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 07-18-2018, 10:12 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,667 posts, read 16,200,461 times
Reputation: 19760

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
Yes and they must share bedrooms (not just overall apartment) to afford it. I don't know why you can't see how building additional housing puts relief on old stock and limits the surge in pricing.
lol. Building and building and building puts relief on old stock and limits surge by bringing more and more people in ... which, in turn, puts greater pressure on infrastructure and makes a bigger mess than before by reducing QOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
Could that be because all of the people that made SF what it was back then were able to afford it? I wonder how many would have remained had the City been more diligent on housing and less restrictive on growth. Hell, teachers in SF can't even afford to live in the city they work in.
All the people here now can afford it or they wouldn’t be here by definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
All of the strongest and influential cities in the world are among the most dense. Name one that has tried to limit growth (you can't). All that does is leave the city behind.
Lol again with the “strongest”, “influential” cities crap. “Leave the city behind” where? You use terms without defining them. “Strongest” means what? “Influential” in what way that means anything other than some sort of egotistical status contest? Anyhow, in what way would you say SF is not one of America’s very most “influential” cities already. Top 2 or 3?

And, especially: why does SF (or anyplace) have to be “strongest and most influential at all to be a wonderful place? What is this? A high school football rivalry? We’re number 1! Huzzah! Who gives a crap? How about: “I just love this place.” Not good enough for you? ... don’t move here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
Besides, city improvements should be quite obvious to you and something I shouldn't have to answer. When you have more high income and tax paying citizens move into a city, what happens to that city's coffers? There was a thread made recently here on the newly paved roads in SF. Do you think money that came from the new residents' taxes helped pay for those improvements or no?
What the hell are you talking about? Omaha, NE is a nice clean well managed town without being full of any influx of new wealthy residents’ taxes. Lots and lots of terrific towns and cities aren’t existing on exponential growth and new development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
It's good to get outside perspectives on things. I've also been to SF more times than I can count as we have an office there.
It’s only good to get outside perspective if the perspective is worth a crap. How many times you’ve been to where I lived since the 60’s really doesn’t impress me as credentials for perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
And yes, the few NIMBY residents are putting artificial restraints on new housing in SF. "Blocking a view" is an artificial reason not to build new development. A real reason would be something like the ground in a particular area not being able to support a structure.
The value I put on my view is seriously none of your business down there in LA, bub.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
Tulemutt, just like time, a city doesn't stop evolving. It will continue to reinvent itself and grow until we have flying buses and cars traveling over the Bay Bridge into Oakland like in a Star Wars film.
You say this as if it is a good thing. Heh. Lecturing me now on reality? Too funny.

What you are doing is subscribing to the view that growth for its own sake is both inevitable and excellent, if not entirely necessary for survival ... none of which is true. In fact, it is suicidally cancerous in the long term. Cultural adoption of this belief in consumerism and growth based on it is nothing more than an obsessive addiction - entirely unsupported by science. Science tells us that it is impossible to grow ifinitely in a finite paradigm. Science tells us that the path you describe runs entirely counter to human design.

Don’t want to listen to me? Right. Don’t. Read Pandora’s Seed by the very highly acclaimed geneticist, anthropologist Spencer Wells. Read up on anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar and Dunbar’s Number. These guys aren’t considered fringe nuts. They are universally regarded as leaders in their fields. They don’t advocate returning to hunter-gatherer troops in loin cloths. But they have a seriously important education to offer the likes of you as to where your version of growth comes from and is taking us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
Of course you don't want to look at the past. It goes against your entire premise from the time YOU set foot in SF.
No, bub. We’re discussing the future given where we are today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-19-2018, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Unplugged from the matrix
4,754 posts, read 2,951,630 times
Reputation: 5126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
lol. Building and building and building puts relief on old stock and limits surge by bringing more and more people in ... which, in turn, puts greater pressure on infrastructure and makes a bigger mess than before by reducing QOL.

All the people here now can afford it or they wouldn’t be here by definition.

Lol again with the “strongest”, “influential” cities crap. “Leave the city behind” where? You use terms without defining them. “Strongest” means what? “Influential” in what way that means anything other than some sort of egotistical status contest? Anyhow, in what way would you say SF is not one of America’s very most “influential” cities already. Top 2 or 3?

And, especially: why does SF (or anyplace) have to be “strongest and most influential at all to be a wonderful place? What is this? A high school football rivalry? We’re number 1! Huzzah! Who gives a crap? How about: “I just love this place.” Not good enough for you? ... don’t move here.

What the hell are you talking about? Omaha, NE is a nice clean well managed town without being full of any influx of new wealthy residents’ taxes. Lots and lots of terrific towns and cities aren’t existing on exponential growth and new development.

It’s only good to get outside perspective if the perspective is worth a crap. How many times you’ve been to where I lived since the 60’s really doesn’t impress me as credentials for perspective.

The value I put on my view is seriously none of your business down there in LA, bub.
You say this as if it is a good thing. Heh. Lecturing me now on reality? Too funny.

What you are doing is subscribing to the view that growth for its own sake is both inevitable and excellent, if not entirely necessary for survival ... none of which is true. In fact, it is suicidally cancerous in the long term. Cultural adoption of this belief in consumerism and growth based on it is nothing more than an obsessive addiction - entirely unsupported by science. Science tells us that it is impossible to grow ifinitely in a finite paradigm. Science tells us that the path you describe runs entirely counter to human design.

Don’t want to listen to me? Right. Don’t. Read Pandora’s Seed by the very highly acclaimed geneticist, anthropologist Spencer Wells. Read up on anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar and Dunbar’s Number. These guys aren’t considered fringe nuts. They are universally regarded as leaders in their fields. They don’t advocate returning to hunter-gatherer troops in loin cloths. But they have a seriously important education to offer the likes of you as to where your version of growth comes from and is taking us.

No, bub. We’re discussing the future given where we are today.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 08:49 AM
 
Location: On the water.
21,667 posts, read 16,200,461 times
Reputation: 19760
Yeah bro, very erudite ... shows a real command of your point of view. Heck, why read what science says about human design and genetics, evolution, history, psychology with regard specifically to issues of massive population concentrations, resource depletion, toxic environmental reliances? It will only cloud your obsession with growth for its own sake. An obsession you continue to chant your mantra to support ... without an iota of substantive science to back it up.

Enjoy your termite mound down there in LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Unplugged from the matrix
4,754 posts, read 2,951,630 times
Reputation: 5126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
Yeah bro, very erudite ... shows a real command of your point of view. Heck, why read what science says about human design and genetics, evolution, history, psychology with regard specifically to issues of massive population concentrations, resource depletion, toxic environmental reliances? It will only cloud your obsession with growth for its own sake. An obsession you continue to chant your mantra to support ... without an iota of substantive science to back it up.

Enjoy your termite mound down there in LA.
Or just I'm tired of going around in circles with you. You don't care to see a different point of view. I'll take the advice of others here. Have a good day
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 10:19 AM
 
Location: On the water.
21,667 posts, read 16,200,461 times
Reputation: 19760
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
Or just I'm tired of going around in circles with you. You don't care to see a different point of view. I'll take the advice of others here. Have a good day
Do you care to see a different point of view (mine)? Apparently not. How about when I support my view with references to history and science? Apparently not. You’ll take what advice from whom? I don’t see you seeking advice. All I saw was you inserting your personal opinion about how San Franciscans should embrace your POV from LA and Houston about developing their city.

Re: going around in circles ... you certainly were ... never offering even definitions of your goal (you don’t seem to have any other than “growth!”) or even superlatives (strong, influential).

Yes, have a nice day ... in LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
13,562 posts, read 10,314,450 times
Reputation: 8252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
The fact that certain other cities have built greater density, and that it is possible to do so, doesn’t make it a good idea. It is possible for you eat and eat until you weigh 1,000 lbs, too. Is that a good idea?

I’ve been to Hong Kong and Tokyo. Would rather slit my throat than live like that. Just as you suggested maybe people should move to the country if they don’t like crowded cities ... um, you could move to Hong Kong or Tokyo if you do. Lots of people like cities that are busy and cosmopolitan but not termite mounds. Hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans love the City just the way it is.

And we don’t need you to call us disparging names for not sharing your vision for our future.
Hong Kong builds like crazy (they're controlled by the big real estate developers) yet they also have an affordability problem, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 11:42 AM
 
Location: On the water.
21,667 posts, read 16,200,461 times
Reputation: 19760
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
Hong Kong builds like crazy (they're controlled by the big real estate developers) yet they also have an affordability problem, too.
Been there. They sure do. ‘Effing horrible place, imo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Unplugged from the matrix
4,754 posts, read 2,951,630 times
Reputation: 5126
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
Hong Kong builds like crazy (they're controlled by the big real estate developers) yet they also have an affordability problem, too.
Hong Kong is on an island and isn't connected to a larger mainland. It's a small city-state and is very attractive to people coming from a country right next door that has over a billion people. That's not what San Francisco is. Imagine how much more expensive it'd be if they didn't build housing.

All desirable coastal cities will be expensive. But could you let me know how HK and SF are similar? I'd like to know why HK being expensive somehow means SF shouldn't build additional housing (take note on where I said new housing should be first too...).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,780 posts, read 26,078,144 times
Reputation: 33916
Quote:
Originally Posted by alliance View Post
And yes, automation is going to happen anyway. This is just pushing it faster than it would've been otherwise. Is it wise to demand wage hikes when there is a viable replacement ready to go? This is more related to a nationwide MW hike vs in SF.
Who do you think will work in San Francisco for under $15 an hour? Restaurants have been offering more than that for dishwashers for a few years now. Did you even read the article you posted, it says:

Quote:
As of 2020, self-service ordering kiosks will be implemented at all U.S. McDonald’s locations.
That means that people getting paid $7.25 an hour will be laid off just like people who are paid $15 an hour, so how would San Francisco save those jobs by not increasing the minimum wage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2018, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,780 posts, read 26,078,144 times
Reputation: 33916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
Been there. They sure do. ‘Effing horrible place, imo.
My son's fiance is from Hong Kong, she lived there until she was 18. Her parents are quite well off, but she said that their home in Hong Kong was smaller than her condo in Oakland (which isn't all that big). Over 90% of Hong Kong families today live in homes smaller than 700 square feet (source: Global Post) She said it's a great place to visit but she would never live there again under any conditions
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 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