Hacker News Reader

Comment by hack_edu | Hacker News Reader

Article has great points, but I must remind everyone of the unbelievably rapid pace the city is already being developed. Business in SOMA, let alone its status as an extension of the Valley itself, practically didn't exist 15 years ago; the real estate boom saw a huge number of affordable(ish) apartments turned into crazy-expensive condos that can sit vacant for months before a purchase, and the real estate bubble never popped on single-family homes in the more appealing neighborhoods. This has a nearly immeasurable effect on its demographics and tax base that the city can hardly keep up with. It also wouldn't hurt if resources were allocated for construction projects to be much more accelerated. I don't understand why large-building construction takes 3x as long in this city as others (and no, its not just permits/redtape).

Is more, and rapid, development critical today? Sure, maybe. Do I support it? Yes.

But its complicated...

View on HN

It's incredible to me that people think San Francisco is all that dense or rapidly developing. It has half the people of Manhattan in twice the area yet still rents between the two cities are approaching parity. Much of the city is a glorified suburb and needs to be razed and developed into proper civilization as quickly as they can work the bulldozers.

A lot of people like San Francisco the way it is. Razing half the city and building skyscrapers is their worst nightmare. Especially if doing so would just be a way to temporarily house more tech workers in the middle of what may be another bubble.

After people flooded the city and drove up rents during the dot com boom and then fled the city when the bubble burst, real San Franciscans were still there. And if it happens again, they'll still be there afterward. And in 50 or 100 years, they and their families will still be there. How many coders working at startups in the city today can say the same? Who do you think should have more say in the future of the city? Those who care deeply about it's past, present and future - or those who are only looking out for their own short and medium term housing needs?

The old guard - who have the power - wont allow your suggestion to happen in our lifetime. The best you can hope for is slow, methodical babysteps in that direction.

California is an undivided sovereign entity--the City of San Francisco is merely an administrative subdivision. The relevant constituency is the population of California, and any Californian who wants to live in San Francisco should be able to do so without protectionist zoning regulations that put up artificial roadblocks to migration.

You can try making that argument to the folks who handle zoning for the City of San Francisco. Seems unlikely that will persuade them to let you demolish half the city, but it's worth a shot I guess.

It's the 2nd densest city in America. Even if it's not comparable to Hong Kong, that is why Americans might think it's dense.

Maybe that's the reason...

As an aside, San Francisco is denser on paper than in real life because of how its borders are drawn relative to other cities. The core of Chicago fits the population of San Francisco into 31 square miles with an average density of 25,690 per square mile. 1.3 million people in Chicago live in a neighborhood with at least the average density of San Francisco, with a total average density of 22,240 per square mile. If you take a subset of Chicago neighborhoods with the same average density as San Francisco, it has about 2.4 million people.

Can you explain why the city getting more tax revenue and its demographics becoming more affluent are a problem for it to keep up with?

Rich people tend to be more effective NIMBY-ites.

The existing San Franciscans seem to be pretty effective NIMBY-ites too... and for a city that seems so proud of being progressive, they can be pretty damn reactionary about changing anything.

I won't admit to being an expert, but public policy is a balancing act that doesn't seem to be keeping pace with the residential and business demographic shifts. Giuliani did an impecable job at it in New York, but its hard to see how his plans could be applied in such a different city and context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com