Article about San Francisco housing from ... 2002 (Sacramento, Oakland: sales, 2015, car registration)

[dalparadise]

So again, I ask, why would twice as many people living in SF be better? The answer that I hear from you guys is, "it's possible!" Okay, I don't disagree. But envisioning that SF isn't appealing to me. SF is dense--not as dense as some places, but dense enough to give it an awesome urban landscape, yet open enough to have places of legitimate wilderness inside its borders. There are parts of national parks inside this tiny city!

Sorry, I think you need a more compelling reason to pack twice as many people into SF than, "it's possible." Again, if you destroy that which makes San Francisco so desirable, you may, in fact lower rents here, but it will come because people no longer wish to live here.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by botticelli

is that so unimaginable to you?

On the same land area San Francisco, Bronx has 1.4 million, Barcelona has 1.6 million, Paris has 2.2 million, Hong Kong (Kowloon and HK island) has 3.2 million, Central Shanghai has 3.4 million.

San Francisco is "dense"? LMAF. It is like saying Angola is a rich country.

But SF is dense, especially by American standards (there isn't a city in the US that is denser overall, other than NYC). Just because it isn't as dense as Hong Kong doesn't mean it isn't still a densely-built city.

I think your issue is more to do with the American way of thinking and building? And for that, there are a lot more cities you can whine about being not very dense...

That being said, I don't disagree with the basic premise that SF needs to densify more (and improve its infrastructure in the process). I just think this crusade against it not being very urban/dense is a bit misplaced.

[botticelli]

Originally Posted by ServoMiff

And all of those cities have significantly better infrastructure than SF. Hong Kong was one of the easiest commutable major cities that I've ever visited.

SF city infrastructure can't handle the current capacity, and as someone else mentioned, it's going to take a while just to get things to where it satisfies the current demand. Shifting the demand from the East Bay to the city just makes a completely overburdened public transportation and road system even worse. If you think commuting 2 hours from Tracy is bad, try commuting 2 hours from the outer Richmond into FiDi. People would just end up walking everywhere.

The N-Judah Muni Metro line is already beyond max capacity during rush hours. I can only imagine what it'd be like if they build up in the sunset and adjacent neighborhoods.

I'm not opposed to additional capacity once infrastructure can catch up to the current and forecasted future demand. However, even as a SF newbie, I can tell that's not going to happen anytime soon. The bureaucracy here is asinine. There should have been a 2nd transbay tube a LONG time ago.

I completely agree with and understand your concern.

However, this becomes a chicken/egg question. Given the low density in Richmond/Sunset area for example, politicians will have no incentive or solid argument for much improved transit because the density is not there. And should we use the lack of infrastructure as an excuse for not building forever?

Here in Toronto, we face almost exactly the same problem, but the city has been building highrise condos like crazy in downtown and major transit corridors, bringing huge amount of supply. I think it is the right way to tackle new demand. In downtown Toronto, you can easily rent a one-bedroom condo for $1500-1600, and two bedrooms for under $2500. Of course wage is lower but higher supply definitely contributes to higher affordability.

In any way, NOT building is a bad solution. Rent control just makes it even worse.

[likealady]

SF won't improve the infastructure because the city is somehow broke despite their high taxes. They'll continue to twiddle their thumbs as if nothing is wrong. Another transbay tube? Ha, like that's ever gonna happen. Unless it effects the rich, no one gives a care.

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

Furthermore, where did you get the idea that the housing market is about fairness? A newcomer has to pay 40% more than I paid (if I were to vacate) because that's what the market will bear. Why did the people who bought my house in Houston have to pay more than I did for it? It was new when I moved in. They paid more than I did for a house I had lived in!

If you want a Bentley, a rare car that isn't produced in the kind of quantities to make it affordable for average people, you pay more for it than you would a Camry. Camrys are mass produced and sold by the tens of thousands. They are of equally high quality in terms of their mechanicals, to the Bentley, but are less expensive and lack certain character traits and style one finds in the Bentley.

Is it fair that I can't afford a Bentley? I don't know, because the idea of "fair" isn't part of the conversation.

I, like everyone else, buy what I can afford. I don't demand that Bentley automate their production like Toyota does so that I can afford one. Doing so would almost certainly compromise the character of the Bentley people find so appealing.

Right on point and worth repeating.

[ServoMiff]

Originally Posted by likealady

SF won't improve the infastructure because the city is somehow broke despite their high taxes. They'll continue to twiddle their thumbs as if nothing is wrong. Another transbay tube? Ha, like that's ever gonna happen. Unless it effects the rich, no one gives a care.

We got a new Bay Bridge - I can't see another tube being any less important. The issue is how long it takes from idea to completed construction. If a process takes 20 years, it needs to be planned for a needs forecast that far out. Unfortunately, most projects never take that far away into consideration because of the inherent risk/cost associated with such risk.

[likealady]

We got a new bridge because the old one wasn't a suspension and needed to be updated (although, I heard the new one already has structural damage). BART had a survey I took part in a year or so ago on improvements. You had to select what funding/taxation/price increases you would support, it would then tell you how much revenue that'd pull in. From there you could select the improvements you wanted. My first choice: 2nd transbay tube, which just so happened to cost $$$$$$$$$.

Oh, if only rich billionaires like Suckerberg donated to improve BART as well as donating to SF General Hospital. We could all be riding Z.A.R.T.

[Ultrarunner]

The Bay Area used all it's political might to get a new bridge... retrofitting the old one would have expedient and cheap...

The choice was made to ensure that something worthy of the Bay would be created as one story said.

In the old days the key system, inner city rail that went to Sacramento and North paid their own way...

Why is it public transit is incapable of this today?

[ServoMiff]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

The Bay Area used all it's political might to get a new bridge... retrofitting the old one would have expedient and cheap...

The choice was made to ensure that something worthy of the Bay would be created as one story said.

In the old days the key system, inner city rail that went to Sacramento and North paid their own way...

Why is it public transit is incapable of this today?

Because if they had to run it profitably (or at least to break even when considering reinvestment into their infrastructure), they'd A) never get good enough employees when paying BMR wages and B) they'd never get any traffic, because the price they'd have to charge in order to afford the repairs to the current line and expand the service would price out everyone from using it and we'd end up with a more choked Bay Bridge than it already is at rush hour.

Heck, as it is, if I used BART daily to get to work (I only use it 3 days a week-ish currently), I'd be paying around $260 a month, which is more than most compact car payments. How much more can BART charge before demand is no longer inelastic? The cost of car ownership in the city isn't cheap, but in certain parts it's not impossible to find street parking and pay around that in gas and bridge tolls as it stands.

I can only imagine if Embarcadero to Dublin/Pleasanton become upwards of $10-15 each way how that would affect BART demand. At $600 a month, you aren't going to find as many riders.

Public transportation services need subsidies now as a result. The Chicago MTA is going through similar hardships with aging trains and elevated track lines, and lack of funding. They have less expensive issues with regard to expansion and maintenance though - they don't have a giant pool of water in between their system.

[Ultrarunner]

As an Alameda County and Oakland resident I have the privilege of paying double for some of the Bay Area infrastructure projects... things I never use or voted for.

You can't run a service business very well based on public transportation and as public transit expands the further out people move...

I continue to live in Oakland because I am less than 10 minutes from work on a bad day.

I have co-workers that did live close and many owned their homes and sold... they moved to Mountain House, Antioch, Tracy and even Stockton...

The only reason they moved was for newer and larger housing... because they all had post war tract homes they were able to cash out of and buy new by adding long commutes.

In the last 5 years I used Bart once to go to the SF Airport and boy was that expensive... especially for 5 people!!!