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

Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

dougmccune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 212 posts

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#171

Post by ghaff »

brc wrote: post #164
rhino369 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a couple 45 story buildings will mean you don't have to put up a 5 story building on every corner. Or do both and make it really affordable. You also have to consider that decreasing cost in SF will lead to increased demand.

I actually think it would be very hard to soak up demand at this point. I think adding high rise is the right choice, as long as it is accompanied with increases in transport links. It's all very well to add in a couple of thousand people, but they all have to get in and out and buy groceries etc. you don't want each of those people owning a car and making the traffic worse. I think there should be mor emphasis on ma…

>as long as it is accompanied with increases in transport links

That point so often seems ignored in these discussions (with respect to many growing/popular cities).

So an example of the reality in the Boston area is that the Green Line extension is on hold last I read because costs have doubled to $2 billion or so. (And the Green Line is basically the oldest and crappiest line in the overall not-bad Boston metro system. It's essentially a trolley with underground sections dating to the turn of the last century.)

So 20 years and $20 billion or so in transportation infrastructure would certainly set San Francisco up to do more building in areas where there are good opportunities to expand housing stock beyond what's already being built.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#172

Post by ghaff »

WildUtah wrote: post #149
kurthr wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Population density in "Tokyo" is much higher than you describe at 15k/km2 on average with many wards of 300-500k persons that are OVER 20k/km2. The Tokyo Metropolis includes Yokohama which is 30km away (it's like including all of Marin/San Mateo/Oakland), while the Met Area you describe would be like the whole Bay Area down to San Jose and halfway to Sacramento. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_wards_of_Tokyo Se…

Tokyo's built-up area has population density near 150 (in persons/hectare, the SI unit of population density). It's nearly the same in the central wards and in the outer suburbs. Tokyo achieves that density with almost no one living in buildings over five stories high and the vast majority in free-standing single family homes under four stories. San Francisco County, not including any suburbs, averages around 90, exc…

And here's the subway system that moves all those people around in Tokyo: http://bento.com/subtop5.html

San Francisco has BART at least (plus Muni to be fair). Oh, and the cable cars. https://www.bart.gov/sites/all/themes/bart_desktop/img/syste...

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#173

Post by ctack »

umeshunni wrote: post #12
tomschlick wrote: post #4

As an outsider, the solution to the SF housing issues seem pretty simple... Vote out the NIMBY politicians and replace them with people who will change zoning laws to allow for more building. I'd assume almost no one likes the current situation unless they are a landlord.

>> almost no one likes the current situation unless they are a landlord. Anyone who owns property in the city, whether they are a homeowner or a landlord, likes the current situation. For non-landlord homeowners, the current situation keeps their property values and home equity high and it ensures that the neighborhood and quality of life they bought into stays permanently stuck in time. My local Nimby group, for e.g…

Not to say I'm in favour of NIMBYism, but if SF had to have a serious, rustbelt scale economic downturn in the future then lack of overdevelopment would be a positive thing.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#174

Post by kofejnik »

People keep saying 'SF should allow for more development' as if it's a universal human right to live in SF; while current residents are being mean by not wanting highrises on their block. SF is nice, more people want to live there than there's space, hence, not everyone can afford it. Why would the current owners/residents want to change that? I really don't get it.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#175

Post by heartsucker »

kofejnik wrote: post #174

People keep saying 'SF should allow for more development' as if it's a universal human right to live in SF; while current residents are being mean by not wanting highrises on their block. SF is nice, more people want to live there than there's space, hence, not everyone can afford it. Why would the current owners/residents want to change that? I really don't get it.

Think of it reverse. Is it a universal right to have luxurious places to live in a high demand area? Why would people who want to move into or remain in SF on a budget not want to change that?

This is why issues like this are complicated. Both sides have some merit.

(also, not taking sides since I don't live there any more)

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#176

Post by School-Cotton »

ghaff wrote: post #170
School-Cotton wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of what the density numbers show (which I suspect depends much more on what we choose to define as "the city" than on any reality), anecdotally it's impossible to get around comfortably in SF without a car. Being able to live without a car is the defining characteristic of a real city as opposed to a sprawled-out suburb, in my mind.

I do know people who live in SF without owning a car but they use a lot of Uber/Zipcar/other rentals/car sharing etc. (as well as cycling and using delivery services). Personally, in their position, I'd probably own a car. That said, there are very few US cities where you could live without a car without it being a hassle, especially if you want to leave your core urban area on a regular basis.

New York.

Maybe New York is the only real world-class city in the US. It's not a hard argument to support...

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#177

Post by archagon »

coenhyde wrote: post #47
whyenot wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an outsider The problem is that "NIMBY politicians" are elected by NIMBY residents. If you are a homeowner, or live in a rent controlled apartment, SF is a fantastic place and there is little incentive to get rid of zoning laws. To fundamentally change the rental market in SF, you need to craft an argument that convinces these voters to change their minds. The "hey, lets get rid of zoning laws so we can build to…

I think the best argument for building more is to keep SF weird. A lot of people are sad SF has changed so radically; become less artsy. These same people argue against building up, in the misguided notion that it will destroy their lovely city. But imo what's destroying SF is not high rises but anyone on a sub $100k salary has to live somewhere else. It's becoming a mono culture. And at the end of the day bitching a…

I imagine high rises will only make the city more tech-broey, not weird — opposite of what the current residents want.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#178

Post by ghaff »

School-Cotton wrote: post #176
ghaff wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do know people who live in SF without owning a car but they use a lot of Uber/Zipcar/other rentals/car sharing etc. (as well as cycling and using delivery services). Personally, in their position, I'd probably own a car. That said, there are very few US cities where you could live without a car without it being a hassle, especially if you want to leave your core urban area on a regular basis.

New York. Maybe New York is the only real world-class city in the US. It's not a hard argument to support...

I'm less convinced that world class city inherently means "not owning a car is the norm and isn't really a compromise." That seems to give a lot of weight to what's ultimately your personal preference.

But, yes, if that's the definition, only New York (Manhattan in particular) really qualifies in the US. You can get away with it in other US cities but it tends to depend on stage in life, income, specific situation with respect to job etc., recreational activities, and how much hassle you're willing to put up with.

That said, living in Manhattan is a very specific lifestyle choice that isn't for everyone. I like visiting it now and then but the summer I worked there was enough.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#179

Post by kofejnik »

heartsucker wrote: post #175
kofejnik wrote: post #174

People keep saying 'SF should allow for more development' as if it's a universal human right to live in SF; while current residents are being mean by not wanting highrises on their block. SF is nice, more people want to live there than there's space, hence, not everyone can afford it. Why would the current owners/residents want to change that? I really don't get it.

Think of it reverse. Is it a universal right to have luxurious places to live in a high demand area? Why would people who want to move into or remain in SF on a budget not want to change that? This is why issues like this are complicated. Both sides have some merit. (also, not taking sides since I don't live there any more)

Not very complicated, there are universal human rights, plus whatever is guaranteed in a relevant constitution. Everything else is for those who can afford it. Luxurious place in high demand area is one example. (should we strive to make Ferraris affordable?)

Otherwise, can people come live in your apartment? Why do you keep your place and your food and your car to yourself? Certainly a lot of people would want to change that.

Re: Sculpture of Housing Prices Ripping San Francisco Apart

#180

Post by pessimizer »

kofejnik wrote: post #174

People keep saying 'SF should allow for more development' as if it's a universal human right to live in SF; while current residents are being mean by not wanting highrises on their block. SF is nice, more people want to live there than there's space, hence, not everyone can afford it. Why would the current owners/residents want to change that? I really don't get it.

It's an rationalization from wealthy young upper middle class people who feel entitled to everything they want in life, used to attack wealthy homeowners who are entitled to make decisions about SF. And it's encouraged by mostly geriatric mega-wealthy large land owners who know 1) that that removing height and other restrictions will raise the value of their holdings even more, 2) that building high and ugly with inadequate parking or local services on property they already own will push those wealthy homeowners to sell en masse, and 3) they have the billions and the leverage to buy.

It's cynical manipulation of the selfishness of already entitled-feeling tech kids. All restrictions will be lifted, massive high-rises will go up, the property in the shade of them with be purchased by multi-billionaires, REITS and hedge funds, they will all instantly stop building and collude to keep rentals at the current prices, or even raise them, and all the tech kids will still be renting.

edit: it's a fantasy to think that rental prices will go down if high-rises get built. Call me Nostradamus, but half of the units in those high-rises will sit empty and be used to write-off taxes from the owners' other holdings (at the current neighborhood rental value of course) just like in every other hot property market in the world.

Post reply on HN