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

61–70 of 272 posts

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

#61

Post by alexpotato »

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…

This is what happened in the NYC financial district post 9/11.

Companies didn't want to move back into some of the office buildings so they were converted into residential housing.

I remember dating someone who lived down there and looking up at the ceiling and mentioning "Why do you have such weird drop ceilings here?" This is where I found out her apartment used to be an office building.

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

#62

Post by nkrisc »

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!

Ok I’m starting a pig farm next door to you.

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

#63

Post by refurb »

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…

My prediction is remote work won’t last. Maybe for specific workers and tech must be the last, but other office jobs? They’ll be a slow but growing expectation to be in the office and the folks that show up will be the ones getting the desirable projects, the promotions and raises.

It might take a few years until we get there, but we will.

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

#64

Post by claytongulick »

Aloha wrote: post #41
0xFACEFEED wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#65

Post by KennyBlanken »

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…

Yup, like the Sangiacomo family, a bunch of slumlords who own more real estate in SF than anyone else, and have done nothing of note to earn that position other than hoovering up real estate and sitting on it while rents skyrocketed: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Angelo-Sangiacomo-one...

However, SF and California is largely run by a small handful of families who are "kingmakers." The Buells, Fishers, Guggenhimes, Gettys, Marcuses, Pritzkers, Swigs, and Trainas.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-san-...

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

#66

Post by nemothekid »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #48
starik36 wrote: post #16

A large article and not a single mention of crime.

We are living in an age of media ignoring elephants so large they've burst through the very walls of the house.

It's strange that crime is simultaneously all the media ever talks about while also being elephant the media ignores. San Francisco is constantly lambasted mad max where the walgreens owner is being shaken down by the local crime syndicate but it's somehow an open secret that you only read about in top secret government files.

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

#67

Post by abxytg »

DantesKite wrote: post #44
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.

Y'all need to learn to take what VCs say about this stuff with a grain of salt.

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

#68

Post by refurb »

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #56
rcpt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not following. Postponing those taxes doesn't mean they don't need to get paid. I quickly googled it and saw "The deferment of property taxes is secured by a lien against the property which must eventually be repaid." Which sounds like a recipe for... grandpa dies, grandma can't pay property taxes so defers it for 10 years. Grandma dies and whoever inherits the home needs to be pay a massive deferment (unaffordab…

Right. Seems reasonable no?

Not sure where this bizarre idea came about that people whose houses dramatically increase in value should:1) be able to avoid paying taxes on that value and 2) pass the house down, in whole, to their heirs without paying increased taxes.

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

#69

Post by 0xFACEFEED »

alexpotato wrote: post #57
rcpt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

New Jersey, a famously high residential property tax state, has the senior "tax freeze" statue in many towns.

Just did a little research out of curiosity and it looks like they've been trying to kill it.

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

#70

Post by zeruch »

tootie wrote: post #54
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…

Honestly this seems like unmitigated blessing that there's so much spare real estate to alleviate the monstrous shortage of housing. SF was a vibrant, thriving city with a ton of character before it became the new Babylon of the technology era. It could stand to lose 50,000 tech bros and let some families and earnest weirdos move back in.

As someone who has been in tech for ages, and yet also knew SF before its current state..I'd be happy with an influx of families and earnest weirdos. I feel the same about San Jose too.
Post reply on HN