Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-20-2013, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, CA
2,518 posts, read 4,010,977 times
Reputation: 624

Advertisements

Hong Kong, and Manhattan in the Bay Area all in one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2013, 12:13 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
7,688 posts, read 29,154,335 times
Reputation: 3631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Sure, turn it into Hong Kong. It's inevitable.
If San Francisco ever becomes a match for Hong Kong, I will move to San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 12:51 PM
 
12,823 posts, read 24,402,599 times
Reputation: 11042
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocGoldstein View Post
S.F needs to build higher if it expects to grow in population. I know engineering restrictions prevent that, but take a place like sunset. It's pretty much all 1-2 story 1940 burb boxes. Building a few more 3-4 story apartment buildings would do a lot to alleviate the housing shortage in S.F.

But as long as it's here, I don't mind skimming $4,000+ rents for 1br/1ba condos in South Beach.
I'd be more supportive of these ideas in return for incentives to "de-flat" homes in areas that are better suited to SFH than multi unit. Families and the middle class are being pushed out of the City. We need a bit of both. Densification where it makes sense and de-densification in true suburban areas. A good start would probably be simple code enforcement. (Yeah Mr or Ms Illegal In Law out there, I'm talking to you!).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 12:53 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
7,688 posts, read 29,154,335 times
Reputation: 3631
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
I'd be more supportive of these ideas in return for incentives to "de-flat" homes in areas that are better suited to SFH than multi unit. Families and the middle class are being pushed out of the City. We need a bit of both. Densification where it makes sense and de-densification in true suburban areas. A good start would probably be simple code enforcement. (Yeah Mr or Ms Illegal In Law out there, I'm talking to you!).
Never mind the in-laws, meet pop-up housing!

Startup dreams meet pop-up rentals - SFGate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, CA
2,518 posts, read 4,010,977 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
I'd be more supportive of these ideas in return for incentives to "de-flat" homes in areas that are better suited to SFH than multi unit. Families and the middle class are being pushed out of the City. We need a bit of both. Densification where it makes sense and de-densification in true suburban areas. A good start would probably be simple code enforcement. (Yeah Mr or Ms Illegal In Law out there, I'm talking to you!).
Well if S.F wants to become the HK or Manhattan of California, SFHs are going to disappear as a matter of course. Not that here's anything wrong with that IMO. I've seen 3,000 sqft "apartment homes" in NYC that would make burb supporters envious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,136,325 times
Reputation: 3145
Building a bit higher density housing in The Avenues sounds like a good idea to allow SF to grow, but not without vastly improving public transportation and street infrastructure. Most buses and trains coming East in the morning seem maxed out by the time they get to Divisadero. Add another 50,000-100,000 over the next several years and it will go from merely dysfunctional to outright impossible.

Growth is fine as long as its smart. SF's static population is due to many more factors than just a lack of available housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 06:21 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,210 posts, read 107,904,670 times
Reputation: 116153
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup View Post
Bingo. I can only dream that SF will turn into Hong Kong. But alas, NIMBYs are bent on keeping this place a quaint town with overpriced housing and blighted areas, and preventing it from becoming one of the world's true alpha cities, which it has potential to become
Well, I was sort of being facetious. What doesn't make sense is that the tech development would go in the direction of the highest rents. If they were smart, wouldn't they start developing south of San Jose, like toward Gilroy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 06:49 PM
 
24,407 posts, read 26,956,157 times
Reputation: 19977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Well, I was sort of being facetious. What doesn't make sense is that the tech development would go in the direction of the highest rents. If they were smart, wouldn't they start developing south of San Jose, like toward Gilroy?
Using that logic, they would build in Nevada or Florida or Texas. They need to develop where the talent wants to live, which in today's world is San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 06:58 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,210 posts, read 107,904,670 times
Reputation: 116153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
Using that logic, they would build in Nevada or Florida or Texas. They need to develop where the talent wants to live, which in today's world is San Francisco.
They need to build where there are vacancies for the talent to occupy. That's not SF. Milpitas, or Cupertino, Morgan Hill, there are lots of places around San Jose where they could build. San Fran just doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 07:02 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
119 posts, read 184,822 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
They need to build where there are vacancies for the talent to occupy. That's not SF.
I'm with you. It seems like it would make more sense to build where there is space. SF is already very densely populated.

Someone above mentioned the bus. It's the same with the MUNI underground. They pack you in like sardines. It's not roomy like a BART commute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:53 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top