Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#61

Post by tormeh » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 12:45 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #60

yummyfajitas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The area of Manhattan is 90km^2. The population is 1.62 million, double that of SF. The area of SF is 600km^2. So yes, while there is some theoretical limit to the population that could be fit into SF, we are not even remotely close to it. We could triple the population of SF if we simply increased the density to that of Pune, a city with a small town feel that fits 2.5M people into 700km^2. (I.e., it's not remotely…

How is transportation and other city services there? I have been listening to Econtalk episodes on urban growth[1][2] and apparently cities in the developing world experiencing quick expansion get completely clogged with traffic. The transaction costs are too high for developments to come to some agreement on providing city-wide transport. Some places don't have a proper sewage system, or rely on diesel power because…

I've heard New York is the only city in the US with excellent public transport. But yes, a proper underground metro requires a fair bit of planning and coordination, and if SF can't manage that then it will eventually end up like LA.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#62

Post by blfr » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 12:48 PM UTC

tormeh wrote: post #61

blfr wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is transportation and other city services there? I have been listening to Econtalk episodes on urban growth[1][2] and apparently cities in the developing world experiencing quick expansion get completely clogged with traffic. The transaction costs are too high for developments to come to some agreement on providing city-wide transport. Some places don't have a proper sewage system, or rely on diesel power because…

I've heard New York is the only city in the US with excellent public transport. But yes, a proper underground metro requires a fair bit of planning and coordination, and if SF can't manage that then it will eventually end up like LA.

I don't necessarily mean public transportation. Any transportation. Employer-provided buses, cabs, rickshaws, or even just roads where you can drive your own vehicle. Whatever is appropriate.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#63

Post by yummyfajitas » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 12:53 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #60

yummyfajitas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The area of Manhattan is 90km^2. The population is 1.62 million, double that of SF. The area of SF is 600km^2. So yes, while there is some theoretical limit to the population that could be fit into SF, we are not even remotely close to it. We could triple the population of SF if we simply increased the density to that of Pune, a city with a small town feel that fits 2.5M people into 700km^2. (I.e., it's not remotely…

How is transportation and other city services there? I have been listening to Econtalk episodes on urban growth[1][2] and apparently cities in the developing world experiencing quick expansion get completely clogged with traffic. The transaction costs are too high for developments to come to some agreement on providing city-wide transport. Some places don't have a proper sewage system, or rely on diesel power because…

Pune has more traffic than it used to, but getting around is pretty easy. It's highly walkable, auto rickshaws are easy to find in most areas, and there is plenty of public transit (govt buses, privately owned 6 seaters). Many jobs also offer transport, jobs with western hours (read: call centers) in particular. Roads and flyovers are being built at a good clip - unlike the US, construction is pretty cheap and isn't paralyzed by red tape.

You don't actually need to provide city-wide transport. All you really need is demand for it - entrepreneurial types are pretty good at figuring out where it's needed. You do, however, need to avoid passing (or at least enforcing) laws against it.

(Here is a little bit on private sector mass transit in the US: http://projects.newyorker.com/story/nyc-dollar-vans/ Jersey City also had these, and they were vastly superior to public buses.)

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#64

Post by tormeh » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 1:08 PM UTC

anewcolor wrote: post #34

epicureanideal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people would probably agree with you but my personal unsubstantiated opinion is that both can be bought. Want good schools? Hire good teachers (and bring in a class of workers who care about their kids' educations and help their children succeed). Want culture? Hire musicians, artists, etc. Other natural culture will come by building the right kind of environment (see The Timeless Way of Building) and bringing i…

Money can't buy everything

It can't buy everything, but if you're rich you get most of the remainder for free. I mean, you can't buy everlasting youth or other medical/physical current impossibilities, but I don't think that was what you were thinking.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#65

Post by bane » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 1:33 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #59

mc32 wrote: post #14

By San Francisco, I suspect they mean the San Francisco Bay area. While building in SF proper would decrease rents there, we can't have everyone who wants to move to the Bay Area live in San Francisco proper. Keeping this in mind, SF proper has a natural and inherent economic rent. So there is only so much pressure more building could relieve in SF proper. That said, I don't think many people would have much issue wi…

The area of Manhattan is 90km^2. The population is 1.62 million, double that of SF. The area of SF is 600km^2. So yes, while there is some theoretical limit to the population that could be fit into SF, we are not even remotely close to it. We could triple the population of SF if we simply increased the density to that of Pune, a city with a small town feel that fits 2.5M people into 700km^2. (I.e., it's not remotely…

Manhattan's population density is 27,502/km^2, SF's is 6898/km^2 by way of comparison.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#66

Post by tormeh » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 1:34 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #62

tormeh wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard New York is the only city in the US with excellent public transport. But yes, a proper underground metro requires a fair bit of planning and coordination, and if SF can't manage that then it will eventually end up like LA.

I don't necessarily mean public transportation. Any transportation. Employer-provided buses, cabs, rickshaws, or even just roads where you can drive your own vehicle. Whatever is appropriate.

But the only thing that really works is underground carriage transport, because:

-It being underground means it's not in the way of everything and, more importantly, vice versa - it can go as fast as you want.

-It being carriage based means there's no coordination with other drivers. No queue dynamics, crossings or whatever. Transport happens in constant time, independent of the amount of passengers (within reasonable bounds).

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#67

Post by Shivetya » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 1:44 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #14

By San Francisco, I suspect they mean the San Francisco Bay area. While building in SF proper would decrease rents there, we can't have everyone who wants to move to the Bay Area live in San Francisco proper. Keeping this in mind, SF proper has a natural and inherent economic rent. So there is only so much pressure more building could relieve in SF proper. That said, I don't think many people would have much issue wi…

You really don't sound much different than those who seek to prevent people from moving in, let alone building to accommodate them. Meaning, come up with a neutral sounding reason to block undesirables from coming into the neighborhood.

Density would be too high, we must preserve cultural heritage, green space laws, restrictions on building heights, builds designated as heritage sites, and on and on and on.

If you build up or down you can accommodate a larger number of people. The key word here is "build". This activity is prevented by an amazing number of rules, regulations, and laws, all of which have nice sounding names but the end result is the same.

Zoning boards and those involved in creating political districts all need to be managed by as neutral groups as possible. All work needs to be as public as possible as well. Preventing someone from building more housing is not really different than the government condemning the land and taking it.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#68

Post by bane » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 1:44 PM UTC

tormeh wrote: post #61

blfr wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is transportation and other city services there? I have been listening to Econtalk episodes on urban growth[1][2] and apparently cities in the developing world experiencing quick expansion get completely clogged with traffic. The transaction costs are too high for developments to come to some agreement on providing city-wide transport. Some places don't have a proper sewage system, or rely on diesel power because…

I've heard New York is the only city in the US with excellent public transport. But yes, a proper underground metro requires a fair bit of planning and coordination, and if SF can't manage that then it will eventually end up like LA.

NYC's is on the order of Paris of London by way of comparison.

Washington D.C. (within the city) is a bit like a second tier European city, still quite good within the city, but D.C. has a huge metro area and it's spotty in the outer bits. There's lots of different jurisdictions that don't always integrate their bus systems well and building out the metro system has been slow going.

Portland has an excellent integrated system.

Chicago, Seattle, Boston, have decent, but limited systems.

However, even in places with almost no effective rail system, like Orlando, there's usually a comprehensive public bus system. They just run slowly, but they're relatively cheap, transfers are usually free and will get you close to where you want to go. Most public transport in L.A., for example, consists of the bus system.

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#69

Post by rmxt » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

tormeh wrote: post #66

blfr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily mean public transportation. Any transportation. Employer-provided buses, cabs, rickshaws, or even just roads where you can drive your own vehicle. Whatever is appropriate.

But the only thing that really works is underground carriage transport, because: -It being underground means it's not in the way of everything and, more importantly, vice versa - it can go as fast as you want. -It being carriage based means there's no coordination with other drivers. No queue dynamics, crossings or whatever. Transport happens in constant time, independent of the amount of passengers (within reasonabl…

I think rush hour travel on NYC's subway might put your "transport happens in constant time for grade separated trains" notion to the test. New York City's subway system is quite impressive, given that it's pushing 100 years old in many places and runs (nearly) 24/7/365, but the more crowded the subway gets -> the longer the doors take to close -> train headways become unevenly spaced -> queueing dynamics come into play. The latest "subway etiquette" ad campaigns from the operators specifically instruct riders to stand aside before boarding the train. [1] NYC rush hour is probably right on the edge of the "reasonable bounds" you are describing.

[1] http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/CourtesyCounts.htm#STEPASID...

Re: Housing markets: The spectre haunting San Francisco

#70

Post by areyousure » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #59

mc32 wrote: post #14

By San Francisco, I suspect they mean the San Francisco Bay area. While building in SF proper would decrease rents there, we can't have everyone who wants to move to the Bay Area live in San Francisco proper. Keeping this in mind, SF proper has a natural and inherent economic rent. So there is only so much pressure more building could relieve in SF proper. That said, I don't think many people would have much issue wi…

The area of Manhattan is 90km^2. The population is 1.62 million, double that of SF. The area of SF is 600km^2. So yes, while there is some theoretical limit to the population that could be fit into SF, we are not even remotely close to it. We could triple the population of SF if we simply increased the density to that of Pune, a city with a small town feel that fits 2.5M people into 700km^2. (I.e., it's not remotely…

Unfortunately, your area for San Francisco is 80% water. The more relevant data of land area is more like 60 km^2 for Manhattan and 120 km^2 for San Francisco.

Edit: as a result, your comparison to Pune is significantly inaccurate. Indeed, Pune is only some 25% more dense than San Francisco, not three times as you suggest. This is easiest to check by looking at the "population density" figure on Wikipedia, but it's consistent with doing the relevant calculations yourself. (I checked.)