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

111–120 of 261 posts

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

#111

Post by mc32 »

wahern wrote: post #88
mc32 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do live here, but I've also lived in the far east. There is no comparison. We see cranes in a few places, mainly SoMa, that is not sufficient. We should see building along geary, van ness, sunset Blvd, third, Octavia, California, etc.,etc.

I absolutely agree! Except for the part where SF is being myopic by criticizing Brisbane. Imagine Tokyo was located near SF. Would you criticize Tokyo for complaining about the pace of development in SF, simply because Tokyo could be doing a better job? By defending Brisbane, you defend every other city in the Bay Area that has been dragging its feet, especially those on the peninsula. Don't forget that both Santa Cl…

Compared to San Mateo (city), Palo Alto, Brisbane is a speck of land. South City, Daly City have lots of underused land. I would be in favor of having all of them increase housing, as they have land and transit infra.

I call out SF for its/our blatant hypocrisy. It's a bona fide city but they/we act as if we're still in the late 1800s Victorian times. Oh, historic, oh, views, oh, character, oh residential displacement. Always some provincial excuse.

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

#112

Post by swendoog »

diogenescynic wrote: post #104
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…

I think this goes without saying but... if you're a software developer, there's never been a better time to find a new job, at a different company.

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

#113

Post by RealityNow »

archagon wrote: post #31
habosa wrote: post #18

This article really gets it. It's all about transportation. It will never be possible for everyone who wants to be in San Francisco to live downtown, or even adjacent to downtown. Just like the article said, Manhattan is much denser but no more affordable. But we make it so hard for people to get around. You can take a bus for 45m or take the BART which is overcrowded, unreliable, and has trains that can be as much a…

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…

Mass transit in America is terrible, period (outside of maybe Manhattan, despite the fact that our subway has been getting worse and is in dire need of upgrading). America sucks at mass transit, but for whatever reason Americans don't seem to care. I think it's because they're complacent, don't know any better, and have this toxic "everybody for themselves" mentality that makes it impossible to improve anything that's in the general public welfare.

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

#114

Post by NickC_dev »

Johnny555 wrote: post #83
mc32 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do live here, but I've also lived in the far east. There is no comparison. We see cranes in a few places, mainly SoMa, that is not sufficient. We should see building along geary, van ness, sunset Blvd, third, Octavia, California, etc.,etc.

Agreed, the Sunset and Richmond is too low density if SF really wants to address its housing shortage. Give homeowners/developers incentives to turn low density blocks into mid to high density housing. And build Geary Street light rail (and put most of it underground so it doesn't take as long as the N-Judah does to get downtown)

Grow The Richmond (https://growtherichmond.com/) will have a table set up tomorrow at Balbooa Fright Fest. Come say hi!

There is a growing group of people on the west side of the city who do want density.

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

#115

Post by muninn_ »

cullenking wrote: post #32
jaredcwhite wrote: post #8

So much here resonates with me. I’m sitting in a train right now taking me from a suburb into downtown Portland, OR...an easy commute...only $5 a day gets you unlimited transportation across all of the regional transit services (all part of the excellent TriMet system). I moved here from the Bay Area mainly due to affordability and sane public transit. The Bay Area is an amazing place but it’s imploding under the wei…

"I moved here from the Bay Area..." At the risk of sounding xenophobic, Portland is going to turn into San Francisco soon enough if people/companies keep immigrating from California and New York, and elected officials keep proposing policies modeled after the Bay Area. I'm not saying "stay away" as I enjoy much of the growth PDX has seen over the last few years, especially the fact we have a much easier time finding…

It's not xenophobic, it's common sense. Space and resource are finite.

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

#116

Post by akgerber »

habosa wrote: post #18

This article really gets it. It's all about transportation. It will never be possible for everyone who wants to be in San Francisco to live downtown, or even adjacent to downtown. Just like the article said, Manhattan is much denser but no more affordable. But we make it so hard for people to get around. You can take a bus for 45m or take the BART which is overcrowded, unreliable, and has trains that can be as much a…

Manhattan is more affordable. There are plenty of 1-bedrooms available right now under $2000: https://streeteasy.com/for-rent/nyc/area:102,139,135%7Cbeds:...

Brooklyn is still twice as dense as SF, and much more affordable.

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

#117

Post by ryguytilidie »

tomkarlo wrote: post #63
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…

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?

"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)?"

I don't know where you came up with this. The OP implied that by moving away from a heavily populated area and working remotely, he was able to afford more space and shorten his commute. You managed to turn no commute into increased pollution and moving to a less densely populated place as "driving up price"?

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

#118

Post by usaar333 »

tomkarlo wrote: post #71
mc32 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not a "city" and they are not attracting talent and or companies' which create the demand. San Francisco is but, while they advertise themselves as a city, promote growth, grant tax breaks for cachet employers, etc., they do very little, in terms of creating and building housing for those workers. They demand others do what they themselves are unwilling to do. Now, imagine the opposite, Brisbane demanding Sa…

They are in fact planning to do just that - put more office space in that zone, which will create demand for housing in SF (the nearest major residential area) rather than adding housing. And in the past, they've blocked a proposal that would have added 70K residential units. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-control... The attitude is essentially, "I've got mine, let's pull the ladder up after me…

To be fair, unlike the Baylands proposal, there were very valid environmental reasons to block that 70k units of housing on San Bruno Mountain.

It also has ensured that residents of San Francisco have very easy access to wilderness - I'm certainly better off being able to go hiking with just a 15 minute drive.

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

#119

Post by closure »

cmontella wrote: post #60
closure wrote: post #28

After 8 years in SF I have been seriously considering moving to NYC, largely over my commute to South Bay, but also for the substantial increase in density which brings with it a manifold increase in cultural opportunities and activities. 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 p…

> I have realized that crappy climate is a poor reason to avoid the move. I'd be interested to hear your reasons. For me, I'm the exact opposite. In the 3 years I've lived in CA, I haven't had bronchitis once, which used to happen almost every year on the east coast. Not having to deal with 14 degree weather and snow is one of the main reasons I moved away. For me, so much happiness flows this simple fact.

All I really mean is that on balance I think it’s worth the trade-off (due to the other pluses). I wouldn’t trade SF for say an inexpensive area with no culture and bad weather, but I think I am willing to put up with the heat & humidity along with cold & snow given all the rest NYC has to offer.

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

#120

Post by usaar333 »

santaclaus wrote: post #4

> 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…

This is cited in the article.

Here's a map of areas within 45 min public transit access of Powell Street BART: https://www.mapnificent.net/bayarea/#12/37.8342/-122.2933/27...

To the articles point, it's basically:

* All of SF

* Downtown Oakland and Berkeley

* Other areas next to BART

To be fair this isn't considering driving or biking to BART + Ferry stations, which is leaving out a lot of other areas. But I think the general pattern holds.

Post reply on HN