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

71–80 of 272 posts

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

#71

Post by greggman3 »

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…

I agree. I don't know what it would take to retrofit but don't NYC and LA have lots of old office buildings turned into tready lofts?

The Financial District and especiallyunion square area could be amazing if it was zoned for residential with commercial on the first floor. Parts of it could easily rival some of the nicer neighborhoods in Europe. For the larger buildings, make every 6th floor a shared space, put a restaurant/bar/clubhouse on the roof for residents to use and rent.

I have a friend who lives here

https://www.ariake-mid.jp/

the top floor has a restaurant with nightly entertainment, party rooms to rent, tennis court, pool, gym, outdoor patio

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

#72

Post by abxytg »

nemothekid wrote: post #66
nathanaldensr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The answer is easy. Crime is down and so not oft reported in articles like this. VC funded articles and social movements are loudly screaming about it. VC / billionaire fanboys are happy to pick up the slack in the comment section.

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

#73

Post by diogenescynic »

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.

>Honestly this seems like unmitigated blessing that there's so much spare real estate to alleviate the monstrous shortage of housing.

It's pretty unlikely that office space/buildings will be retro-fitted for residences.

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

#74

Post by abxytg »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #35

How about this false dichotomy: > "My biggest fear is the city either has to slash spending on, say, police, or it aggressively puts up taxes on businesses to cover the shortfall and drives them out of the city," he said. It's always "we'll have to slash spending on basic city functions!" or "we'll have to raise your taxes!" but never "we'll have to cut all these unsustainable social policies!"

Name an unsustainable social policy to end

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

#75

Post by eklitzke »

rootusrootus wrote: post #52
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…

> Cause of death: remote work It seems premature to say this with confidence, though. Last time I saw the stats, remote work overall is down to 10% and still dropping pretty fast. Yes, prevalence is higher in the tech world, but still, we should wait until it stabilizes (especially with an incoming recession) before proclaiming that two years of remote work has changed the world.

The article has data showing that the number of access card swipes in buildings in downtown SF is 30% of what it was pre-pandemic. Whether or not the 10% statistic you cited is true, it's definitely not true in downtown SF.

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

#76

Post by littlexsparkee »

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…

2 reasons 100 Van Ness was easier: compact floor plate (ensures access to light) and didn't need a seismic retrofit as it was built in 1974. That's not the case for a lot of office buildings. Also mentioned: nearly all buildings are partially leased right now - it's impossible to do the work with anyone still in there.

Source: https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101889483/what-would-it-take-...

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

#77

Post by hindsightbias »

rcpt wrote: post #49
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…

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

Death Tax!

There isn’t a red state that doesn’t wish they had Prop 13.

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

#78

Post by walrus01 »

greggman3 wrote: post #71
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…

I agree. I don't know what it would take to retrofit but don't NYC and LA have lots of old office buildings turned into tready lofts? The Financial District and especiallyunion square area could be amazing if it was zoned for residential with commercial on the first floor. Parts of it could easily rival some of the nicer neighborhoods in Europe. For the larger buildings, make every 6th floor a shared space, put a res…

There are already a number of office building to condo retrofits in midtown Manhattan. And some of the largest oldest office towers in the financial district such as 70 pine are fully residential now

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

#79

Post by 0xFACEFEED »

refurb wrote: post #68
0xFACEFEED wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The idea doesn't sound that bizarre to me. I'm not an expert or anything but as people grow older their earning potential slows down too. What if the neighborhood grows in value even though the retired homeowner hasn't made any changes to their home?

It sounds reasonable to me that a retiree with a conservative investment portfolio that is barely over/under inflation should be able to live out their remaining life in that home.

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

#80

Post by [deleted] »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #35

How about this false dichotomy: > "My biggest fear is the city either has to slash spending on, say, police, or it aggressively puts up taxes on businesses to cover the shortfall and drives them out of the city," he said. It's always "we'll have to slash spending on basic city functions!" or "we'll have to raise your taxes!" but never "we'll have to cut all these unsustainable social policies!"

[deleted]
Post reply on HN