Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco: The reckoning is here

yared.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: San Francisco: The reckoning is here

#21

Post by woodruffw »

pmonks wrote: post #14
jmeister wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mature cities like NYC* find ways to incorporate new industries and grow with them. SF doesn't want to grow up apparently. That's fine, but the seagulls aren't to blame. SF could have used their tax revenue to build something awesome. [*] I guess the cities which successfully do this have a long history of being centres of trade and commerce. Those activities facilitate pro-tolerance and anti-zero-sum thinking.

You’re comparing apples (the Big Apple, it turns out) and oranges. SF is 7 miles by 7 miles of hilly, earthquake prone land, surrounded on 3 sides by water. There is literally no “new land” available to build on, and redeveloping existing lots to rezone, or increase density, or whatever is costly and slow (and that’s true in most US cities, not just SF). These are _essential_ complexities of land use in SF that are f…

I agree that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but for the record: Manhattan is surrounded on 4 sides by water, and is much hillier than people think (only the southern part of the island is flat). The parts that flat are filled-in salt marsh.

There's a reason the top 8[1] most dense municipalities are in the NYC area: there's limited developable land.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

Re: San Francisco: The reckoning is here

#22

Post by __lbracket__ »

pmonks wrote: post #5
__lbracket__ wrote: post #2

In the minds of SF folks, covid policies came to represent resistance to Trump. Those asking for schools and businesses to be opened sounded like the MAGA crowd -- i.e. the Enemy. The policymakers, blind with agenda, doubled down on restrictive policies, with a faulty theory of "everything will come back". The result is a city that works for neither the rich nor poor. SF truly is a social experiment and more capable…

How do you know what’s “in the minds of SF folks”? Do you live in SF, yourself, for example?

In a scientific sense, it is obviously impossible to know whats in someone's mind. Also, I don't live in SF proper, but more like south bay. However, listening to the rhetoric at the time, it was not hard to guess that COVID policy came to represent the political gap between the two sides. So it stands to reason that in hyper progressive SF, any opposition to absolute closure would be seen as 'siding with the enemy'. If this does not sound reasonable, I'm afraid I cannot convince you and wish you best.

Re: San Francisco: The reckoning is here

#23

Post by hindsightbias »

reidjs wrote: post #11

I'm not so sure things are as dire as the article makes them out to be. As long as you avoid soma, lower nob hill, civic center, fidi, and the tenderloin it's been a great place to live during/after the pandemic. Rent is actually cheaper than pre-pandemic, the city is still super walkable and bikeable, there are more than enough bars, restaurants, and live events every weekend to keep me busy and then some. Shameless…

The first rule of SF should be that you should not talk about this. Better to repeat the dystopian hellscape meme to dissuade the locusts.

But good luck with the cast.

Re: San Francisco: The reckoning is here

#24

Post by whimsicalism »

woodruffw wrote: post #21
pmonks wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re comparing apples (the Big Apple, it turns out) and oranges. SF is 7 miles by 7 miles of hilly, earthquake prone land, surrounded on 3 sides by water. There is literally no “new land” available to build on, and redeveloping existing lots to rezone, or increase density, or whatever is costly and slow (and that’s true in most US cities, not just SF). These are _essential_ complexities of land use in SF that are f…

I agree that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but for the record: Manhattan is surrounded on 4 sides by water, and is much hillier than people think (only the southern part of the island is flat). The parts that flat are filled-in salt marsh. There's a reason the top 8[1] most dense municipalities are in the NYC area: there's limited developable land. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_citi…

SF is the second densest city in America outside of NYC.

Re: San Francisco: The reckoning is here

#25

Post by pmonks »

woodruffw wrote: post #21
pmonks wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re comparing apples (the Big Apple, it turns out) and oranges. SF is 7 miles by 7 miles of hilly, earthquake prone land, surrounded on 3 sides by water. There is literally no “new land” available to build on, and redeveloping existing lots to rezone, or increase density, or whatever is costly and slow (and that’s true in most US cities, not just SF). These are _essential_ complexities of land use in SF that are f…

I agree that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but for the record: Manhattan is surrounded on 4 sides by water, and is much hillier than people think (only the southern part of the island is flat). The parts that flat are filled-in salt marsh. There's a reason the top 8[1] most dense municipalities are in the NYC area: there's limited developable land. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_citi…

Briefly:

* NYC is a lot more than Manhattan.

* NYC is a substantially larger area than SF.

* SF is also substantially built on top of reclaimed mud flats.

* NYC is tectonically stable.

All of these things mean that comparisons between the two cities approach to land use are basically meaningless.

[edit] to fight HN’s formatting

Re: San Francisco: The reckoning is here

#26

Post by whimsicalism »

reidjs wrote: post #11

I'm not so sure things are as dire as the article makes them out to be. As long as you avoid soma, lower nob hill, civic center, fidi, and the tenderloin it's been a great place to live during/after the pandemic. Rent is actually cheaper than pre-pandemic, the city is still super walkable and bikeable, there are more than enough bars, restaurants, and live events every weekend to keep me busy and then some. Shameless…

It's very "in" right now to hate on San Francisco. It's a Nietzschean sort of thing, hating things you are secretly are afraid are better - which is why California is so unpopular.

Good luck with your comment.

Re: San Francisco: The reckoning is here

#27

Post by dreamcompiler »

pmonks wrote: post #14
jmeister wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mature cities like NYC* find ways to incorporate new industries and grow with them. SF doesn't want to grow up apparently. That's fine, but the seagulls aren't to blame. SF could have used their tax revenue to build something awesome. [*] I guess the cities which successfully do this have a long history of being centres of trade and commerce. Those activities facilitate pro-tolerance and anti-zero-sum thinking.

You’re comparing apples (the Big Apple, it turns out) and oranges. SF is 7 miles by 7 miles of hilly, earthquake prone land, surrounded on 3 sides by water. There is literally no “new land” available to build on, and redeveloping existing lots to rezone, or increase density, or whatever is costly and slow (and that’s true in most US cities, not just SF). These are _essential_ complexities of land use in SF that are f…

Which is one reason why "Silicon Valley" never included San Francisco: There's no place to build fabs there. It's only been in the last 20 years with the rise of software-only startups that everybody decided they needed to be in the city proper (mostly because VCs wanted to live there and they wanted their funded companies to be close by).

Not that San Mateo and Santa Clara are much easier to find real estate in these days, but they're easier than San Francisco. Just not as cool.

Re: San Francisco: The reckoning is here

#28

Post by dreamcompiler »

woodruffw wrote: post #21
pmonks wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re comparing apples (the Big Apple, it turns out) and oranges. SF is 7 miles by 7 miles of hilly, earthquake prone land, surrounded on 3 sides by water. There is literally no “new land” available to build on, and redeveloping existing lots to rezone, or increase density, or whatever is costly and slow (and that’s true in most US cities, not just SF). These are _essential_ complexities of land use in SF that are f…

I agree that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but for the record: Manhattan is surrounded on 4 sides by water, and is much hillier than people think (only the southern part of the island is flat). The parts that flat are filled-in salt marsh. There's a reason the top 8[1] most dense municipalities are in the NYC area: there's limited developable land. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_citi…

Plus Manhattan is schist that never moves, so you can build as high as you want without worrying about your building falling over.

Re: San Francisco: The reckoning is here

#29

Post by [deleted] »

pmonks wrote: post #25
woodruffw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but for the record: Manhattan is surrounded on 4 sides by water, and is much hillier than people think (only the southern part of the island is flat). The parts that flat are filled-in salt marsh. There's a reason the top 8[1] most dense municipalities are in the NYC area: there's limited developable land. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_citi…

Briefly: * NYC is a lot more than Manhattan. * NYC is a substantially larger area than SF. * SF is also substantially built on top of reclaimed mud flats. * NYC is tectonically stable. All of these things mean that comparisons between the two cities approach to land use are basically meaningless. [edit] to fight HN’s formatting

[deleted]

Re: San Francisco: The reckoning is here

#30

Post by woodruffw »

pmonks wrote: post #25
woodruffw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but for the record: Manhattan is surrounded on 4 sides by water, and is much hillier than people think (only the southern part of the island is flat). The parts that flat are filled-in salt marsh. There's a reason the top 8[1] most dense municipalities are in the NYC area: there's limited developable land. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_citi…

Briefly: * NYC is a lot more than Manhattan. * NYC is a substantially larger area than SF. * SF is also substantially built on top of reclaimed mud flats. * NYC is tectonically stable. All of these things mean that comparisons between the two cities approach to land use are basically meaningless. [edit] to fight HN’s formatting

Right, that's why it's still apples-to-oranges. My only claim was that "surrounded by water" and "has hills" are not the reasons why comparisons between NYC and SF are invalid.
Post reply on HN