land. The city sprawled both north and south along Lake Michigan, and westward. San Francisco has less space in the city proper, yes, but it also wasn't filled out fully until the 1950s. Now, of course, it is fully built up, and the only way to add more people is to grow up rather than out. Chicago, though, also has highly developed suburbs, which were principally served until the 1960s by commuter rail, radiating out in all directions. Contrast with SF which had only one line south (CalTrain) through what remains a comparatively sparsely developed area (the Peninsula), and limited East Bay service (though the Key System did exist until the 1950s). It's simply easier to build out more metropolitan infrastructure in the midwest. Chicago is also within reasonable rail distance of much of the East Coast. By the late 1850s, it was less than two day's travel from New York, and well under one by the 1930s (about the same, by rail, as now). http://railroads.unl.edu/documents/view_document.php?id=rail.str.0241 http://railroads.unl.edu/documents/view_document.php?id=rail... San Francisco was four weeks' travel in the 1850s, and still 3-4 days by the 1930s. Today, California is increasingly practically limited by water access.