San Francisco's Fog Over Growth • Hacker News Board

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#21

Post by sethhochberg » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

gravity13 wrote: post #14

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #2

It's a shame that when people focus on the bay area's ludicrous housing costs, they tend to speak exclusively of San Francisco and ignore the opportunity to develop Oakland, which has a lot of flat land that is easier to build tall buildings on top of, instead of trying to densify San Francisco's endless peaks and twists. The author said a potential future for San Francisco is as a "gated community for the rich." Tha…

I get the sense Manhattan was established, and then tapped out, hence Brooklyn. Whereas San Francisco is neither of those. San Francisco is the hip place to be (for tech) and Oakland is perceived as the fallback for companies that can't afford to host. Which really surmounts to: I would much rather work in SF than Oakland (I really base my decision on what food & bar options I have around me, though).

Parts of Manhattan which are popular with the very wealthy are certainly pretty well tapped out (the West Village comes to mind as a neighborhood with well-protected zoning regulations and lots of low to mid-rise buildings similar to many San Francisco neighborhoods). In other parts of Manhattan though new neighborhoods are being created from underused space (look at the Hudson Yards project, creating thousands of housing and commercial units on top of an active rail yard on the west side of midtown). Dozens of new towers are currently under construction in Manhattan.

I've lived in both SF and NYC and feel like Oakland has much more of a stigma than Brooklyn does simply because of transit access. You can live in SF and enjoy walkable local communities. You can live in Oakland and enjoy walkable local communities. But getting between the two can be a much more arduous process via Bart or bus than the many plentiful subway connections between Manhattan and Brooklyn. Visiting friends, of even the prospect of a commute, between SF and Oakland would have given me much more pause than getting over to Brooklyn. BART and the transbay buses are woefully inadequate for an area which is trying to pitch itself as a region rather than two distinct cities with a bridge between.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#22

Post by raldi » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 5:42 PM UTC

pluckytree wrote: post #3

I agree that part of the motivation for people supporting zoning is to preserve or increase their property values. But I think that people that spend a huge chunk of change on a house should care about preserving the neighborhood they bought into. As an extreme case, without zoning, what if each home lot on your street were turned into a high rise residential or commercial building? I don’t think any homeowner expect…

I don't mind that some homeowners seek to block new housing; that's their right, and might be in their best interest.

What I mind is that SF's local media never blames these people for their role in the housing crisis, and that ostensibly progressive organizations stand by their side, even though thwarting change and enriching the establishment at the expense of newcomers is about as far from progressive as you could get.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#23

Post by raldi » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

gmarx wrote: post #10

"would lift U.S. gross domestic product by 9.5 percent"? Really? Over what period of time? If it's one year it's unbelievable. If it's over 50 years, who cares?

I believe the calculation is for when the system approached its new steady state. And why shouldn't one care about the world of fifty years from now? I intend to still be alive, and so will a lot of the people I care about.

Plus it's not like we'd see no improvement whatsoever for 49 years and then WHAM. We'd see gradual returns on this investment every year.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#24

Post by ghaff » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 5:56 PM UTC

sethhochberg wrote: post #21

gravity13 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the sense Manhattan was established, and then tapped out, hence Brooklyn. Whereas San Francisco is neither of those. San Francisco is the hip place to be (for tech) and Oakland is perceived as the fallback for companies that can't afford to host. Which really surmounts to: I would much rather work in SF than Oakland (I really base my decision on what food & bar options I have around me, though).

Parts of Manhattan which are popular with the very wealthy are certainly pretty well tapped out (the West Village comes to mind as a neighborhood with well-protected zoning regulations and lots of low to mid-rise buildings similar to many San Francisco neighborhoods). In other parts of Manhattan though new neighborhoods are being created from underused space (look at the Hudson Yards project, creating thousands of ho…

That seems a good assessment. I suspect that there may be a bit of hindsight bias about Brooklyn, given that we know today that (parts of) it did gentrify and quite rapidly. But your point about transportation links--and, heck, a bridge you can walk over--is well taken.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#25

Post by scurvy » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 5:56 PM UTC

crzwdjk wrote: post #8

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-rise San Francisco is very pleasant, probably the most pleasant place I could imagine living. It's quite walkable and quiet in the right places. And in a place like that you can know your neighbors. Ironically, people live more segmented lives the higher buildings get. I also understand why people would want to maintain the quality of life they had when they purchased their house, even if it is at the expense of…

Unfortunately, property tax law in California does the exact opposite. The tax can't be higher than 1% of the assessed value of the house, and that assessment can't go up by more than 2% every year as long as the house isn't sold. So the people who have been living in the neighborhood the longest and complain the most about "neighborhood character" also pay much less property tax than their neighbors. And by "much le…

The tax rate can also be passed down to your heirs upon your death. It also covers commercial buildings. What was originally sold as "don't tax grandma out" is obviously a power move to create a land holding elite.

I'm a property owner, but I don't really like the system. I also don't like how mismanaged the property taxes here are, but that's another thread.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#26

Post by scurvy » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 6:02 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #5

Retric wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If every house around you is turned into a high-rise then your property values are going to shoot up massively. So, cash out and move. The real question is why can 1x people living in an area decide that 99x people get to move there or not. In the end Mixed use walkable communities are much better for both peoples health and the environment. You can always move to the middle of Montana if you don't want to live near…

Low-rise San Francisco is very pleasant, probably the most pleasant place I could imagine living. It's quite walkable and quiet in the right places. And in a place like that you can know your neighbors. Ironically, people live more segmented lives the higher buildings get. I also understand why people would want to maintain the quality of life they had when they purchased their house, even if it is at the expense of…

I've known maybe 20% of my neighbors in SF,and I didn't live in high rises. I've lived in the low density housing you speak of. Sunset, Tenderloin, Nob Hill, and Russian Hill. People in the Sunset live very insular lives. Maybe it has to do with the immigrant nature of it, or maybe because some places are brothels or grow houses. Tenderloin had a better sense of community, and it's probably the highest density of all four places.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#27

Post by danans » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 6:27 PM UTC

gravity13 wrote: post #14

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #2

It's a shame that when people focus on the bay area's ludicrous housing costs, they tend to speak exclusively of San Francisco and ignore the opportunity to develop Oakland, which has a lot of flat land that is easier to build tall buildings on top of, instead of trying to densify San Francisco's endless peaks and twists. The author said a potential future for San Francisco is as a "gated community for the rich." Tha…

I get the sense Manhattan was established, and then tapped out, hence Brooklyn. Whereas San Francisco is neither of those. San Francisco is the hip place to be (for tech) and Oakland is perceived as the fallback for companies that can't afford to host. Which really surmounts to: I would much rather work in SF than Oakland (I really base my decision on what food & bar options I have around me, though).

You may not be aware that Oakland has an amazing and burgeoning food and bar scene, one that has arguably stolen the authenticity crown from San Francisco. Traditional restaurants also are alive and well in Oakland if that's your thing.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#28

Post by CrowFly » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 6:36 PM UTC

crzwdjk wrote: post #8

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-rise San Francisco is very pleasant, probably the most pleasant place I could imagine living. It's quite walkable and quiet in the right places. And in a place like that you can know your neighbors. Ironically, people live more segmented lives the higher buildings get. I also understand why people would want to maintain the quality of life they had when they purchased their house, even if it is at the expense of…

Unfortunately, property tax law in California does the exact opposite. The tax can't be higher than 1% of the assessed value of the house, and that assessment can't go up by more than 2% every year as long as the house isn't sold. So the people who have been living in the neighborhood the longest and complain the most about "neighborhood character" also pay much less property tax than their neighbors. And by "much le…

Not quite. There are "parcel taxes" too that keep going up.

And 2%/year increase isn't inconsequential.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#29

Post by mjmahone17 » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 6:41 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #20

hibikir wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big difficulty of building a new city in the US is that, in the age of the car, we'd not build anything dense enough to feel like a city. I live in a metro area that has a bit over a million people, but in no way does it feel anything like a European city, NY or SF. Without any pressure that makes land expensive, we build wide, single family houses on half-acres. Just look at the difference between SF and the rest…

You do see walkable areas spring up where older downtown cores have gentrified--Raleigh NC is one example I'm personally familiar with. But these walkable cores are typically relatively small. The cities of the desert Southwest like Phoenix and Las Vegas offer an example of the type of housing people tend to buy (and therefore the type of housing that gets built) when there's plenty of cheap land.

Phoenix is finally hitting the limits of how much it can sprawl. And it's also beginning to produce more walkable communities: downtown Tempe, Chandler and Mesa are all more walkable, and developers are building downtown, walkable apartments, instead of the old parking-lot-centric complexes. While it's still incredibly difficult not to own a car, if you want a walkable lifestyle, it's nearly possible. Just not in midday during the summer.

Re: San Francisco's Fog Over Growth

#30

Post by matkam » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

pluckytree wrote: post #3

I agree that part of the motivation for people supporting zoning is to preserve or increase their property values. But I think that people that spend a huge chunk of change on a house should care about preserving the neighborhood they bought into. As an extreme case, without zoning, what if each home lot on your street were turned into a high rise residential or commercial building? I don’t think any homeowner expect…

Relevant to this topic, Youtube channel "The School of Life" talks about this issue where people are reluctant to build, causing the housing price to go up. One Reason Homes Cost So Much: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcbjWGj3jBk

As a follow up, the same channel offers some more ideas and broader view solutions. How to Make an Attractive City: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c