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

SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

thefrisc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#11

Post by nullc »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #2

Sad. 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 not a dense city than where?

I generally agree with your position when it comes to undeveloped places that people moved into specifically because they weren't hyperdense. But I don't think the same applies to cities-- you specifically chose to live in a very dense and congested place.

Better to densify places that are already dense.

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#12

Post by Erem »

elevatedastalt wrote: post #6
pieix wrote: post #5

Earlier 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?

If the housing crisis was only localized to S.F. then state level action wouldn’t be needed. The fact that housing shortages are widespread in CA makes it a crisis that must be solved at the state level.

Personally as a long time resident of SF I fight for density now in the hope that these efforts bear fruit before my 5 year old and 2 year old grow up. I want an SF where they don’t have to be ML engineers to live in the same city as their parents when they grow up

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#13

Post by matrix87 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #2

Sad. 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…

> Communities should be allowed to preserve their character and charm and preserve quality of life for their existing residents.

It really doesn't look good (especially in SF) when most of those long-term residents are white and the newcomers are more demographically diverse. Pretty much all of the defining traits of segregation

> It’s basically taking away from the people that have put down roots for newcomers.

The only thing you lose (materially speaking) are property values. What's the point of complaining to other people about your property values? Why should we care?

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#14

Post by kelnos »

elevatedastalt wrote: post #6
pieix wrote: post #5

Earlier 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?

Why not? Just because other people got lucky and managed to move in when prices were better, why should they be privileged?

(Full disclosure: I'm a homeowner in SF, and want us to build build build build.)

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#15

Post by BenFranklin100 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #2

Sad. 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…

I know. It’s especially sad when these people are different than me, or have children that might clog up the school system. I especially resent people who have an expectation that they should be able to live within a couple hour commute of a decent paying job. Who do they think they are? My parents sacrificed a lot to help me with the down payment on my single family home just so I could live somewhere within nice views and architecture, and where I don’t have to worry about the wrong element in my neighborhood. Personally I feel it’s unfair and unnecessary that young people should be able to remain in the city where they grew up because they have other places in the country to choose from where they could live and work - they just don’t want to accept the tradeoffs that come with living in the middle of nowhere with few good job prospects.

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#16

Post by kelnos »

I am generally highly skeptical of "historic" designations on buildings or other public features. Ultimately they're just used to ossify things and act as an excuse to refuse change.

History is certainly valuable, and I do think we should try to preserve truly outstanding examples of history, but this sort of determination too subjective, and often the balance swings too far into a realm of preserving things of dubious value.

One way I look at it: in the longest of long terms, every single building will have had something significant enough about it to earn it a "historic" designation, and then you can't change anything, ever.

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#17

Post by BenFranklin100 »

matrix87 wrote: post #13
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #2

Sad. 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…

> Communities should be allowed to preserve their character and charm and preserve quality of life for their existing residents. It really doesn't look good (especially in SF) when most of those long-term residents are white and the newcomers are more demographically diverse. Pretty much all of the defining traits of segregation > It’s basically taking away from the people that have put down roots for newcomers. The…

I wonder if the OP is trolling. This is some straight-up Jim Crow dogwhistle stuff.

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#18

Post by kelnos »

zug_zug wrote: post #9
pieix wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

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…

What's really so iconic about it that would make it "not San Francisco" if it were removed? The Golden Gate Bridge, perhaps? Sure. Coit Tower? Maybe, but... eh? Transamerica Pyramid? Cool, but I wouldn't care much if it was gone. Palace of Fine Arts? Sure, I'd be really sad to see that go, but it's not "San Francisco".

I've lived in SF for 14 years and I don't think "because it's iconic" is in my top 10 reasons for liking it here.

Also consider that cities always change. SF in 1924 looked a lot different. It was desirable then. It changed. It's desirable now. It'll change again, and still be desirable.

I'm a homeowner here, and would absolutely love it if many many more people had the opportunity to own homes in SF, without mortgaging their entire life.

Hell, I wouldn't mind my home value dropping all that much, either. Sure, I'd lose money when I eventually want to sell, but at least my property taxes would go down. (But honestly, I don't think my home value would drop all that much, if at all. Demand so far outstrips supply here that we'd probably have to double or triple the housing stock before home prices would drop all that much.)

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#19

Post by mensetmanusman »

BenFranklin100 wrote: post #15
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #2

Sad. 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…

I know. It’s especially sad when these people are different than me, or have children that might clog up the school system. I especially resent people who have an expectation that they should be able to live within a couple hour commute of a decent paying job. Who do they think they are? My parents sacrificed a lot to help me with the down payment on my single family home just so I could live somewhere within nice vi…

SF has like no kids compared to other cities.

Re: SF's Historic Preservation Rules Are in Limbo, All Part of CA's Push for Housing

#20

Post by lazide »

kelnos wrote: post #14
elevatedastalt wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why not? Just because other people got lucky and managed to move in when prices were better, why should they be privileged? (Full disclosure: I'm a homeowner in SF, and want us to build build build build.)

Should Russians be allowed to vote in US elections?
Post reply on HN