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

Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 272 posts

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#41

Post by Aloha »

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #34
epistasis wrote: post #7

I'm still absolutely furious that SF managed the boom times by handing over massive amounts of cash to landlords and property owners, by restricting construction, that came directly out of the pockets of workers and has resulted in massive displacement. Sure, the tax revenue looked great, but it happened in a way that caused great human suffering by making occupancy in the city zero sum, and awarding it to only those…

Genuine question: How much of this caused Prop 13? We bought a home in the Bay Area a few years ago. We considered the pros/cons of moving out of state and one pro of staying here was Prop 13 in California. We plan to retire in this home and figured Prop 13 will help make our post-retirement living expenses negligible. I only recently had the realization that Prop 13 could cause some serious problems like cities bein…

Prop 13 is one of the legs of the stool of most dysfunction in California.

Some of these are gonna spark controversy but term limits, the recall and ease of passing propositions are some of the other ones.

The legislature is no longer professional enough to govern, so the people do it at the ballot box, at the behest of whom ever has the most money to spend. The fact that California is a single party state because of realignment and radicalization on the right makes all of this worse.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#42

Post by systemvoltage »

1270018080 wrote: post #29
systemvoltage wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhhh have you stepped into SF since 2010? It is an unmitigated disaster. No one wants to live there. Just had a friend that sold his condo and moved to San Diego.

Yes it sucks right now, because it was built for commuters and there aren't any. It may continue to suck for awhile, but the outcome of this bad period could be a place that's actually nice.

Hard disagree. It is fucked up because we've allowed too many woke policies and gone soft on crime. It is simple as that. There is absolutely zero causation between "Built for commuters" and the absolute hell hole you've seen that is SF.

I feel like this stance does a tremendous amount of disservice in identifying issues and making SF better. It is always scapegoated and never confronted head on. Scapegoats come in the form of: We're kind out here in SF, we are pro-homeless, homelessness is caused by inbound people from other states, etc. None of which are remotely true, but peddled repeatedly ad-nauseum.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#43

Post by viraptor »

ajmurmann wrote: post #28
forthwall wrote: post #5

I really hope L Breed and her leadership approve more residential conversions of office spaces in downtown. A few developers are interested but there seems to be a holdup for whatever reason. SF has already had some successful conversions like 100 Van Ness. While I don't think that is a surefire way of fixing dtsf but it is a start. The superdense neighborhood of chinatown and somewhat dense neighborhood of little it…

It's absolutely insane that the government has any say in what a building gets used for. I can see some arguments why the government has a say in constructing a building in the first place, but controlling what it's used for is just planned economy, communist hubris!

That's an extreme view. Of course you want some zoning restrictions. Unless you're saying you're ok with (whatever loudest industry with lots of lorry traffic you can think of) being created nextdoors to you. Full anarchy is bad, super restrictive planning is bad too.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#44

Post by DantesKite »

julianeon wrote: post #24

I live in SF & read these articles, which all have a tone of “What is to be done?” They seem reluctant to draw unpopular conclusions, even if those conclusions are inevitable. So here, I’ll tell you what’s going to happen. Downtown as a healthy fully occupied business district is dead. Cause of death: remote work. You can wait 50 years if you want and see if it comes back, but it never will; there’s no going back. Yo…

> Downtown as a healthy fully occupied business district is dead. Cause of death: remote work.

Keith Rabois said one of the the major reasons he moved was because of crime.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#45

Post by Overtonwindow »

starik36 wrote: post #16

A large article and not a single mention of crime.

I started to think that, but actually the last section of the article, is about crime. I think it’s quite weak however, crime is in my humble opinion the very central reason for the decline of downtown San Francisco.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#46

Post by charlieflowers »

julianeon wrote: post #24

I live in SF & read these articles, which all have a tone of “What is to be done?” They seem reluctant to draw unpopular conclusions, even if those conclusions are inevitable. So here, I’ll tell you what’s going to happen. Downtown as a healthy fully occupied business district is dead. Cause of death: remote work. You can wait 50 years if you want and see if it comes back, but it never will; there’s no going back. Yo…

Would you say San Francisco is the new Detroit? Something like a mill town?

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#47

Post by eszaq »

mc32 wrote: post #9
forthwall wrote: post #5

I really hope L Breed and her leadership approve more residential conversions of office spaces in downtown. A few developers are interested but there seems to be a holdup for whatever reason. SF has already had some successful conversions like 100 Van Ness. While I don't think that is a surefire way of fixing dtsf but it is a start. The superdense neighborhood of chinatown and somewhat dense neighborhood of little it…

Why would people want to live in relative expensive housing if there are no jobs in the city for them? Converted apartments are not going to be "affordable" (by say the likes of students, and people just out of college not in finance or tech. Once the white collar workers leave, there is less demand for service workers to live there. Sure maybe some salaried workers like in emergency services and policing might choos…

With more housing, the relative expense decreases, and some people will move in just because they like the bustle of living in a city. Those are also the kind of people who will patronize local establishments.

Years ago, the center of the action in "Silicon Valley" was actually in the geographical valley, in the south bay. The south bay is way different from SF - safe and sterile. Some people would move up to SF and commute all the way down to the south bay just because they wanted to live somewhere interesting. Those sort of people also tended to be the sort to start startups, and the center of the action gradually moved to SF.

I think SF can try following the same path a second time, focus on catering to the gritty hipster demographic and hope something valuable grows out of it. Added housing to push rents lower seems like a good start.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#49

Post by rcpt »

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #34
epistasis wrote: post #7

I'm still absolutely furious that SF managed the boom times by handing over massive amounts of cash to landlords and property owners, by restricting construction, that came directly out of the pockets of workers and has resulted in massive displacement. Sure, the tax revenue looked great, but it happened in a way that caused great human suffering by making occupancy in the city zero sum, and awarding it to only those…

Genuine question: How much of this caused Prop 13? We bought a home in the Bay Area a few years ago. We considered the pros/cons of moving out of state and one pro of staying here was Prop 13 in California. We plan to retire in this home and figured Prop 13 will help make our post-retirement living expenses negligible. I only recently had the realization that Prop 13 could cause some serious problems like cities bein…

Low income seniors are covered by the California Tax Postponement Program. Most states have something similar. Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#50

Post by rcpt »

viraptor wrote: post #43
ajmurmann wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely insane that the government has any say in what a building gets used for. I can see some arguments why the government has a say in constructing a building in the first place, but controlling what it's used for is just planned economy, communist hubris!

That's an extreme view. Of course you want some zoning restrictions. Unless you're saying you're ok with (whatever loudest industry with lots of lorry traffic you can think of) being created nextdoors to you. Full anarchy is bad, super restrictive planning is bad too.

Here in Long Beach we have honest to God oil derricks right in the middle of neighborhoods yet our zoning when it comes to new housing is as strict as it gets.
Post reply on HN