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

91–100 of 272 posts

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

#91

Post by sammalloy »

acchow wrote: post #36
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…

If there's enough demand for it (and risk appetite), change can happen swiftly. Just see how rapidly the Mission transformed (particularly Valencia-Dolores and adjacent) over the past decade.

> If there's enough demand for it (and risk appetite), change can happen swiftly. Just see how rapidly the Mission transformed (particularly Valencia-Dolores and adjacent) over the past decade.

Valencia-Dolores was just fine before the gentrification. A better analogy would be the comparatively quick tear down and demolishment of the Embarcadero Freeway, which had formerly been a blight on the city for decades and blocked the beautiful waterfront. Once it was torn down and that area redeveloped, hardly anyone can imagine a good rationale for ever building it in the first place. That’s one of the greatest success stories of modern San Francisco, and it’s likely the downtown area can benefit from the same approach. People didn’t want to hear that about the Embarcadero Freeway and fought against bringing it down for years, but in retrospect, everyone now knows they were dead wrong.

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

#92

Post by mgsouth »

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…

The site seems to have a very odd sprinkling of English headings and words. Not enough for a non-Japanese reader, and no visible option to switch to an English version of the pages, so clearly targeted Japanese-only. Is this common?

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

#93

Post by hintymad »

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.

Is this contradictory to the reason that startups are funded in S.F proper? I remember many articles and social media posts were saying along the line that people chose to work in S.F because they loved bustling city life. Yet the city is doomed because people wanted to work remotely en masse?

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

#94

Post by pupdogg »

charlieflowers wrote: post #46
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?

"2021 Downtown Detroit is cleaner and safer than Downtown San Francisco" - Peter Santenello on YouTube! I agree with him. Reference: https://youtu.be/GnFGYqj2UQA?t=272

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

#95

Post by jonas21 »

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #79
refurb wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, that's the point of postponing the taxes. The retiree can live out their remaining life in the home, and the taxes are due when their heirs inherit it.

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

#96

Post by at_a_remove »

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!

Let's have some fun with this. So maybe I am near a hospital, or an elementary school, whatever. I have a nice plot of land. You think people will be okay with me storing nuclear waste for a fee on that land?

Maybe I am next to your house. I want to have a hog farm or a 24/7 very loud factory.

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

#97

Post by 88913527 »

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.

It might be premature, but it seems like the cat is out the bag, especially if it means lower operating costs for businesses. Everything in the near future points to cash-flow positive businesses being the Wall Street darlings. Being unprofitable is no longer in vogue, which is a pretty seismic shift for the bay. If you don't need the office space, you're going to get undercut by your competitor who goes without. Besides staffing costs (which also go down when you hire technologists from outside of Bay Area), your second biggest software company cost is going to be office space.

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

#98

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

refurb wrote: post #63
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.

I’ll take an office job when by travel time is taken off my work week/fully paid (including car/bus/w/e costs). But that job would also have to have affordable and desirable housing commensurate with the compensation.

What we’re actually going to see is a division better highly skilled people going to companies that understand what humans need and lesser skilled or otherwise problematic employees settling for the less desirable jobs with backwards looking management and worse total compensation packages/work life balances. These regressive companies will slowly implode due to cancerous cultural issues that will blossom wonderfully when toxicity is given the fertile ground of desperate and problematic staff coerced into interacting in bullshit jobs.

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

#99

Post by librish »

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #79
refurb wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes that's the idea? They get to live out the rest of their years, and then their heirs pay the deferred taxes, selling the house if needed.

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

#100

Post by littlexsparkee »

systemvoltage wrote: post #23
1270018080 wrote: post #3

I think this is a blessing. Cities have been designed for commuters instead of the people living in them since white flight in the 20th century. Just look at all of the metrics in the article. It's all about commuters and the city's dependence on them. Now, macroeconomic factors are forcing cities across the country to actually serve the people living in them. And it's great. Yeah there will be growing pains and this…

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.

850,000 living there against their will, I presume? What is it about the city that makes people froth at the mouth? The ridiculous characterizations I read don't match what I see day-to-day at all
Post reply on HN