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.
The problem is most of the building is located in one area. The majority of San Francisco could be further developed upwards but that is constantly being shut down. They are building maybe a couple thousands of units a year, the demand is for tens of thousands a year. Having such a disparity between the two means it would take decades of real growth to find any sense of balance.
The problem is most of the building is located in one area. The majority of San Francisco could be further developed upwards but that is constantly being shut down. They are building maybe a couple thousands of units a year, the demand is for tens of thousands a year. Having such a disparity between the two means it would take decades of real growth to find any sense of balance.
It's concentrated in one area for a reason - the entire SF is built out and even if the city rezone every lot to be 100 ft high multi-units; most people are comfortably living in their little single family homes and see no reason to tear down the houses and built up. That's why the new condos are concentrated in former industrial areas - developers are more motivated to tear down obsolete warehouses and built luxury condos than homeowners would tear down their residence and built a new multi-units.
Unless we do what China does - just seize people's homes, tear them down and built towers; it's going to be near impossible for SF to ever meet the housing demand.
.
That might be true, but a car is just a transportation vehicle that can be replaced with a more updated vehicle when needed. I personally don't have any emotional attachments to cars.
Idk, I am secretly in love with my small pickup (Frontier) but where I live (Phoenix) a car, preferably a large one, is a MUST.
I get mad at every small ding scuff or scratch. It's a spotless beautiful machine that looks brand new 7 years later. If I was in SF is have a different attitude towards it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
It's concentrated in one area for a reason - the entire SF is built out and even if the city rezone every lot to be 100 ft high multi-units; most people are comfortably living in their little single family homes and see no reason to tear down the houses and built up. That's why the new condos are concentrated in former industrial areas - developers are more motivated to tear down obsolete warehouses and built luxury condos than homeowners would tear down their residence and built a new multi-units.
Unless we do what China does - just seize people's homes, tear them down and built towers; it's going to be near impossible for SF to ever meet the housing demand.
.
Cough cough imminent domain? We knock down everything we feel like here. SF might be wise to do the same. I'd live in SF if the cost was lower otherwise it's not worth it.
Cough cough imminent domain? We knock down everything we feel like here. SF might be wise to do the same. I'd live in SF if the cost was lower otherwise it's not worth it.
You mean eminent domain.
... And no. We don't want San Francisco to look like Phoenix, do we?
.
It's concentrated in one area for a reason - the entire SF is built out and even if the city rezone every lot to be 100 ft high multi-units; most people are comfortably living in their little single family homes and see no reason to tear down the houses and built up. That's why the new condos are concentrated in former industrial areas - developers are more motivated to tear down obsolete warehouses and built luxury condos than homeowners would tear down their residence and built a new multi-units.
Unless we do what China does - just seize people's homes, tear them down and built towers; it's going to be near impossible for SF to ever meet the housing demand.
.
Plenty of areas are available to be further developed. Nimby's and anti growth progs keep that from happening.
I absolutely support San Fran in their desire not to tear down the old just to build new and change the city. I wish more places would do that. Just because you want to live somewhere doesn't mean others have to accommodate you.
I absolutely support San Fran in their desire not to tear down the old just to build new and change the city. I wish more places would do that. Just because you want to live somewhere doesn't mean others have to accommodate you.
There are plenty of places to live.
Their are plenty of studio apartments that cost 4-5k a month. Plenty of sub 1k sq ft houses in bad areas that cost 1 million+.
Are you kidding? I heard Google is going to buy half the City of SF at a 90% discount they worked out with their friends in Government, knock down all of the housing units and build the largest server farm in the universe.
Why not - they did it in Mountain View..
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.
