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

231–240 of 261 posts

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

#231

Post by closeparen »

archagon wrote: post #47
majormajor wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I actually sympathize with the NIMBY-ers quite a bit when it comes to housing. But in terms of transportation, it depresses me to know from first-hand experience how much better things could be. Better public transit is simply a win-win for almost everyone: far fewer cars, more pedestrian areas and access, an increased number of people willing to live outside the city, and streets that don't feel like DMZs. City life…

>Better public transit is simply a win-win for almost everyone

No it isn't. Many neighborhoods are quiet and/or cheap because they're difficult to access. Their residents have a vested interest in keeping it that way. You don't vote for a new subway stop if you'll be priced out or have your perception fo quiet and safety ruined by the people it brings.

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

#232

Post by DrScump »

hardtke wrote: post #74
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…

We are already seeing that Uber/Lyft are causing declines in the usage of public transit, and there could actually be decreasing appetite for public transit investment. Compared to the rest of the US, the Bay Area is actually already pretty good when it comes to fraction of workers commuting by transit (#2 or #3 after New York City and possibly Washington, D.C.). Unfortunately, I find that most people are all in favo…

  Uber/Lyft are causing declines in the usage of public transit
Are there studies that confirm this causation? They've certainly caused declines in the usage of taxicabs, but they compete at very different price points from public transit.

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

#233

Post by closure »

rorski wrote: post #184
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 don't agree that crappy climate is a poor reason to avoid a move. Ideally it's not your only reason, but the climate in California is definitely a major selling point for just about everyone (myself included) who have come here from the east coast and the primary reason I won't go back. And the surrounding outdoors (if you're into that) is much better in SF than NYC, and really any city I know of in the US. A 30-45…

Yes I understand that and the outdoors activities have no appeal to me.

I’ve lived in Michigan, Texas, Washington, California. The weather in California is dramatically better than the others, but on balance I would much rather give up 3+ hrs of commuting a day for 1hr where some of that is in a humid subway station.

If you haven’t lived in the humid areas of Texas, you don’t know that it’s much worse than NYC/Boston/etc in summer. Rather than 85-90 with 85% humidity, think 104 with 85+% humidity. With virtually zero culture. And continual rain throughout the otherwise mild winter.

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

#234

Post by DrScump »

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…

You emphasize the 70K, but the Brisbane Baylands proposal in your link is for 4,400 units.

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

#235

Post by cullenking »

cvwright wrote: post #154
cullenking wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> At the risk of sounding xenophobic, Portland is going to turn into San Francisco soon enough ... It is already in the process of doing so. > please please please push back against freeway expansions ... And this attitude is the reason. I don't know why people think that adopting the same anti-growth, anti-construction, anti-roads attitude that has made San Francisco so unaffordable for regular people will have a di…

Nothing in my comment was anti growth, the only thing you can point to that's close was anti freeway expansion. And freeway expansion does not ultimately solve congestion. Without massive billion dollar road changes, widening freeways, as is proposed right now in pdx, just shifts the congestion around. We can look at a dozen large metro areas with 16 lane freeways and commute times are still insane. Pump that money into dedicated separate bike ways, increased mass transit, both in the city and to the suburbs. Increase urban density to avoid car commutes.

Again, I'm not advocating anti growth, I'm saying if it's done slapshod we'll be having the same conversations about PDX in ten years as we do San Fran now. 1.5 hour commutes for people living 10 miles or less from work.

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

#236

Post by DrScump »

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.

There were also plans to fill in most of the Bay as well. After all, "all those pesky wetlands are just wasted space!"

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

#237

Post by DrScump »

bradleyjg wrote: post #142
junkscience2017 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why not? The subdivisions of California are creatures of state law, either statutory or constitutional. An initiative can modify statues or the constitution. There are three limitations on them (Art. II, section 8, (d), (e), and (f)) but I don't see how any of them would apply here. Do you see a federal constitutional or statutory doctrine that would prevent it from doing so?

  An initiative can modify statues
Statutes. Any strong hammer can modify a statue.

But seriously, yes, statute law or the state Constitution can be modified by initiative. The latter requires more qualifying signatures than the former, but once it's on the ballot, simple majority is all it takes.

But the status of cities also involves the city's charter (not all cities are charter cities, but most major ones are).

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

#238

Post by alkonaut »

taheca wrote: post #225
alkonaut wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you work during your commute so you don't have to be away from family for 3 + 8 (Or more) hours. That means basically working the whole day all week, seeing your family only on weekends. I can't imagine what kind of comp someone would want for that (effectively permanent 55 hour weeks).

Easy to make a statement like this. My wife has never worked because she did not have a career established when we decided to have kids. Allowing her to stay home is one of my proudest accomplishments (and it has done wonders for our kids). I am home every night to spend a few hours with my kids, and I read to them every night before bed. I spend all day on the weekends with them. Sure I would love a shorter commute,…

I don't mean to say you are making poor choices, I meant to say I hope you are well compensated for it. And it saddens me that we still have to be making this (11-12h workday) as a perhaps rational choice. It's a failure in infrastructure, city planning, labor laws, ... People fought really hard to get to 5 day/40h work weeks. Seems we lost a bit of momentum after that.

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

#240

Post by Buttes »

carb wrote: post #205
chrisseaton wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

That's a very ordinary amount of walking for many people.
Post reply on HN