21–30 of 261 posts
The idea of having a Bay Area "Mayor" sounds like an idea that could have solve a lot of the problems in the Bay Area. The issue would be trying to make that transition happen, seems almost impossible.
> In the Bay Area, you’re unlikely to have easy access to San Francisco at all if you’re not in San Francisco proper. Eh? It is pretty easy to get to San Francisco from Oakland or Berkeley. Hell, its easier to get to fidi or soma from Oakland than from parts of San Francisco. Edit: For the downvoters, I’m genuinely curious how BART from Oakland to San Fran is considerd hard? I was simply contesting the point that the…
Only if: a) You live near BART b) Your destination is near BART And there's also the fact that even if a+b are true for you it's very expensive (~$4-5 each way compared to $2.25 in NYC), overcrowded, and has horrible latency. The fact that on a Friday night at 9pm the trains are running 20m apart is embarassing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this is bizarre. I used to live near MacArthur BART and my commute into the city took ~20 mins. I could EASILY get to: the ballpark, anywhere along market, anywhere in the mission, SFO. I now live in El Cerrito, which makes people go "Oh god, how long is your commute?". 31 minutes. That's it. People seem to think it's a different planet, but I can't even get through a full podcast on the ride home. Totally agre…
I don't disagree with the sentiment here, but want to add a few comments: If you have to walk once you get off of Bart (and let's be honest, the Bart stops are pretty well spaced out), your commute goes up. SF transit (the 38 Geary, the N) might seem slower, but you typically don't have to walk as far when you get off. Also, depending on time of day, Muni runs more frequently than the specific Bart lines. Compared wi…
You end up walking a lot in NYC, too, it isn't some panacea. I had a ~25 minute walk from the N train to my apartment in Queens when I lived in New York.
Is it beneficial for the rest of US to save SF? Won't its demise actually improve the lives in the rest of the country/world as businesses spread out after workers or allow remote work?
My opinion, however, is that we should do everything we can to encourage prosperity in all our cities, including our superstar cities. If that means more concentrated urbanization in a few places, that's simply a continuation of a trend since 1870 that has resulted in tremendous growth and prosperity for this country and many others.
"Someone else should make the sacrifice." There's the problem right there. From the article: "Brisbane ... is currently blocking a large housing development for local reasons." "And we also probably don’t want high rise condos on the edge of Golden Gate Park. San Francisco isn’t New York." I've voted in favor of every housing initiative available to me, but you can't make your favorite part of the Bay Area sacred and…
That, plus people assaulting my wife on the street, plus $3000 rent for a 1 bedroom, and I had it with the city. I loved it, it was a great experience, but I just couldn't take it anymore. Now I work from home in the central valley, where I can afford to rent a 3000 sq. ft. home (not because I'm paid much, but because housing is so cheap), and my commute is 1 minute. I'm much happier out here, yet I find when I tell people from SF where I live, some (not all, most people ask "Where the heck is that?") wrinkle their noses. I say, if you're tired of the city, give it a shot -- you might be happier.
Is it beneficial for the rest of US to save SF? Won't its demise actually improve the lives in the rest of the country/world as businesses spread out after workers or allow remote work?
The weather is a drawback (in probably 200+ days in NYC over 10 years I can remember a single week of what I would consider nice weather). I have realized that crappy climate is a poor reason to avoid the move.
My one main concern is finding a job with similar pay and interesting work. 90+% of the job listings I see are for Java enterpise-type work paying a third of what my (admittedly more than comfortable) current total pay is.
That said:
> And we also probably don’t want high rise condos on the edge of Golden Gate Park. San Francisco isn’t New York.
Probably going to have to get over this objection for a plan like this to work. Transit and accessibility are great places to start, but transit-oriented development requires density to succeed. If people are going to be getting around via transit lines instead of by car, you need a lot of people to live within easy walking distance of each residential transit stop, and you need a lot of the places people are trying to get to (work, leisure, etc.) to be within easy walking distance of the stop on the other end of their trip. High transit ridership and neighborhoods comprised of single-family homes don't work well together, and while part of what makes the Bushwick example work well is the better transit, the density is a big part of the calculus as well (again, on both ends).
Is it beneficial for the rest of US to save SF? Won't its demise actually improve the lives in the rest of the country/world as businesses spread out after workers or allow remote work?