SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing
#2Sad. Communities should be allowed to preserve their character and charm and preserve quality of life for their existing residents. This forced top down push for density doesn’t make sense - there is a whole country of places to live in, and yet everyone feels entitled to crowd into expensive and desirable places at the price point that fits them. It’s basically taking away from the people that have put down roots for newcomers. Personally it feels unfair and unnecessary because the same people have other places in the country to choose from where they could live and work - they just don’t want to accept the trade offs and live within their means.
Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing
#3Sad. Communities should be allowed to preserve their character and charm and preserve quality of life for their existing residents. This forced top down push for density doesn’t make sense - there is a whole country of places to live in, and yet everyone feels entitled to crowd into expensive and desirable places at the price point that fits them. It’s basically taking away from the people that have put down roots fo…
Cities are living, evolving, organisms that should function to serve the reason for their existence: the amazing efficiency of colocating so many people and resources. San Francisco is, by a large margin, the least dynamic city I have ever encountered in the US. For a place that prides itself on progressivism, it's mindblowing how obsessed they are with preserving things exactly the way they are.
Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing
#4Sad. Communities should be allowed to preserve their character and charm and preserve quality of life for their existing residents. This forced top down push for density doesn’t make sense - there is a whole country of places to live in, and yet everyone feels entitled to crowd into expensive and desirable places at the price point that fits them. It’s basically taking away from the people that have put down roots fo…
If I didn't want to live around other people I would simply move out of America's second densest city and not live in one of its most economically productive megaregions.
Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing
#5Sad. Communities should be allowed to preserve their character and charm and preserve quality of life for their existing residents. This forced top down push for density doesn’t make sense - there is a whole country of places to live in, and yet everyone feels entitled to crowd into expensive and desirable places at the price point that fits them. It’s basically taking away from the people that have put down roots fo…
> This forced top down push for density
You have it backwards — the push for density is bottom-up, coming from the people who want to live in SF. The top-down elements are the regulations imposed to keep the city from changing.
Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing
#6Sad. Communities should be allowed to preserve their character and charm and preserve quality of life for their existing residents. This forced top down push for density doesn’t make sense - there is a whole country of places to live in, and yet everyone feels entitled to crowd into expensive and desirable places at the price point that fits them. It’s basically taking away from the people that have put down roots fo…
> This forced top down push for density You have it backwards — the push for density is bottom-up, coming from the people who want to live in SF. The top-down elements are the regulations imposed to keep the city from changing.
I think the more accurate representation is that it's coming from people who _want_ to live in SF but currently don't (due to lack of housing or unaffordable housing). Should I be allowed to push for policy changes in a city I am not a resident of?
Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This forced top down push for density You have it backwards — the push for density is bottom-up, coming from the people who want to live in SF. The top-down elements are the regulations imposed to keep the city from changing.
I think the more accurate representation is that it's coming from people who _want_ to live in SF but currently don't (due to lack of housing or unaffordable housing). Should I be allowed to push for policy changes in a city I am not a resident of?
It may also be coming from people who do live in SF, and wish they could continue, but cannot afford to - because other people, who have more money, are outbidding them for the artificially limited supply of housing.
Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This forced top down push for density You have it backwards — the push for density is bottom-up, coming from the people who want to live in SF. The top-down elements are the regulations imposed to keep the city from changing.
I think the more accurate representation is that it's coming from people who _want_ to live in SF but currently don't (due to lack of housing or unaffordable housing). Should I be allowed to push for policy changes in a city I am not a resident of?
A) Many of the people supporting this are current residents of SF
B) Yes you are allowed to push for policy changes in SF, even if you have been pushed out to other parts of California or the USA. Desegregation was pushed by "outsiders" but most of us today agree that was a good thing that moved society forward.
Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing
#9Sad. Communities should be allowed to preserve their character and charm and preserve quality of life for their existing residents. This forced top down push for density doesn’t make sense - there is a whole country of places to live in, and yet everyone feels entitled to crowd into expensive and desirable places at the price point that fits them. It’s basically taking away from the people that have put down roots fo…
> This forced top down push for density You have it backwards — the push for density is bottom-up, coming from the people who want to live in SF. The top-down elements are the regulations imposed to keep the city from changing.
Yeah but I feel like you have to admit there is a tragedy of the commons here -- there will always be more people who want to live somewhere than can realistically have a high-quality of life there....
Part of the reason San Francisco is so desirable is because it's iconic, it would be a great irony to make room for more people by removing what makes it special.
It always felt to me like if we want more San Francisco then we should build more beautiful cities, there's a lot of amazing coast in California.
Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing
#10Good.
The city needs to stop living in the past