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

201–210 of 261 posts

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

#201

Post by jacobolus »

Mz wrote: post #197
jacobolus wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife commutes to work 10 minutes by bike. I haven’t been accosted by any homeless junkies, and all of the homeless people I have talked to recently have been either friendly or politely distant (usually they seem pretty starved for human interaction, and are really excited to have a baby wave at them). I go walking around town in the middle of the night (sometimes with my 14-month-old walking beside me) and have n…

I just got off the street recently. I am glad to see you say nice things about the homeless population there. I have not been in the Bay Area in some years. I am repeating some of the things I have read about it. I am struggling to understand this discussion with you. Do you have some objection to the suggestion that people who are dissatisfied should consider the Central Valley as an alternative? It isn't like it is…

No, people who like the Central Valley should definitely feel free to go live there!

I’m just saying I wouldn’t choose to. My original phrasing (“can’t imagine”) was probably a bit hyperbolic.

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

#202

Post by rhino369 »

tedivm wrote: post #180
compiler-guy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is a difference. The difference is that Golden Gate Park is near the author's home, and Brisbane isn't. High rise condos around Golden Gate park wouldn't affect the usability of Golden Gate Park all that much. It would barely affect the beauty. Yes, Brisbane ought to build more housing, but what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. And if we want Brisbane to give up its autonomy so that we can…

There is a huge difference between "lets build our denser high rises in these areas so as to protect our park" versus "lets not build any residential properties in our city at all", and trying to act as if they are the same is horribly disingenuous.

You wouldn't really be protecting the park. Just a view from the edge of the park.

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

#203

Post by chrisseaton »

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…

> lived 3 miles from work

Huh? So why weren't you just walking in the first place? That's like a 45 minute brisk walk. That doesn't sound like any kind of hardship.

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

#204

Post by [deleted] »

ben_jones wrote: post #160
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…

Not talked about: you're married. Having worked from home while being single it has its ups and downs. Sure you can get to the gym more but unless you're a natural extrovert you're going to meet way less people - and you'll be less likely to "find someone" (if thats what you're after) compared to the huge number of single people in the city. I feel like this is a hidden motivation for many people. Maybe just me.

[deleted]

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

#205

Post by carb »

chrisseaton wrote: post #203
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…

> lived 3 miles from work Huh? So why weren't you just walking in the first place? That's like a 45 minute brisk walk. That doesn't sound like any kind of hardship.

A 45 minute brisk walk to and from work every day is excessive. By no means is 7.5 hrs of walking every week a commute I would call "just walking".

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

#206

Post by ghaff »

watwut wrote: post #196
ghaff wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you think most open source software development, for example, happens? Or does that not qualify as a complex task? Because a huge amount of open source development happens through distributed individuals and groups many of which don't even work for the same company.

Quite a lot of open source development is much less distributed as you think.

Well, some projects are small and some are pretty concentrated in a specific co-located company team. But I'm aware of many that are pretty spread out geographically either because a company is distributed, there are contributors from many different organizations, or a combination of the two.

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

#207

Post by airstrike »

closure wrote: post #119
cmontella wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The secret is to move to Chicago first for a couple years, then come to NY like I did. You will feel blessed to live in NY weather.

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

#208

Post by http-teapot »

mc32 wrote: post #78
wahern wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you live in San Francisco? For the past 5 years there have been housing projects _everywhere_ across the city. Last year there were 62,000 units in the pipeline (anywhere from approved to under construction). ( http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/02/a-record-62000-un... ) I can't find a link, but I think the goal several years ago was to have built 30,000 units between 2015 and 2020, and progress has been okay…

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.

There has been many apartment buildings built around Van ness (south and/or east of Whole Foods on California)... it's not just SoMa but you are right it's not enough.

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

#209

Post by Mz »

jacobolus wrote: post #201
Mz wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just got off the street recently. I am glad to see you say nice things about the homeless population there. I have not been in the Bay Area in some years. I am repeating some of the things I have read about it. I am struggling to understand this discussion with you. Do you have some objection to the suggestion that people who are dissatisfied should consider the Central Valley as an alternative? It isn't like it is…

No, people who like the Central Valley should definitely feel free to go live there! I’m just saying I wouldn’t choose to. My original phrasing (“can’t imagine”) was probably a bit hyperbolic.

But no one is suggesting you do so. So, I am still baffled by this entire exchange.

Probably best to drop it though.

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

#210

Post by kbenson »

chrisseaton wrote: post #198
ben_jones wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not talked about: you're married. Having worked from home while being single it has its ups and downs. Sure you can get to the gym more but unless you're a natural extrovert you're going to meet way less people - and you'll be less likely to "find someone" (if thats what you're after) compared to the huge number of single people in the city. I feel like this is a hidden motivation for many people. Maybe just me.

Surely the only difference is you won't meet the people at work, but you probably wouldn't date them anyway would you. You'd still meet people at every other place people meet, which is where people look for dates anyway.

> Surely the only difference is you won't meet the people at work, but you probably wouldn't date them anyway would you.

Traditionally, work has been a very common place to meet future spouses. I believe the rate has dropped in recent decades, but I would be surprised if it was so low as to be inconsequential, especially when considering something as important as many people view this.

Post reply on HN