If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving? • Hacker News Board

Re: If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving?

#91

Post by yaacov » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #87

sampo wrote: post #2

> It’s not my fault she’s gone, that all 12 of them are gone. Normal. People move all the time. Nothing I could have done. Except allow building more homes. Vote for politicians who'd have allowed building more homes. My guess is, the author has voted against her own interests. Which one is more important, keeping the "charm" of houses and neighborhoods where you cannot afford to live anyway, or keeping those 12 your…

"Which one is more important, keeping the "charm" of houses and neighborhoods where you cannot afford to live anyway, or keeping those 12 your closest childhood friends, even if that means allowing to build apartment buildings for them to live in? You choose." It is worth noting that both of those are reasonable, acceptable democratic outcomes. I personally would like to see much more in-fill and height in a lot of t…

Very few people are pro- or anti- local control in general. People have specific policy goals, and achieve those goals at the level (local, state, federal) where they’re most feasible. There’s no hypocrisy there.

Re: If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving?

#92

Post by bobthepanda » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #80

xefer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also possible that there is such a pent-up demand for housing in San Francisco that no amount of building could realistically do enough to make things truly affordable.

"It’s also possible that there is such a pent-up demand for housing in San Francisco that no amount of building could realistically do enough to make things truly affordable." I am an SFBA (Marin) resident with a fairly large financial and personal interest in the health and welfare of the city of San Francisco - so this is something I think a lot about. I think your point is interesting and should be considered. Obv…

I think this effect is a bit more understated for the Bay Area, because San Francisco is only really desirable domestically, and that’s a function of jobs, which the Bay already accommodates by incentivizing commercial over residential development. But there’s a realistic cap to that; eventually industrial boomtowns like Pittsburgh and Chicago reached a more steady rate of growth, and I would expect San Francisco to do the same.

The real places this effect kicks in are global status cities like New York or London, where it’s a status symbol in every country’s elite class to have a vacation home there. It may actually be impossible to supply both foreign and domestic demand for residential via the market.

Re: If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving?

#93

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #87

sampo wrote: post #2

> It’s not my fault she’s gone, that all 12 of them are gone. Normal. People move all the time. Nothing I could have done. Except allow building more homes. Vote for politicians who'd have allowed building more homes. My guess is, the author has voted against her own interests. Which one is more important, keeping the "charm" of houses and neighborhoods where you cannot afford to live anyway, or keeping those 12 your…

"Which one is more important, keeping the "charm" of houses and neighborhoods where you cannot afford to live anyway, or keeping those 12 your closest childhood friends, even if that means allowing to build apartment buildings for them to live in? You choose." It is worth noting that both of those are reasonable, acceptable democratic outcomes. I personally would like to see much more in-fill and height in a lot of t…

Killing all left-handed people is also a possible valid outcome of a democratic process. That wouldn't make it acceptable. You can't wave the democracy wand over a bad outcome and make it immune from criticism.

Re: If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving?

#94

Post by toasterlovin » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #87

sampo wrote: post #2

> It’s not my fault she’s gone, that all 12 of them are gone. Normal. People move all the time. Nothing I could have done. Except allow building more homes. Vote for politicians who'd have allowed building more homes. My guess is, the author has voted against her own interests. Which one is more important, keeping the "charm" of houses and neighborhoods where you cannot afford to live anyway, or keeping those 12 your…

"Which one is more important, keeping the "charm" of houses and neighborhoods where you cannot afford to live anyway, or keeping those 12 your closest childhood friends, even if that means allowing to build apartment buildings for them to live in? You choose." It is worth noting that both of those are reasonable, acceptable democratic outcomes. I personally would like to see much more in-fill and height in a lot of t…

The whole situation is complicated. While I'm sympathetic to people who want the place they've lived in for 30 years to remain the same, there's already a federally mandated (and, thus, undemocratic) thing which ensures that change will happen: unrestricted internal migration. So the question is not about whether change will happen, it's just a matter of whether change comes in the form of increasing costs or increasing density.

Re: If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving?

#95

Post by davidw » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #86

simook wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As exciting as this is to see. It's hard for me to watch Portland change into a different city. I think the hardest aspect right now is the amount of trash that is being thrown aside in the roads, parks, and greenways. I was born and raised in this area and it's been tough for me to witness this beautiful city being treated that way. If you want to help clean up Portland, I strongly recommend volunteering with the SO…

> As exciting as this is to see. It's hard for me to watch Portland change into a different city. It was going to change into a different city either way. The only thing you get to control is what kind of different city: one where, per the article, "only programmers can afford to live alone," or one where everyone can, but it's much more dense?

Bingo! You can choose the keep the physical form the same, like they've done in Boulder, but then what changes are the people, because only a certain class of "landed gentry" can afford to live there, served by people commuting in from the surrounding towns. That's very much change too, even if it's not the form of the buildings.

Re: If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving?

#96

Post by davidw » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #80

xefer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also possible that there is such a pent-up demand for housing in San Francisco that no amount of building could realistically do enough to make things truly affordable.

"It’s also possible that there is such a pent-up demand for housing in San Francisco that no amount of building could realistically do enough to make things truly affordable." I am an SFBA (Marin) resident with a fairly large financial and personal interest in the health and welfare of the city of San Francisco - so this is something I think a lot about. I think your point is interesting and should be considered. Obv…

What's odd is that you talk to people in the following places who are convinced that an "unlimited" number of people want to live in their area:

* The bay area

* Boulder

* Austin

* Portland

* Seattle

And so on and so forth - and even right here in Bend, Oregon!

I have a suspicion that everyone wanting to live in all those places probably isn't actually true.

Re: If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving?

#97

Post by rsync » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 5:36 PM UTC

yaacov wrote: post #91

rsync wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Which one is more important, keeping the "charm" of houses and neighborhoods where you cannot afford to live anyway, or keeping those 12 your closest childhood friends, even if that means allowing to build apartment buildings for them to live in? You choose." It is worth noting that both of those are reasonable, acceptable democratic outcomes. I personally would like to see much more in-fill and height in a lot of t…

Very few people are pro- or anti- local control in general. People have specific policy goals, and achieve those goals at the level (local, state, federal) where they’re most feasible. There’s no hypocrisy there.

I encourage you to read the local progressive press in San Francisco - for instance, the 48 hills blog[1]. There is a serious and growing sentiment that removing local housing authority and controls is the proper solution to these problems.

In fact, there are governmental working bodies that are moving in this direction - Plan Bay Area comes to mind, as well as Governor Newsome's proposed transportation funding mechanism[2]. Or just read the literature from the Yimby party in SF[3] - see part VI, bullet #2 ...

[1] https://48hills.org/

[2] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/gavin-newsom-...

[3] https://yimbyaction.org/sf/platform/

Re: If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving?

#98

Post by alexhutcheson » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

granitepail wrote: post #51

karmakaze wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's too late for that. Adding more reasonable priced homes just means that companies currently looking outside the valley can now continue to grow there so there will continuously be a shortage and thus high pricing and wages. It's going to take a significant bubble burst to reset it.

agreed. living in NYC, i’ve seen how extensive the problem is. we have lots of housing being built over a much broader area than san francisco and yet we still have the same problem. the number of people moving in to the city and getting high paying jobs (i’m a part of this problem) is so great that basically anyone else is pushed out. our affordable housing program has the right idea, but is so limited in its scope…

The Bay Area is still much worse. In the NYC area you can rent a place for a family in Queens or parts of Jersey on a modest income and still have a not-ridiculous commute into Manhattan. There aren’t really any equivalents left in the Bay Area.

Re: If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving?

#99

Post by pmoriarty » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #66

simook wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As exciting as this is to see. It's hard for me to watch Portland change into a different city. I think the hardest aspect right now is the amount of trash that is being thrown aside in the roads, parks, and greenways. I was born and raised in this area and it's been tough for me to witness this beautiful city being treated that way. If you want to help clean up Portland, I strongly recommend volunteering with the SO…

I definitely hope we can keep Oregon 'green'! > I hope Portland will continue to be a beautiful city for my children to enjoy. To bring it back to housing, Portland might be a place your children can enjoy because they could actually afford to live there, unlike much of the bay area.

I seriously considered moving to Portland, until I read articles like this one[1] which predicted that Portland would basically be destroyed in a major earthquake.

[1] - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big...

Re: If San Francisco is so great, why is everyone I love leaving?

#100

Post by throwaway3451 » Sat, Feb 02, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #90

throwaway3451 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To bring it back to housing" ellides the important point GP made. They even acknowledged the excitement and advantages of growth, but pointed out some of the cost as well. If you want to advocate, don't blind yourself to those of us sensitive to the literal trash, noise, and other side-effects of growth. With wealth comes illth - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illth Your personal utility function may make you less se…

Whether people throw their shit on the ground is more of a cultural thing than an 'urban design' thing. In terms of sustainability, it's not that hard: denser, less carbon-intensive living, where people can walk, bike and take transit, beats sprawl hands down. People have been making cities like that for thousands of years. What changed is our 'suburban experiment': https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/7/americ…

Agreed littering is cultural, but if e.g. 1/1000 people do it then it's also very much a function of density. If we're going to increase density we need to be even more proactive about sanitation, trash, noise, and "misbehavior" or edge cases in general (crime, mental health, etc.).

Strongly agreed on alternatives to driving, and I'd throw in "truly accepting remote work" (not just being "remote friendly but you should take a global trip with us every quarter"). We have a global telecommunications network, we ought to use it.

Supply chains, local food, and not overstraining our watersheds are also all key. We'll have to face the reality that some cities are just built in a way/place that they don't belong, at the size they are at least.