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 07-17-2018, 05:56 PM
 
Location: On the water.
20,741 posts, read 13,730,906 times
Reputation: 18550

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
Which places are those? NYC, Hong Kong, Tokyo, London, etc., have all built way more housing than SF has. SF is only built out because the NIMBYs want it to be now. There's plenty of areas where the city can build up.

Manhattan didn't always look like Manhattan either. The build of SF is the problem. No one is saying tear down the entire Richmond District (which is honestly just average for the most part), but you can at least start in places like DTSF and build more high-rise apartment/condo towers. You can redevelop some of the strip centers with larger parking lots into mixed-use developments. Why is that a problem?
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-17-2018, 07:47 PM
 
348 posts, read 301,839 times
Reputation: 759
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.
spoken like a true NIMBY who only cares about themselves
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2018, 09:11 PM
 
Location: On the water.
20,741 posts, read 13,730,906 times
Reputation: 18550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commonproject View Post
spoken like a true NIMBY who only cares about themselves
Um. Sure thing.

Listen, I’ll ask you the same questions:
What exactly should San Franciscan property owners do to insure that unlimited numbers of people with insufficient incomes/funds to buy in the City can also buy properties there?

What benefit is there to San Franciscans to enable unlimited growth?

For that matter, in what way is the City improved by limitless growth?

San Francisco is a peninsula. Do you believe it’s possible to grow infinitely in a finite paradigm?

If not, at what point would you draw the line? And when you do draw the line on growth, what about all the people who can’t move in because you finally maxed out?

By the way, I first called the Bay area home in the mid-late 60’s, in the military. I am retired military and retired second blue collar career after, high school drop-out guy. I have never owned property in the Bay Area. I lived, and still do, on a boat. Cheap bas*ard that I am.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2018, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Ca expat loving Idaho
5,086 posts, read 3,539,200 times
Reputation: 7849
NIMBYs have a strong hold in Malibu too. That place looks exactly the same as it did in 60's. Kinda weird to me that nothing changes. I guess that's what they insist on though and so far they're winning
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2018, 10:32 PM
 
Location: On the water.
20,741 posts, read 13,730,906 times
Reputation: 18550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finper View Post
NIMBYs have a strong hold in Malibu too. That place looks exactly the same as it did in 60's. Kinda weird to me that nothing changes. I guess that's what they insist on though and so far they're winning
Yeah. Nice ain’t it?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2018, 12:50 AM
 
Location: Unplugged from the matrix
4,533 posts, read 2,394,539 times
Reputation: 4770
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
You just said that a $15 an hour job in San Francisco is not full time. I'm done, bye bye.
A $15 an hour minimum wage would likely not be full time. Because of the very recent increase in MW in SF perhaps I should have said $17-20 in my later example so you wouldn't be confused, even though minimum wage in LA isn't $15 yet. Trying too hard here buddy with all this "bye bye" stuff.

The other points of my post you edited out still stands though.

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.
Cities evolve. There was a point in time when the Richmond District didn't exist. Should they have stopped it's development back then to "save" the west side of the city from developing? Why does SF have to stop developing now when there is still plenty of room for growth? This stranglehold some people have on SF isn't going to last very much longer in my opinion. There needs to be way more market relief.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2018, 01:01 AM
 
Location: 415->916->602
3,145 posts, read 2,375,430 times
Reputation: 3862
i thought seattle was the first city....
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2018, 08:20 AM
 
Location: On the water.
20,741 posts, read 13,730,906 times
Reputation: 18550
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
Cities evolve. There was a point in time when the Richmond District didn't exist. Should they have stopped it's development back then to "save" the west side of the city from developing? Why does SF have to stop developing now when there is still plenty of room for growth? This stranglehold some people have on SF isn't going to last very much longer in my opinion. There needs to be way more market relief.
Why should San Franciscans embrace your vision of city “evolution”?

You’ve not answered any of my essential questions ... just gone on repeatedly with your “growth is good” mantra. So I’ll repeat:

What exactly should San Franciscan property owners do to insure that unlimited numbers of people with insufficient incomes/funds to buy in the City can also buy properties there?

What benefit is there to San Franciscans to enable unlimited growth?

For that matter, in what way is the City improved by limitless growth?

San Francisco is a peninsula. Do you believe it’s possible to grow infinitely in a finite paradigm?

If not, at what point would you draw the line? And when you do draw the line on growth, what about all the people who can’t move in because you finally maxed out?

Why don’t you eat until you weigh 1,000 lbs?

Why don’t you empty your wallet and take off your clothes to share with others?

Why should the city “develop” every inch of space horizontal and vertical? Answer the above questions. Consider the future of unlimited growth vs a future oriented to sustainability.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2018, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Unplugged from the matrix
4,533 posts, read 2,394,539 times
Reputation: 4770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
Why should San Franciscans embrace your vision of city “evolution”?
You’ve not answered any of my essential questions ... just gone on repeatedly with your “growth is good” mantra. So I’ll repeat:
You have answered none of my questions.

Quote:
What exactly should San Franciscan property owners do to insure that unlimited numbers of people with insufficient incomes/funds to buy in the City can also buy properties there?
Stop blocking development, especially those that include low-income housing. Their baristas and waiters need somewhere to live.

And why do you think only those earning less would enter in the City with additional housing? No, what it would do is add relief to the current housing stock. Someone paying to stay in the first floor of a rowhouse can instead move to the new development. Then someone commuting from San Lorenzo to work their MW job in The City would theoretically take that first floor rowhouse space. Etc. You've just eased traffic on the Bay Bridge and likely increased transit use via Muni/BART in SF.

Quote:
What benefit is there to San Franciscans to enable unlimited growth?

For that matter, in what way is the City improved by limitless growth?
Is this one of your essential questions? It can't be a serious one.

Let me ask you, was the city better run when it was losing people in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, or has it been better since 2000 when it started growing again?

Quote:
San Francisco is a peninsula. Do you believe it’s possible to grow infinitely in a finite paradigm?
You keep throwing out this peninsula thing as if there isn't any available room on it. There is plenty of space for redevelopment on the peninsula. There are also insignificant shopping centers with parking lots that can be redeveloped first.

Quote:
If not, at what point would you draw the line? And when you do draw the line on growth, what about all the people who can’t move in because you finally maxed out?
SF isn't anywhere near maxed out. It only is artificially.

Quote:
Why don’t you eat until you weigh 1,000 lbs?
Terrible analogy. It's more like working out until you become one of the strongest out there.

Quote:
Why don’t you empty your wallet and take off your clothes to share with others?
Another terrible analogy but I thought that Socialism was becoming more popular in SF? Faux liberalism is all the rage nowadays so not surprised you used this example.

Quote:
Why should the city “develop” every inch of space horizontal and vertical? Answer the above questions. Consider the future of unlimited growth vs a future oriented to sustainability.
I've already answered this for you and no one said develop every square inch. For some reason you're against building residential towers Downtown (taller than 25 floors) or redeveloping dilapidated commercial centers.

You should have been around in 1900 to stop the development of west SF. So much parkland was paved over in favor of tiny rowhouses. SF should have never developed west of the 1 Highway. But for some reason it did. Can you let me know why?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2018, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,786 posts, read 98,973,623 times
Reputation: 49146
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelatedTherapy View Post
Seattle did it first.
exactly and if anyone even thinks $15 an hour is a living wage they are nuts, especially in the bay area. So, what good does this do? Min wage is not supposed to be a living wage, it is for people, usually kids just starting out in the business world. Or for those who just want to supplement their income. and yes, I think Seattle was the first.
Rate this post positively 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.

© 2005-2023, 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