Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by Apocryphon » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:13 PM UTC

s73ver_ wrote: post #128

pfarnsworth wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Risk vs return. That's okay that you prefer the Bay Area. I would have no problems if I knew that Google were committing to a permanent HQ in Kansas City. If they close down, they close down. I have no control over that, but I do have control over saving money and still maintaining a high quality of life because I'm not obsessing over property prices, private school for my kids because the public schools are so terri…

You don't think Google moving to KC would have a huge effect on property prices? Not to mention, if they close down, you'll likely have a harder time finding another job than you would somewhere with a lot of tech places.

I think the hope of such a move (ditto Amazon building HQ2 somewhere outside of the usual SF/ATX/NYC tech hubs) is that if one giant did it, other companies would follow, tech workers who leave the giant go and build startups, wealth and talent attract VCs, etc. The hub self-reinforces itself, much like how SF and Seattle have done it. It would be a very interesting economic experiment to see if a cycle can be created in new areas.

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

#132

Post by Apocryphon » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:14 PM UTC

s73ver_ wrote: post #129

akgerber wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tradeoff is that if you make anything resembling Bay Area wages in Kansas City, you can pay off a lovely older house in a walkable neighborhood in two years or so.

The first wave might. However, I'm guessing housing prices would adjust.

Depends on the geography of the region. Probably easier to expand and densify the KC metro area vs. the Bay Area or SeaTac.

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

#133

Post by junkscience2017 » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:15 PM UTC

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.

I live in Los Gatos which has a population of 30k. I know the mayor by name. I can go to a Town Council meeting and directly address the Council even for needs that would seem trivial.

Tell me how my life is upgraded when my local political context goes from 30k people to six million.

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

#134

Post by junkscience2017 » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:16 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #15

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.

California has a initiative right? Couldn't it be done through a statewide ballot measure?

No, you cannot just vote to delete a city you don't reside in, even in California

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

#135

Post by taheca » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:17 PM UTC

Johnny555 wrote: post #109

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.

I see my neighbors on the weekend. My wife, who stays at home with our kids, sees them all the time.

I'd love a 10 min bike ride commute, but my career is non technical therefore I don't have the same amount of opportunities as others on here may.

No complaints out of me though. My commute may be long, but my life is rich (and I am not talking about money).

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

#136

Post by Mz » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:18 PM UTC

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…

Fresno is really a great place. I was there for over two years. I don't know why it gets badmouthed so much. And, yes, compared to coastal big cities in California, it is dramatically cheaper.

They are starting a high speed rail line there. It is 500,000 people and much more spread out than the coastal big cities, so it is not nearly as dense. The bus system is the best I have ever seen in the US, so you can live without a car there, even though it sprawls. I have lived without a car for years and Fresno was a big improvement over previous experiences.

I considered doing a website* as an ode to the city/to promote a walkable lifestyle there. It didn't get off the ground and now I have moved out of state. But, if you want to stay in California and want to get away from some of the insanity in places like SF, I will second "just move to the Central Valley if you can arrange it."

http://pedestrianfresno.blogspot.com/

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

#137

Post by 2xlbuds » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:21 PM UTC

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)

SF definitely needs more underground transit. I recently found out that it takes on average 5 minutes less to take a bus from the inner sunset to forest hill to catch a K/L/M inbound than taking the N-Judah.

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

#138

Post by junkscience2017 » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:21 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #38

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…

If you read the article, it's not actually about transportation. He's talking about making a political region around the Bay Area that can break NIMBYism by making decisions that affect the Bay Area as a whole. Interesting idea, but ultimately a fairy tale. It won't happen.

It won't happen because no one really wants it. You need only look at San Jose and LA, both of which grew by swallowing neighoring municipalities, to realize bigger is definitely not better

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

#139

Post by bproven » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:24 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #45

The real solution is for companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, etc to have the COURAGE to create large work epicenters outside of the Bay Area. Create headquarters for tens of thousands of workers in more remote areas with a strong infrastructure, with great benefits for working families. Do what Amazon wants to do with a second HQ, and create demand outside of the Bay Area. If Google created a new HQ in Kansas Cit…

IMO a better (or at least positive) solution would be for these huge bay area companies - especially those on the peninsula - to spread out there offices along the south peninsula and into south bay. We should be adding commercial into these residential areas so that everyone (in tech) is not traveling to the same region from all over the south bay or SF. Live where you work! This IMO would alleviate the traffic exodus that occurs in basically 2 directions every day. Put more companies in Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell, San Jose downtown (especially since it is fed by light rail). Stop putting offices in these "office/commercial zones" where there is NO public transportation. Why does everyone need to be in one small section of the bay area?

Optionally if we are committed to this current "everything must be in one region" mentality lets get together as communities (Mtn View, San jose, campbell, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, etc) and get the rail built now. One of the biggest stressors in this area (outside housing costs) is the traffic and aged infrastructure. Frankly its easily solved - if this supposed "progressive" area would do what needs to be done. Yes it would cost, but it would make daily life so much better for everyone.

Yes, I know its more complex than this (one issue is NIMBYs and those that bought in early to housing and need/want it to go up), but how can our children live in this area and make it home in its current state? Humans seem very short sighted.

(sorry for the overuse of quotes and my possibly incoherent rant :) )

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

#140

Post by swendoog » Fri, Oct 27, 2017, 7:25 PM UTC

RealityNow wrote: post #113

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…

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'…

Even IF there was a desire among politicians to fix the transportation issues in San Francisco I doubt they'd find a means to do so. It would cost a ton of money and congress has no idea where to get that money from.

The middle class is taxed to capacity. When ~30-40% of your paycheck is taxes (including federal), and another 30-40% is exorbitant rent costs, you're left feeling quite squeezed. I myself for example, simply mark NO on all tax supported programs on the ballot, regardless of their merit.

It sucks because many of those programs are so desperately needed. But asking me to raise my taxes any further is a non-starter. If you include property tax and sales tax in your estimation of how much you're getting taxed the number is astonishing. Yet look around and witness what that buys - failing infrastructure, skyrocketing housing prices, terrible roads, healthcare prices spiraling out of control, an educational system in decline, the list goes on, and on...

It's not that I have an "every man for them self" perspective, it's just that I have believe there are deeper issues with our country that we can't tax ourselves out of.