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

Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 261 posts

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#101

Post by compiler-guy »

nerfhammer wrote: post #52
rsync wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Brisbane ... is currently blocking a large housing development for local reasons." Good for them. I mean, probably not, but Brisbane is their town and they should determine their own values and courses of action. The solution to San Francisco needs to occur in San Francisco - not CC county or Marin or Sonoma. There's a lot of very, very distinguished and historic and noteworthy 1-4 story housing stock in San Francis…

> Brisbane is their town and they should determine their own values and courses of action. Do you feel the same way about other critical shortages that cause massive human suffering?

Not sure you want to go down that path, but if so:

If you are employed in a tech job somewhere in the United States, , you are very likely in the top 20% of Americans in terms of income, and the top 1% in the world. Perhaps much higher.

I take it you are willing to give all that up in the face of the crushing poverty in the rest of the world.

Bay area housing shortages are nothing compared to the critical shortages that cause massive human suffering in the rest of the world.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#102

Post by greedo »

sogen wrote: post #54
archagon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transport in the Bay is so, so hilariously bad. I'm in St. Petersburg, Russia right now and the subway here doesn't actually have a schedule. Instead, there's a clock on the wall. If the next train doesn't arrive within 2 minutes and reset the counter, something's not right. The stations cover basically the entire city, and as a result, venturing 5 miles across town feels about the same as going down a set of escalat…

The bus arrives on time: Yes But it's so crowded and stinky, it's not worth it. That's my educated guess about why so many people use car sharing services Also, why do they keep doing so many new buildings? Those buildings are going to need people, and people need transportation, and a house...

Nobody uses buses anymore. They're too crowded.

(apologies to Y.B.)

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#103

Post by gojomo »

ende wrote: post #21
Veelox wrote: post #12

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.

Interestingly enough, when SF and Oakland were both attempting to annex every neighboring town in proximity, SF had designs on consolidating all the Bay Area municipalities under a system similar to NYC's boroughs.

More details on what coulda, woulda, shoulda been: http://hoodline.com/2017/03/that-time-san-francisco-tried-to...

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#104

Post by diogenescynic »

cmontella wrote: post #26

I used to live in the dead center of the city, in the Ashbury Heights neighborhood. It took me literally 1 hour to get to work, down town taking muni (fastest time recorded is 40 minutes without any delays and essentially running the "last mile"). This was the longest commute of my life, and I lived 3 miles from work. It would take me just a little more time to walk there. Biking was faster, but more dangerous -- I g…

You left out some other frequent experiences: having your car broken into, bums pooping on your fire escape, used needles all over, BART general unsanitary and unsafe conditions, bad service and crowded restaurants, I could go on and on.

San Francisco is the most expensive and over-priced shithole. I’ve lived here for 10 years and I’m completely over it. I can’t wait for some startup or tech company to use this as a disruptive opportunity. I only live here because my job is here. I’d move if my job would let me.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#105

Post by taheca »

Those of us who grew up in less desirable environments (where they have real winter) are perfectly content with living out farther, and commuting in on the BART.

I personally live out by the Delta surrounded by fresh air, fresh fruit, and nice people (we have a strong community and frequently see people we know out and about, it's great). My commute into SF is about 90 min one way, and it is the easiest, least stressful commute I have had in my life.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#106

Post by sushid »

eip wrote: post #92
tomkarlo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great, but it seems kind of orthogonal and non-scalable to the problem of the Bay Area housing crisis. Are you proposing that everyone in SF move to places like the Central Valley (driving up price) and start driving around cars (increasing traffic and pollution)? What about folks who don't have the luxury of jobs where they can work remotely?

>What about folks who don't have the luxury of jobs where they can work remotely? I would bet >50% of the people working in the bay area who say they can't work remote are doing jobs that could very easily be done remote. Do you work on a computer? You can do that remote.

It's not that they are unable to do the work remotely, it might be frowned upon or straight up not allowed for some workers.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#107

Post by Johnny555 »

majormajor wrote: post #35
archagon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transport in the Bay is so, so hilariously bad. I'm in St. Petersburg, Russia right now and the subway here doesn't actually have a schedule. Instead, there's a clock on the wall. If the next train doesn't arrive within 2 minutes and reset the counter, something's not right. The stations cover basically the entire city, and as a result, venturing 5 miles across town feels about the same as going down a set of escalat…

Much of the infrastructure was built when (1) the country was so rich that most of the people with any influence at all had cars and (2) the country was less populated so traffic and parking were less severe problems. Everybody builds the infrastructure that the then-state-of-the-art calls for. That was roads and freeways for most of the US. It's an accident of history, not an idiotic mistake. Not doing anything abou…

Much of the transit infrastructure was torn down and replaced with roads. The bay area had a great rail system, but it was removed.

The Key System is one notable example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System

The new Bay Bridge span was specifically not designed to carry rail, so rail over the bridge is not coming back.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#108

Post by exolymph »

eip wrote: post #92
tomkarlo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great, but it seems kind of orthogonal and non-scalable to the problem of the Bay Area housing crisis. Are you proposing that everyone in SF move to places like the Central Valley (driving up price) and start driving around cars (increasing traffic and pollution)? What about folks who don't have the luxury of jobs where they can work remotely?

>What about folks who don't have the luxury of jobs where they can work remotely? I would bet >50% of the people working in the bay area who say they can't work remote are doing jobs that could very easily be done remote. Do you work on a computer? You can do that remote.

Yeah, but you also need to work for a company that will let you work remote. Or find another job.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#109

Post by Johnny555 »

taheca wrote: post #105

Those of us who grew up in less desirable environments (where they have real winter) are perfectly content with living out farther, and commuting in on the BART. I personally live out by the Delta surrounded by fresh air, fresh fruit, and nice people (we have a strong community and frequently see people we know out and about, it's great). My commute into SF is about 90 min one way, and it is the easiest, least stress…

With 3 hours/day spent commuting plus a full day of work, when do you have time to see your neighbors?

I live in a Peninsula community with a 10 minute bike ride to work and that is the easiest least stressful commute I've had in my life.

Re: Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

#110

Post by swendoog »

cmontella wrote: post #89
tomkarlo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great, but it seems kind of orthogonal and non-scalable to the problem of the Bay Area housing crisis. Are you proposing that everyone in SF move to places like the Central Valley (driving up price) and start driving around cars (increasing traffic and pollution)? What about folks who don't have the luxury of jobs where they can work remotely?

> kind of orthogonal and non-scalable to the problem of the Bay Area housing crisis. The problem can be attacked from two angles. Either ramp up housing development to take care of the population influx, or slow down the population influx to match the rate of housing development. Obviously, the people of the area have a vested interest in keeping the area attractive; but for the rest of us, I think it's important to…

> lies I started telling myself about why I had to stay.

care to elaborate?

Post reply on HN