Sheer Madness: (San Francisco, Oakland, San Mateo: how much, subsidized, living)

[3rdGen SFan]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

There is a tremendous waste of valuable land along 280. I would like to see a few hundred thousand housing built west of 280 instead of having useless wilderness in the middle of an urban area. That area is underutilized, has monotonous scenery that doesn't need protection all the way from San Bruno to Santa Cruz. But this being CA only a handful of rich have built their houses in places like Portola Valley, Woodside and now they have become environmental advocates and don't want anything built around where they live. People who crave for too much open space should go live in Kansas and not in the middle of a densely populated urban area.

What you said could similarly be applied to people who want to fill up the SF Bay Area with high-rise buildings--people who crave for high-rise housing and densely populated cities should go live in New York.

Eventually you gluttons for more housing are going to even want to build on land where parks currently are. The demand for more housing will never end no matter how densely we populate this small city.

It's ridiculous to keep building more housing when the traffic & parking issues haven't been solved yet.

If more housing is built, where are the equal quantities of local jobs going to come from to prevent those new locals from commuting daily by private vehicles to jobs elsewhere? Building more local businesses to create more local jobs should be considered first to attempt to solve the parking & traffic solutions, although even more new local jobs won't guarantee locals would be the ones hired, and it could instead just create worse traffic & parking issues.

[3rdGen SFan]

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

The shadow ban is really pretty arbitrary. I don't understand the point of it. For what reason would someone in their right mind cut multiple inhabitable floors of a building just because it blocks the light over a park for a few days out of the year?

Block light for a few days out of a year? Calculating that without knowing height of the building and the location of it in relation to the park is flawed and makes your answer false.

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

Increasing density in San Francisco, also, will likely not be a major detriment to the region's water supply.
Why?
Because the vast majority of people moving to these dense environments are not married or accompanied by family, but single and, in most cases, quite wealthy. So, in that case, the new demographic is not going to cause much of a greater demand for water because many of those transplants are not giving birth/producing children and are thus not going to add any noticeable strain to the water supply.

If they're wealthy and can afford to rent or buy enough area for their personal use then I could see not as much water being used as would a family and half of what a couple would, but a lot of people who come here and rent aren't wealthy and have roommates and housemates.

We also don't know exactly how many new housing units are being built or will be built, so there's really no way of making good estimates of expected water usage, except it is obvious that increasing the local population will increase the water usage rates.

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

Living in the City reduces water consumption that might be spent on things like watering your lawns or golf courses out in the inland suburbs. Citylife is and always will be more efficient in determining a population's ecological footprint and impact on the environment.

That's true, but it's irrelevant in this discussion. It would only be relevant if we were talking about removing existing lawns & golf courses. The discussion is about adding more housing & people.

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

Moreover, the majority of sane density advocates are not going to propose bulldozing essential parks to make way for buildings. The best way to increase the population of San Francisco is through building in underutilized areas (parking lots, garages, dilapidated warehouses, decrepit old buildings, etc.) and not by replacing healthy wildlife and urban getaways with unsuitable skyscrapers.

If only those unused areas were the targets. I was saddened to see the closing of the Hayes Valley Farm in SF so the land could be used for development. Out with the poor & community parks and in with the self-centered rich.

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

The same rhetoric can be applied to Manhattan and New York in general- there is by no means a lack of greenery in NYC, though these locations are better maintained and function well given the density corridors that juxtapose themselves among them.
But no one ever wanted to turn San Francisco into New York.

Wanting to change a city in such a dramatic way as filling it with high-rise buildings and crowding in many people while comparing the proposed changes to cities like New York isn't exactly saying "we love SF as it is"...

Goodbye SF, hello "city like New York". Goodbye uniqueness.

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

It's a beneficial goal for every city to densify its core instead of resorting to ugly suburban sprawl- that does not mean that the aforementioned city wants to "become New York". This is a very misleading statement.

I'm not the one who proposed the dramatic changes while using New York for a comparison. Did you read the article the OP linked to?

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

People will always want to live in San Francisco, and the City needs to learn to deal with this heavy demand for housing by building taller buildings downtown and in the surrounding vicinity. Sometimes, a city has to change with the times, and at the moment the times call for San Francisco to grow up and establish itself as a principal city rather than having its economy remain stagnant as it turns into a relic of better days yore. Density is a symptom of a healthy city. This avid opposition to it is not very open-minded, and naive as well, I must say.

The cry for more housing & population without first providing a feasible solution to the present traffic & parking problem is naive, I must say.

[garyjohnyang]

Originally Posted by 3rdGen SFan

Block light for a few days out of a year? Calculating that without knowing height of the building and the location of it in relation to the park is flawed and makes your answer false.

My previous post failed to elaborate on this, sorry.
What I mean to say is that a complete shadow ban is inconducive to the benefit of the public simply in that San Francisco is a city of parks, and any development in thelivable core will no doubt cast a shadow on one at least partially. Perhaps the ban can be mitigated or a compromise made by establishing a threshold for number of days a building casts a shadow on a park, because as it is now it is unjustifiable to cut multiple livable floors of a building for interests of sunlight.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

My previous post failed to elaborate on this, sorry.
What I mean to say is that a complete shadow ban is inconducive to the benefit of the public simply in that San Francisco is a city of parks, and any development in thelivable core will no doubt cast a shadow on one at least partially. Perhaps the ban can be mitigated or a compromise made by establishing a threshold for number of days a building casts a shadow on a park, because as it is now it is unjustifiable to cut multiple livable floors of a building for interests of sunlight.

Because QoL issues such as sunlight are unnecessary, frivolous luxuries when we are more concerned with accommodating more people even though there is zero benefit to increasing the local populations? People don't benefit from sunlight. They benefit from living like sardines in a dark can.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

By "shutting doors" I mean stop catering to new growth. Pull the welcome mat. Greater restrictions. Let the exodus happen. People chatter all the time about how many people and businesses are "fleeing in droves". Yet we are bursting at the seams with growth. It. Is. Not. Sanely. Sustainable.

Well the Bay Area already does that in a way, not to the level I'm sure you would prefer though. Your "shutting the door" policy would do nothing more than continue to decrease affordability and drive out the middle class and just exacerbate affordability issues here imo.

I don't suggest that local governments can do anything about the larger issues.

Which is why I say it's a separate issue to this subject of local growth and development. It's also kind of ironic you talk about this larger national and global issues when it comes to growth yet you're approach at the local level is just to push problems/growth somewhere else.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

Well the Bay Area already does that in a way, not to the level I'm sure you would prefer though.

Yes, that's right. The realities of the Bay Area are fairly inhospitable already. And yet -- as another poster in a different thread just pointed out, humorously:

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ
I can help you here. These are the things that you can do to make San Francisco less attractive to business. Simple anti-business policies aren't going to get it done. Here's my plan:

1. Get the city to take down the GG Bridge.

2. Remove Alcatraz and Angel Island. They look too good sitting out there. We need to get rid of as much scenery as we can.

3. "In the interest of the elderly who want to take up cycling", flatten the city. Get rid of those hills that contribute to the beauty.

4. Make it hot and humid like Houston.

5. Chop down Muir Woods. Get rid of anything close to San Francisco that is cool.

6. Relocate Napa, Sonoma, and the entire wine country. We can't have any world class wine destinations within a short drive.

7. Paint the coastline black with real crude oil. Make the entire coastline within 100 miles of San Francisco look like an eyesore.

8. You know that fog that rolls over the Marin Headlands and the rest of the city almost daily? Sometimes it looks pretty neat. Get rid of it. Anything and everything that adds charm needs to go.

9. Get rid of those nice Victorian homes. They belong in New England anyway.

10. Turn Fisherman's Wharf into a crack ***** mall.

11. Only allow the merchant's at Pier 39 to sell the same set of items you'd see at the market in Tijuana.

12. Pay to relocate all of the good chefs to some other city far away.

13. Get rid of those cool looking museums and any other building that has great architecture. Even City Hall looks better than many state capitals.

Once you've done all that not as many business owners and employees will want to live there. The problem is that you probably won't want to live there either. You'll be searching for another marina in some distant place to call home. The place will just be another city. In the meantime some CEO at some company is weighing where to run his business and has to decide. Geez, where would I rather live....Do I put up with protesters or live somewhere that blows Would I rather see Alcatraz or nothingness Would I rather drive to Napa for the day or drive 2 hours to visit a single po-dunk winery bragging about receiving 20 points for its vintage 2014 wine Would I rather walk through the Redwoods or a field full of Mesquite trees

As to the rest

Originally Posted by sav858

. Your "shutting the door" policy would do nothing more than continue to decrease affordability and drive out the middle class and just exacerbate affordability issues here imo.
Which is why I say it's a separate issue to this subject of local growth and development. It's also kind of ironic you talk about this larger national and global issues when it comes to growth yet you're approach at the local level is just to push problems/growth somewhere else.

i am not concerned with affordability of SF over the long term consequences of trashing the area. So, yes, I recognize the exodus of the middle class.

I did not start this thread specifically to address local government's role in development - although that is an inherent aspect of the conversation. And my approach is not ironic since my entire point is to draw attention to the pernicious madness of our collective social mindset: that growth is inevitable and necessary. It is neither at this point. Just the opposite. It is critically important for the future that the collective mindset change course.

Catholic doctrine has reached past it's limit. There is not a single reason why continued population growth enhances the human experience at any level, mental, psychological, spiritual, physical. Before any government, local or national, can engage the process of designing social change to support sustainability, the public mindset needs to recognize the problem. That is the point of this dialogue.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yes, that's right. The realities of the Bay Area are fairly inhospitable already. And yet -- as another poster in a different thread just pointed out, humorously:

I think it's the high paying jobs and tech economy that drives up the COL more so, at least recently.

As to the rest
i am not concerned with affordability of SF over the long term consequences of trashing the area. So, yes, I recognize the exodus of the middle class.

Well of course as that selfish mentality is prevalent in the Bay Area.

I did not start this thread specifically to address local government's role in development - although that is an inherent aspect of the conversation. And my approach is not ironic since my entire point is to draw attention to the pernicious madness of our collective social mindset: that growth is inevitable and necessary. It is neither at this point. Just the opposite. It is critically important for the future that the collective mindset change course.

Catholic doctrine has reached past it's limit. There is not a single reason why continued population growth enhances the human experience at any level, mental, psychological, spiritual, physical. Before any government, local or national, can engage the process of designing social change to support sustainability, the public mindset needs to recognize the problem. That is the point of this dialogue.

Well then it probably belongs in a different forum as this isn't a SF Bay Area specific issue here.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

I think it's the high paying jobs and tech economy that drives up the COL more so, at least recently.

Of course that is the biggest single influence. Now, why do tech companies want to be here so much? Pretty obvious, no?

Originally Posted by sav858

Well of course as that selfish mentality is prevalent in the Bay Area.

Sure. Wanting to keep your home and neighborhood intact is selfish. Lots of people would love to live on the French Riviera but can't find the opportunity or money that would allow. Perhaps the Riviera should restructure itself to accommodate. Stamford Connecticut is another place where high rises could be built. Commuting distance to NYC too.

What you and many others advocate is a redistribution of wealth and assets. If you want to label opposition selfish, be my guest. By the way, I'll look for a set of keys to your car in the mail. No point in you parking it so much of the day when I need to run errands.

Originally Posted by sav858

Well then it probably belongs in a different forum as this isn't a SF Bay Area specific issue here.

Oh, I feel pretty good about placing the topic right here talking about how the Bay Area is a perfect manifestation of the dilemma. If it somehow interferes with your day, you could always skip over it?

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

i am not concerned with affordability of SF over the long term consequences of trashing the area. So, yes, I recognize the exodus of the middle class.

The lower class would have to leave also. Basically SF would become a city of the extremely wealthy, since no one else could afford to live there. I guess some people might want that, but I think the majority want SF itself and the region in general to be compatible with people of different levels of economic success to be able to live here. It is better for the economy, and better for the environment.

Catholic doctrine has reached past it's limit. There is not a single reason why continued population growth enhances the human experience at any level, mental, psychological, spiritual, physical.

I completely disagree with you, and I am not Catholic. I am a Deist. My father is Catholic but I was not baptized or raised in the Church because my mom was a Baptist, and therefore my parents wanted me to be able to choose my own religious/philosophical views. So, although I do agree with the Catholics that there is a God out there, my support for growth comes from a secular place, not religious doctrine.

But this kind of discussion has its own forum, dude. Right on this very web site we have a "Philosophy" forum where this subject comes up.

In fact, I would suggest that the moderators move this thread to that forum, and I will discuss it with you there. To me the philosophical position that the human race should purposefully cause its own extinction is an evil one, devoid of morality, (edit: it is known as "childfree philosophy")but it is not for the local city forums, it is for the Philosophy forum.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Of course that is the biggest single influence. Now, why do tech companies want to be here so much? Pretty obvious, no?

Actually, they prefer it down here in Silicon Valley. The tech companies in SF are mainly your social media type companies, whose products are more artistic in nature. The "hard" tech companies -- the ones that focus on the underlying hardware and software that makes it possible to do the social media, such as Intel, AMD, Apple, Google, Yahoo, Supermicro, etc. -- are still in Silicon Valley. It's because we are more to the right than SF, and promote innovation and a meritocratic culture.

But up there in SF, a lot of people who otherwise would be "starving artists" are using their talents on web sites and making graphics for games and things of that nature, to make a lot more money.

Don't forget that most of the people working at the Twitter campus in SF lived there to begin with, and are liberal like most people in SF, and Silicon Valley is also to the left, just like the rest of the Bay Area. We're just a little more moderate.