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.
If you're talking the urban area, then why not take the Chicago urban area for the comparison? Or maybe at least CTA service area since that essentially functions as a city.
Not just CTA rail, but CTA in general would be: Forest Park, Evanston, Skokie, Oak Park, Summit, Cicero, Berwyn, North Riverside, Rosemont, Evergreen Park, Park Ridge, Harwood Heights, Norridge, Lincolnwood, and Wilmette.
CTA going just by L rail would be: Forest Park, Oak Park, Evanston, Wilmette, Cicero, Rosemont, and Skokie.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-24-2023 at 09:36 AM..
When people talk about SF being 'sterile' they don't literally mean low levels of fecal coliform bacteria. They're speaking figuratively about socioeconomic bifurcation and the mono-culture at the upper end. SF is in the advanced stages of gentrification, which has increasingly priced out all but the wealthiest tech workers. This is all well documented and it's been happening for 2-ish decades. The result is far less ethnic and economic diversity. Homelessness and feces on the sidewalk don't magically add authenticity or make an area more urban... instead, these are signs of disorder (as Sen. Wiener describes it). At the root of this disorder is 4+ decades of no-growth/NIMBYism that has preserved the built environment in ways that makes it more attractive as a tourist destination, while at the same time making it a much less vibrant city.
I don't know Chicago very well so I'll skip that comparison, but I've spent a lot of time living and working in other major metros, and SF is an outlier, and not necessarily in a good way. Public transportation is sub par. The density outside the downtown core leaves a lot to be desired, with too many SFH and too little middle housing. This missing middle of housing is directly related to the hollowing out of the middle class. SF, to me, has long felt like it has all the frustrations of a major city while missing a lot of the energy and conveniences of other major metros.
Don't get me wrong, SF is a beautiful city and we enjoy visiting. But touristy is not the same as cosmopolitan. And high rates of homelessness and social disorder are not signs of urbanity. For all it's beauty, SF feels like a city that has ensconce itself in amber in an attempt to stop change which, for me, leads to feeling somewhat contrived and artificial.
When people talk about SF being 'sterile' they don't literally mean low levels of fecal coliform bacteria. They're speaking figuratively about socioeconomic bifurcation and the mono-culture at the upper end. SF is in the advanced stages of gentrification, which has increasingly priced out all but the wealthiest tech workers. This is all well documented and it's been happening for 2-ish decades. The result is far less ethnic and economic diversity. Homelessness and feces on the sidewalk don't magically add authenticity or make an area more urban... instead, these are signs of disorder (as Sen. Wiener describes it). At the root of this disorder is 4+ decades of no-growth/NIMBYism that has preserved the built environment in ways that makes it more attractive as a tourist destination, while at the same time making it a much less vibrant city.
I don't know Chicago very well so I'll skip that comparison, but I've spent a lot of time living and working in other major metros, and SF is an outlier, and not necessarily in a good way. Public transportation is sub par. The density outside the downtown core leaves a lot to be desired, with too many SFH and too little middle housing. This missing middle of housing is directly related to the hollowing out of the middle class. SF, to me, has long felt like it has all the frustrations of a major city while missing a lot of the energy and conveniences of other major metros.
Don't get me wrong, SF is a beautiful city and we enjoy visiting. But touristy is not the same as cosmopolitan. And high rates of homelessness and social disorder are not signs of urbanity. For all it's beauty, SF feels like a city that has ensconce itself in amber in an attempt to stop change which, for me, leads to feeling somewhat contrived and artificial.
This isn't quite true though, because things like Prop 13 which has its issues has meant that a lot of property owners who bought in before things became extremely expensive then ended up staying as did family members. In addition to that, people working in the tech industry are far from being ethnically monolithic.
Yes, there is a lot of disorder and disruption from the high prices and there are some interesting differences, but within the context of the US, SF among major cities is still quite ethnically diverse and its public transportation is in the tier just below NYC so it's quite good for a US city. Yes, that's a rather low bar, but we're still in a US forum. SF proper has been building housing and it does need to build more, but the larger issue is really the surrounding municipalities which aren't building very much and are nowhere near as densely built as SF itself. BART needs to drop its low-frequency, park-and-ride stupidity outside of SF and go full-in on heavy development near its stations with feeder buses and high frequency and so does Caltrain after electrification finishes.
If you're talking the urban area, then why not take the Chicago urban area for the comparison? Or maybe at least CTA service area since that essentially functions as a city.
Because I am looking for the most comparable population and/or physical size, but you I hadnt thought about rail service area, that's a good idea.
Because I am looking for the most comparable population and/or physical size, but you I hadnt thought about rail service area, that's a good idea.
I think it's an odd most comparable area since there is an urban area for Chicago as well. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd to not use that since you supposedly could have used a methodology that uses a pretty small atomic unit and is defined for both areas? I do think the kind of split between SF/Oakland urban area and SJ urban area is silly, but then again, I'm not sure how SF focused versus Bay Area focused OP intended this to be.
This isn't quite true though, because things like Prop 13 which has its issues has meant that a lot of property owners who bought in before things became extremely expensive then ended up staying as did family members. In addition to that, people working in the tech industry are far from being ethnically monolithic.
Yes, there is a lot of disorder and disruption from the high prices and there are some interesting differences, but within the context of the US, SF among major cities is still quite ethnically diverse and its public transportation is in the tier just below NYC so it's quite good for a US city. Yes, that's a rather low bar, but we're still in a US forum. SF proper has been building housing and it does need to build more, but the larger issue is really the surrounding municipalities which aren't building very much and are nowhere near as densely built as SF itself. BART needs to drop its low-frequency, park-and-ride stupidity outside of SF and go full-in on heavy development near its stations with feeder buses and high frequency and so does Caltrain after electrification finishes.
Prop 13 is part of the problem since there's no downside from higher property taxes when wealthy homeowners fight to prevent housing, which greatly increases their property value. I don't think someone who bought in the late 1970s (mostly older white people), or their kids inheriting $1M+ houses, is a good representation of diversity.
I worked in Tech for many years, so I'm well aware that it's not monolithic. But that's only one dimension of diversity. Socioeconomic diversity also matters, as does industry and careers. A high concentration of wealthy tech workers, which pushes out other workers (because just one unit of housing was added for every 6 jobs created... this is the broader region, but it affects everyone) is, IMO, undesirable.
And yes, totally agree, this's isn't entirely SF's fault, as NIMBYism has infected the entire region. But SF was one of the leaders in this. Back in the 1980s there was a call to action to "not Manhattanize San Francisco," followed by a well organized effort to tie the development process into knots.
As for public transit, BART is based on a 1970s vision of urbanism where people live in SFH suburbs and use transit to get to commercial areas like downtown. Sorry, and again this is just my opinion, this has made for poor public transit unless one fits into the expected pattern. SF is not uniquely bad, this is true of most western US cities that grew rapidly in the mid 20th century. Generally, I find that larger east coast cities have much better transit.
Last edited by AnythingOutdoors; 07-24-2023 at 10:39 AM..
Prop 13 is part of the problem since there's no downside from higher property taxes when wealthy homeowners fight to prevent housing, which greatly increases their property value. I don't think someone who bought in the late 1970s (mostly older white people), or their kids inheriting $1M+ houses, is a good representation of diversity.
I worked in Tech for many years, so I'm well aware that it's not monolithic. But that's only one dimension of diversity. Socioeconomic diversity also matters, as does industry and careers. A high concentration of wealthy tech workers, which pushes out other workers (because just one unit of housing was added for every 6 jobs created... this is the broader region, but it affects everyone) is, IMO, undesirable.
And yes, totally agree, this's isn't entirely SF's fault, as NIMBYism has infected the entire region. But SF was one of the leaders in this. Back in the 1980s there was a call to action to "not Manhattanize San Francisco," followed by a well organized effort to tie the development process into knots.
As for public transit, BART is based on a 1970s vision of urbanism where people live in SFH suburbs and use transit to get to commercial areas like downtown. Sorry, and again this is just my opinion, this has made for poor public transit unless one fits into the expected pattern. SF is not uniquely bad, this is true of most western US cities that grew rapidly in the mid 20th century. Generally, I find that larger midwestern and east coast cities have much better transit.
Yes, that's why I mentioned that Prop 13 has its problems. It also means that a good deal of people then end up holding on their homes and then passing that down to their kids as I definitely know families who have done so. In SF, those families who get on in good are going to swing mostly White and East Asian with some African American and long-time Hispanic residents. While they do end up having a lot of net worth, those families often don't end up with particularly extravagant lifestyles because their lines of work oftentimes aren't super lucrative--think people working for the city, region, or state in various capacities, or local store owners or sometimes workers.
I agree that socioeconomic diversity matters, but you explicitly wrote about ethnic diversity and that's one part where tech tends to be less monolithic.
Not Manhattanize-ing San Francisco was a lot more about commercial skyscrapers. While that does somewhat elide into residential housing as well, I think they are not quite the same. SF has actually built a decent amount of housing given its already existing density, and I think the vast majority of the blame should be laid on basically every other municipality in the Bay Area as well as the state overall. I think it makes less sense given cost per square foot to build and the amount of disruption to build SF much denser versus pouring a lot more attention towards building up other parts of the Bay Area.
SF mass transit is uniquely *good* in the context of the US (as is Chicago's). It's not great in the context of major cities in other developed countries, but for the US both of these are a very solid step above the next tier. BART has some serious misses, but some of it can be pretty easily improved such as simply running greater frequencies, building dense mixed-use development near the stations (made easier now by state level legislation), and upping bus service as feeders for those stations.
Yes, that's why I mentioned that Prop 13 has its problems. It also means that a good deal of people then end up holding on their homes and then passing that down to their kids as I definitely know families who have done so. In SF, those families who get on in good are going to swing mostly White and East Asian with some African American and long-time Hispanic residents. While they do end up having a lot of net worth, those families often don't end up with particularly extravagant lifestyles because their lines of work oftentimes aren't super lucrative--think people working for the city, region, or state in various capacities, or local store owners or sometimes workers.
I agree that socioeconomic diversity matters, but you explicitly wrote about ethnic diversity and that's one part where tech tends to be less monolithic.
Not Manhattanize-ing San Francisco was a lot more about commercial skyscrapers. While that does somewhat elide into residential housing as well, I think they are not quite the same. SF has actually built a decent amount of housing given its already existing density, and I think the vast majority of the blame should be laid on basically every other municipality in the Bay Area as well as the state overall. I think it makes less sense given cost per square foot to build and the amount of disruption to build SF much denser versus pouring a lot more attention towards building up other parts of the Bay Area.
SF mass transit is uniquely *good* in the context of the US (as is Chicago's). It's not great in the context of major cities in other developed countries, but for the US both of these are a very solid step above the next tier. BART has some serious misses, but some of it can be pretty easily improved such as simply running greater frequencies, building dense mixed-use development near the stations (made easier now by state level legislation), and upping bus service as feeders for those stations.
I would agree with this assessment. Also Oakland is basically as much part of SF as much of Chicago is part of Chicago.
And it still has a pretty visible middle class presence. In the dangerous neighborhoods (which there are many, there are still SFHs for 200-400,000 it just comes down to how comfortable one is living in that environment and the school districts.
But Oakland’s market has cooled down even more than SF’s lately.
Oakland has also been building a lot of housing and will build more. I’d say the western part of San Francisco and the suburbs directly south of it such as Daly City and Pacifica need to density the most as well as the various transit nodes like Richmond , Albany, Berkeley, etc
Yes, that's why I mentioned that Prop 13 has its problems. It also means that a good deal of people then end up holding on their homes and then passing that down to their kids as I definitely know families who have done so. In SF, those families who get on in good are going to swing mostly White and East Asian with some African American and long-time Hispanic residents. While they do end up having a lot of net worth, those families often don't end up with particularly extravagant lifestyles because their lines of work oftentimes aren't super lucrative--think people working for the city, region, or state in various capacities, or local store owners or sometimes workers.
I agree that socioeconomic diversity matters, but you explicitly wrote about ethnic diversity and that's one part where tech tends to be less monolithic.
Not Manhattanize-ing San Francisco was a lot more about commercial skyscrapers. While that does somewhat elide into residential housing as well, I think they are not quite the same. SF has actually built a decent amount of housing given its already existing density, and I think the vast majority of the blame should be laid on basically every other municipality in the Bay Area as well as the state overall. I think it makes less sense given cost per square foot to build and the amount of disruption to build SF much denser versus pouring a lot more attention towards building up other parts of the Bay Area.
SF mass transit is uniquely *good* in the context of the US (as is Chicago's). It's not great in the context of major cities in other developed countries, but for the US both of these are a very solid step above the next tier. BART has some serious misses, but some of it can be pretty easily improved such as simply running greater frequencies, building dense mixed-use development near the stations (made easier now by state level legislation), and upping bus service as feeders for those stations.
I agree that transit in SF Bay Area is better than many US cities, but that's a *very* low bar. All I can say, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, is when I visit a city of the size and density of SF I expect better public transit. It should be possible to easily get around w/o a car. That's not been my experience as someone who's worked and played in SF. It's not just about geographic coverage, but also (as you mentioned up thread) frequency and reliability. Very often I was left wondering if the 3:35 bus (or whatever) was actually going to show, or was running so late that it was filled to capacity by the time it got to my stop. Hence I often end up doing ride sharing services in SF, which happens less in other places. [Aside: as far as west coast cities go, I think Portland doesn't get enough credit for its light rail network]
Transit is another area where Prop 13 is a big problem. All those folks paying much lower property taxes, in addition to the way Prop 13 divides up the pie, has an impact on public investment. And what BART and Muni desperately need is more investment. Move coverage, more frequency, more reliability. But that's difficult to do without more money.
ETA: I agree with you that the entire region needs to build more housing, no question. But I completely disagree that SF proper has done a good job of building housing. The planning and permitting process is legendary for being slow and difficult to navigate. This is a feature, not a bug. Stories abound of people that were completely defeated trying to convert their SFH to a duplex. It's so bad that the state has threatened to get involved if the city doesn't build more, which is easily possible with middle housing.
Last edited by AnythingOutdoors; 07-24-2023 at 11:23 AM..
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.
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.
