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

91–100 of 155 posts

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

#91

Post by kafkaesq »

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…

That's a nice, romantic point view of the world to have.

But the reality of the city's history and demographics is far more staid. And the people living there just want jobs, affordable housing, and better public transportation just like anywhere else. And streets that don't flood during storms, and air they can breathe.

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

#92

Post by kafkaesq »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #88
Balgair wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"One of the most" is what I said, not "the most."

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

#93

Post by gech »

harryh wrote: post #43
timr wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In the long run, that isn't true. A skyscraper has a useful life well in excess of 50 years. If you look at places like Chicago, you'll see that luxury high-rises get renovated 20-30 years in to become mid-range places." It really depends. They just gutted 101 Van Ness (a pre-existing 1960s-era skyscraper) and turned it into housing. It's all luxury -- the cheapest units are upwards of $3000 a month for a tiny studi…

> That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that new construction doesn't help anyone but wealthy people in SF, today. If you build more luxury housing it lowers the price of luxury housing so that a marginally less rich person can move to that tier. That marginal move reduces the demand on the next lower tier of housing which should reduce the price at that level. And so on, and so on...

Can you promise that

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

#94

Post by Gibbon1 »

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.

Herb Caens books on San Francisco are good read. Some reference here. A lot of the issues facing the city haven't changed as much as people think.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/place/article/Problems-He...

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

#95

Post by mgraczyk »

mikeyouse wrote: post #89
mgraczyk wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-... > Th…

As I said, these essays propose and defend additional restrictions on building new housing. His restrictions are slightly less sinister than moratoriums, and come in the form of affordable housing requirements. He is still adding regulatory burden to the legal code, just slightly less burden than some of his peers have proposed.

I'd also like to point out that Wiener strongly advocated solar panel and beautification requirements for new construction. Requiring solar panels on homes is a great way to pat yourself on the back, but not a great way to generate electricity. Let's build solar power plants, not require every new apartment to cover it's roof in panels regardless of the economic sensibility of doing so.

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

#96

Post by Retric »

DrScump wrote: post #69
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.

Boosting housing by building vertically is virtually unlimited. The trickier part is supplying the added people with water, electricity, gas, food, and other supplies without augmenting infrastructure (which is failing left and right as it is) and convincing them to never travel out of or into the city using its already-at-capacity freeways and rail.

Impact fees can help solve this @ 40+k per apartment it adds up fast. However, rent controls + property tax limits are the real issue.

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

#97

Post by jacalata »

J5892 wrote: post #81
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…

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.

What do you find similar between Melbourne and Houston?

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

#98

Post by bpchaps »

DrScump wrote: post #69
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.

Boosting housing by building vertically is virtually unlimited. The trickier part is supplying the added people with water, electricity, gas, food, and other supplies without augmenting infrastructure (which is failing left and right as it is) and convincing them to never travel out of or into the city using its already-at-capacity freeways and rail.

Would available living spaces in downtown areas reduce congestion in some way? I could see it going both ways.

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

#99

Post by Retric »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #88
Balgair wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IMO, San Francisco is an ugly city. It's got that smattering of high rises in a mostly low rise city that just screams slums in most of the world. I mean there is a reason most photos are of a bridge not the buildings.

I accept everyone has different aesthetics. But, the city just screams fake to me without any of the organic charm an old city or the brutal asthetic of say NY.

PS: I guess you can call it unique...

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

#100

Post by seanmcdirmid »

kafkaesq wrote: post #92
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"One of the most" is what I said, not "the most."

Sure. I was just stating that the exaggerated point would have been...an exaggeration, not that this is the point you made. Sorry for the confusion.
Post reply on HN