Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

experimental-geography.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 155 posts

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#81

Post by J5892 »

kafkaesq wrote: post #51
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #9

Building straight into the sky is easy. You'd be amazed at how earthquake-proof skyscrapers are with modern technology. You want a challenge? Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property.

Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property. That's because you're talking about one of the most beautiful cities in the world (despite the attempts of some people to decry otherwise) and, as expressed through the will of its electorate, intends to stay that way. It's also a city that's keenly aware of ecosystem dynamics and environmental issues generally, an…

My level of depression while walking outside significantly reduced once I moved away from San Jose.

San Jose has a beauty reminiscent of Houston, Texas or Melbourne, Australia.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#82

Post by kafkaesq »

Camillo wrote: post #56
kafkaesq wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property. That's because you're talking about one of the most beautiful cities in the world (despite the attempts of some people to decry otherwise) and, as expressed through the will of its electorate, intends to stay that way. It's also a city that's keenly aware of ecosystem dynamics and environmental issues generally, an…

The west side of the city (the Sunset and the Richmond) has little to recommend in terms of "visual character". It's also poorly connected to the rest of the city and has very poor walkability, save for the N corridor. They could just tear it all up and build mid-rises, if only they had better connections to stimulate demand.

Every city has its underbellies and backsides -- most of them for more unappealing and unsalvageable than SF's. Meanwhile, very few large cities in North America (and I've been to basically all of them) have much to compare with in terms of architecture, character (up until the current boom, anyway) and charm.

And in terms of the stunning beauty of its geographic surroundings -- precisely none of them.

On balance there's basically no contest.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#83

Post by sfmeteor »

kafkaesq wrote: post #51
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #9

Building straight into the sky is easy. You'd be amazed at how earthquake-proof skyscrapers are with modern technology. You want a challenge? Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property.

Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property. That's because you're talking about one of the most beautiful cities in the world (despite the attempts of some people to decry otherwise) and, as expressed through the will of its electorate, intends to stay that way. It's also a city that's keenly aware of ecosystem dynamics and environmental issues generally, an…

SF, a city so keenly aware of environmental issues that we built a dam in a national park to get some water.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#84

Post by kafkaesq »

sfmeteor wrote: post #83
kafkaesq wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property. That's because you're talking about one of the most beautiful cities in the world (despite the attempts of some people to decry otherwise) and, as expressed through the will of its electorate, intends to stay that way. It's also a city that's keenly aware of ecosystem dynamics and environmental issues generally, an…

SF, a city so keenly aware of environmental issues that we built a dam in a national park to get some water.

I'm talking about the SF of 2016, not 1923.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#85

Post by seanmcdirmid »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #60
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #9

Building straight into the sky is easy. You'd be amazed at how earthquake-proof skyscrapers are with modern technology. You want a challenge? Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property.

It is worth mentioning that building into the sky is expensive. Easy sure. But expensive. Each floor is more expensive than the one below it. I'm not sure what the premium is though. Anyone know? What's the added cost for an apartment building as you go up? Seattle has a lot of 2+4 construction. Where it's 2 floor concrete and 4 floors wood. I believe the limit used to be 2+2 but they raised it. Cheaper construction…

Wood and concrete are perfectly valid for low rise construction. It isn't exactly "cheap" but reasonable. In fact, wood is much better than concrete in handling earth quakes.

If it wasn't for earth quakes, you can get up to about 30 or so floors with concrete, which is the standard in China (a bit overbuilt on wall/floor thickness, but quality is less than the states). Anything higher, you should go with steel, and anyways, I'm guessing steel is standard for high rise construction in earth quake prone areas, right? The biggest problem with steel is that the skills needed to work it are much greater, so you can't just through surplus farmer labor at it (which is why China doesn't use it very often).

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#86

Post by matt_wulfeck »

MBlume wrote: post #75
snewk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i acknowledge that city ordinances can be a huge headache, but consider that trees serve more than just aesthetic purpose. They provide shade, filter particulate matter, and increase air quality for a much larger area than just 'your own property'. This is especially important in the urban core of cities where greenery can be scarce, and mature trees even more so.

Ok, give everyone a tax break determined by the number of trees on their property.

But then you lose control, and that's a lot more valuable than money.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#87

Post by _delirium »

sampo wrote: post #77
nerfhammer wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note New York City has less of these issues because over the centuries it gained control of its neighboring areas from other counties, something San Francisco never did.

But given how fervently anti-development San Francisco itself also is, would it even have helped?

San Francisco looks positively pro-development compared to places like Palo Alto. At least they allow townhomes, not requiring detached houses with large lots. If more of the Peninsula were even near SF levels of density, the housing issues would be a lot less severe.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#88

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Balgair wrote: post #61
kafkaesq wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property. That's because you're talking about one of the most beautiful cities in the world (despite the attempts of some people to decry otherwise) and, as expressed through the will of its electorate, intends to stay that way. It's also a city that's keenly aware of ecosystem dynamics and environmental issues generally, an…

HA! San Fransisco is a dirty, 2 fisted drinking town, full-stop. It is not 'one of the most beautiful cities in the world'. Try Hamburg or Vienna. It is a port of call for those looking to escape polite society, be they gays, Chicanos, drunk miners, Russian trappers, whores, Burners, or whatever else isn't talked about on 5th Ave. Do not delude yourself into thinking San Fransisco's people care about anything but the…

San Francisco's wooden victorian are very beautiful, it also has a lot of "western American port city" architecture in tact, as you say. Many of us find that beautiful compared to old European cities that have their own very different histories. "The most beautiful city in the world" is most definitely an exaggeration, but it definitely has its own charm.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#89

Post by mikeyouse »

mgraczyk wrote: post #71
capkutay wrote: post #16

Obligatory reminder: If you care about housing in the Bay Area, register to vote now. Scott Wiener is a housing and transportation advocate running for State Senate in this election. http://registertovote.ca.gov/ Show up to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor meetings. Participate in public comment. We all talk about how NIMBYs rule SF, it's because they show up in full force at these gatherings.

Scott Wiener seems to be a big part of the problem in terms of increasing the regulatory burden on new development. Have I missed something in his actual record that indicates he is removing restrictions on new housing development?

Wiener is really good on housing, much better than the Peskin group of Supes. Read his post when he came out against the Mission Moratorium to get a sense of his housing views:

http://www.scottwiener.com/more_affordable_housing_not_a_hou...

Alternatively, read his post on Medium titled, "Yes, Supply & Demand Apply to Housing, Even in San Francisco":

https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/yes-supply-demand-apply-to-...

> These trends are exactly why the supply-and-demand deniers pose such a significant challenge to actually fixing our housing problem. As we work hard to try to produce new housing — through market-produced housing, below-market-rate housing, new types of housing such as co-housing and micro-units, and more flexibility toward in-law units — we have a vocal and influential set of advocates pronouncing that we shouldn’t even bother to build market-produced housing, since, according to them, doing so won’t lower housing costs and may even raise housing costs. This argument, to the extent it succeeds, not only reduces the amount of housing produced in San Francisco but actually slows the production of below-market-rate housing, since market-produced housing, through our inclusionary housing program, is the most significant source of new affordable units coming online.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#90

Post by seanmcdirmid »

refurb wrote: post #46
Gibbon1 wrote: post #3

Answering a question, why the decline in rents 1950-1960? Far as I know during WWII the population of the city swelled due to war time industry. After the war people moved to newly created suburbs in Santa Clara and the Peninsula. I'm unsure but I think my grandparents moved to SF during the 1939-1940 WWII preseason. And by the late forties had moved away.

People were leaving! In 1950 the population of SF peaked (at the time) at 775,000, by 1960 it was down to 740,000, then by 1980 down to 678,000 (13% drop over 30 years!). Hard to believe it living in SF today.

Reminds me of "Will the last person leaving SEATTLE -- Turn out the lights" in 1971, http://www.historylink.org/db_images/req094.JPG, during a Boeing bust in Seattle. How times have changed.
Post reply on HN