In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build

There are two things that continually surprise me about life in the modern, Internet-enabled age... two things that I would never have dreamed would happen, if you'd asked the 1996 version of me what American life would be like in 2016.

One is our increasing indulgence in irrationality, to the extent that we almost celebrate it. I would never have guessed that hard-right social conservatism would still be a dominant force in American politics, much less a booming business. So I got that wrong, and I'm willing to admit that happened because I didn't take the time to understand those who thought differently from myself, or how their social motivations, family backgrounds, and economic pressures are different from my own. So, my bad.

The other is the continuing notion that it's somehow desirable, much less necessary, to cram everyone into a few high-density cities on either coast. From a 1990s perspective, it appeared that the growing availability of fast Internet connections and the rise of online social, technical, and business networking resources was finally going to liberate us from crowded, noisy, polluted urban prisons with endless traffic jams, out-of-control taxes, and multi-kilobuck rents.

It should have become both possible and desirable to do anything from anywhere, from the middle of flyover territory to the north coast of Alaska to the freaking International Space Station. Instead, we just get more of the same complaints. Rent is too damn high, there's too much traffic, and man, San Francisco/Seattle/Austin/New York used to be cool until all these techies/hippies/yuppies/homeless people/Republicans showed up and ruined it.

I'm not willing to concede that my worldview is wrong about this. This time, it's everyone else who's being stupid and needs to get a clue.

Just leave.

Berlin used to have a lot more inhabitants, about 1 million more around around 1940 than now. Not all of the living areas from back then still exist, but it means there are some reserves. In addition to that, while there's obviously some pressure against just moving outward, it's in the middle of flat, mostly unused, land. Not comparable to SF's space constrained situation.

(Oh, and I do miss Berlin)

Apples and oranges. The new car market dealership model actually obfuscates the price so much that prices can vary wildly by thousands of dollars for the same model and package options. It is a very consumer unfriendly process. You could even make a claim that regulation is partially to blame for this.

The used car market is full of scams, and has the used-car salesmen ever been seen as a trustworthy individual? The independent used-car inspector I went through had a disclaimer that they charge extra to inspect cars on lots out on 82nd ave in Portland because of how notoriously bad they are at selling people lemons. There are many salvage sellers on Craigslist, who fail to mention how badly the car was damaged before being repaired, and those repairs are usually poorly done. Some of the cheapest options are cars with recalls that the seller never mentions in their ad.

Soap? The raw materials, use cases and costs involved with soap are so out of align with that of housing, I can't see "it works for soap" being a viable argument. In many poor neighborhoods there are "food/grocery deserts", so access to cheap soap can be an issue.

On the one hand, you have established residents pushing back against expansion, construction, and denser housing -- perhaps to preserve what they value in their community, or perhaps out of personal interest and to drive up their property values.

On the other, you have a massive influx of tech workers who have convinced themselves that they must live in this small, overpriced city for their basic livelihood, and that the city should rapidly rebuild itself to accommodate them.

There's entitlement on both sides.

Could San Francisco have higher population density to accommodate the recent surge in housing demand? Sure. It already has the second highest population density in the U.S., but it could be denser. But the truth is there's no way to guarantee affordable housing for everyone who decides they would like to live in a small, in-demand city on the tip of a tiny peninsula. There will always be people who can't afford it.

> But I'm not so entitled as to think that my occaisional aesthetic pleasure is more important than someone else's basic livelihood.

No, but you're entitled enough to think that a city should be rebuilt to accommodate your livelihood, rather than your livelihood determining where you can reasonably afford to live. You're entitled enough to think you must live in SF, and you shouldn't have to consider living somewhere more affordable. If you can barely make ends meet and can't see your kids because you're commute is so long, why subject yourself to that?

As much as I'd like San Francisco's housing prices to come down, I also think rebuilding should be done responsibly and not rushed to accommodate a relatively recent surge in demand.

I was wrong about the 1k net -- that's the article's quote from Aaron Peskin, which I read as their summary. But your original comment ("64,000 in 2014") is still way off:

“This official census data [the American Community Survey] shows a one-year in-migration of 63,991 people, with an out-migration of 62,757 residents — a net population increase of 1,234.”

That's the article's quote from Peskin. The article contends he's wrong, and that the net migration, per year since 2010, is ~10k.

The actual census website [1] says that SF had a population of 805k in 2010, and estimates that it will be 865k by 2015. So ~12k per year, net. Peskin's numbers look low, but your original claim ("64,000 in 2014") is wrong by a factor of >500%.

"Certainly not insurmountable problems; Manhattan went from 942,292 people in 1870 to 1,164,673 in 1880."

If you think that Manhattan was a magical wonderland between 1870 and 1880, I suggest you pick up a history book. It was a brutal time for poor people in that city. [2]

[1] http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/06075 [2] http://www.livingcityarchive.org/htm/decades/1870.htm