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 03-29-2015, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,121,144 times
Reputation: 3145

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
dalparadise , you are undoubtedly a nimby.

All anti growth claims are under the disguise of protecting city character. You fail to respond to my comments regarding

1, do the photos I showed above constitute anything "character" that SF needs to protect?
2, how is adding midrise walkable neighbourhoods harm the urban fabric?
3, I prefer organic grow too, but being organic means naturally let the city grow the way it is meant to go, without intentionally building large blocks of anything for the purpose of "planning" but it also means let the market build what is needed, instead of artificially limit supply or impose stupid height limit, doesn't it? What SF is doing is anything but organic.
4, it is stupid to say if you think SF is expensive then don't come. Being unaffordable is just like poverty or congestion, it needs to be dealt with. Your saying please don't come doesn't solve anything but only reflect you selfish idea that you don't want others to come and enjoy the city.


Again, rent control is the stupidest way for housing affordability. It only makes thing a bit better for those who get to have controlled places, yet completely exacerbates the supply problem and naked it even less affordable for the majority or new comers. Give me one reason why a new comer has to pay 40% more for the same place you live in? Are you gonna say" too bad, sucks to be you?" Isn't market about fairness?
Under the "disguise" of protecting character? What does that mean?

To respond to your continued weird obsession with changing a city you don't even know anything about to suit you-- I actually like The Sunset and Richmond. Those are places where people can afford to own their own homes. The homes are large out there--big enough for families. They have awesome access to the park. The neighborhoods are close-knit and friendly. Why would anyone want to bulldoze that in the name of making SOMA-by-the-Sea?

I don't care if others enjoy or don't enjoy living San Francisco. I live here and vote my conscience, based on my enjoyment of it. I certainly don't care what you think SF should be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-29-2015, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
1,153 posts, read 4,549,343 times
Reputation: 741
People say NIMBY and anti-growth like they're bad things. We already are at full employment here -- every new job created is simply a new body brought in from elsewhere. Traffic congestion worsens, schools become even more overcrowded, we lose yet more green space, and we get more high density crap. If it weren't for the NIMBYs, the entire Bay Area would be like one huge Santa Clara, or in SF's case, one huge SOMA. No thanks. Those areas are tacky and gauche to the extreme.

It is my preference that Big Tech should begin expanding in other metropolitan areas instead, and I say that as an engineer myself. It'd allow us more places to live if we so choose, and it would drive down prices here in the Bay, resulting in a more middle class-friendly area with a more diverse and sustainable economy.

As a Republican, I am normally against rent control, but for this particular metropolitan area I see it as a key asset in the fight to limit excess, bubbly economic growth and preserve existing communities in places like the Sunset and Richmond, as the poster above said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2015, 10:33 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,797,822 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYMTman View Post
People say NIMBY and anti-growth like they're bad things. We already are at full employment here -- every new job created is simply a new body brought in from elsewhere. Traffic congestion worsens, schools become even more overcrowded, we lose yet more green space, and we get more high density crap. If it weren't for the NIMBYs, the entire Bay Area would be like one huge Santa Clara, or in SF's case, one huge SOMA. No thanks. Those areas are tacky and gauche to the extreme.

It is my preference that Big Tech should begin expanding in other metropolitan areas instead, and I say that as an engineer myself. It'd allow us more places to live if we so choose, and it would drive down prices here in the Bay, resulting in a more middle class-friendly area with a more diverse and sustainable economy.

As a Republican, I am normally against rent control, but for this particular metropolitan area I see it as a key asset in the fight to limit excess, bubbly economic growth and preserve existing communities in places like the Sunset and Richmond, as the poster above said.
Rent control is one of the primary drives of the high prices. Increasing density in some areas would help low and middle class families by increasing supply thus lowering demand and reducing costs. This coupled with the removal of rent control would help young families.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2015, 01:45 AM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,121,144 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
dalparadise , you are undoubtedly a nimby.

All anti growth claims are under the disguise of protecting city character. You fail to respond to my comments regarding

1, do the photos I showed above constitute anything "character" that SF needs to protect?
2, how is adding midrise walkable neighbourhoods harm the urban fabric?
3, I prefer organic grow too, but being organic means naturally let the city grow the way it is meant to go, without intentionally building large blocks of anything for the purpose of "planning" but it also means let the market build what is needed, instead of artificially limit supply or impose stupid height limit, doesn't it? What SF is doing is anything but organic.
4, it is stupid to say if you think SF is expensive then don't come. Being unaffordable is just like poverty or congestion, it needs to be dealt with. Your saying please don't come doesn't solve anything but only reflect you selfish idea that you don't want others to come and enjoy the city.


Again, rent control is the stupidest way for housing affordability. It only makes thing a bit better for those who get to have controlled places, yet completely exacerbates the supply problem and naked it even less affordable for the majority or new comers. Give me one reason why a new comer has to pay 40% more for the same place you live in? Are you gonna say" too bad, sucks to be you?" Isn't market about fairness?
Furthermore, where did you get the idea that the housing market is about fairness? A newcomer has to pay 40% more than I paid (if I were to vacate) because that's what the market will bear. Why did the people who bought my house in Houston have to pay more than I did for it? It was new when I moved in. They paid more than I did for a house I had lived in!

If you want a Bentley, a rare car that isn't produced in the kind of quantities to make it affordable for average people, you pay more for it than you would a Camry. Camrys are mass produced and sold by the tens of thousands. They are of equally high quality in terms of their mechanicals, to the Bentley, but are less expensive and lack certain character traits and style one finds in the Bentley.

Is it fair that I can't afford a Bentley? I don't know, because the idea of "fair" isn't part of the conversation.

I, like everyone else, buy what I can afford. I don't demand that Bentley automate their production like Toyota does so that I can afford one. Doing so would almost certainly compromise the character of the Bentley people find so appealing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2015, 07:56 AM
 
Location: California
1,424 posts, read 1,633,162 times
Reputation: 3144
LOL. Some posters on this thread are hilarious. Once again, confirming my view that my beloved SF is full of selfish "I-have-got-mine-so-screw-you" types. Congratulations on those who won the sperm lottery or happened to move here earlier.

I am pro reasonable development and and pro improved infrastructure.

I think that currently, I think our infrastructure is my priority. If you look at the electric grid of any street in the Richmond, it looks like Baghdad. Wires hanging from wires, connecting to houses. When the big one hits, this city could be so screwed.

We definitely need to improve this, but even with billions of $$$ we somehow can't get to it.

However, any poster who is against new development, should also NEVER complain about affordability of the city, because they suggest no solutions other than "well, why can't we just erect a wall and not let anyone in".

Generally, California, more so than any other state, tries to stick it to newcomers - rent control, prop 13, etc - all of these are laws meant to benefit people who won the sperm lottery and were born here or people who happened to be here first.

All the other ones, that worked their butts off to be here - meh, they are parasites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2015, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,121,144 times
Reputation: 3145
So what about the newcomers who are working their butts off to be here, yet not complaining about the lack of affordability because they knew the deal when they moved? What's "parasitic" about paying what something costs, because it beats the alternative, which is to live somewhere else?

I think, to be fair, Lagunitas should cost less than a dollar. That's what Coors costs. But I pay about $1.50 for a Lagunitas at Safeway because it's a Northern California beer that's brewed in smaller quantities and I like it better. If you want to know my true preference, though, I prefer Sculpin. It's more like $2.00 per beer, which is a bit too pricey for me at the grocery store. So, I go for Lagunitas and am happy.

How is that different from choosing a place to live in Oakland if you don't want to pay SF prices?

As for infrastructure improvements, I couldn't agree more. I also support building as many high-rise condo towers in places like Soma as the market will bear. Nothing wrong with redeveloping industrial areas with affordable housing either, if you can find the developer willing to take on a project like that. The problem with areas like The Richmond or Sunset in this regard is, they are already hyper-desirable in their low-rise state. The property values are tied to that state. Disrupting that state would change the dynamic of that desirability.

So, who do you propose takes the hit in this social experiment, where the land is already seemingly at "highest and best use," based on the prices it commands? Do you propose that developers stick their necks out? Does the city build a subway on spec to serve the increased density on the hopes that it will happen as some disinterested, yet weirdly obsessed guy from Canada thinks it will? Do current individual landowners roll the dice en masse and risk losing big time value in their nest egg? What about local businesses in the neighborhood? What if the City decides not to build the subway on spec? How will all these new people get to work? What about water and traffic in what was a much less dense part of the City? What happens when you address all the above angles smartly and end up building something like Uptown Dallas out there that people don't really like all that much and property values plummet?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2015, 03:20 PM
 
540 posts, read 650,935 times
Reputation: 766
But SF's downtown skyline is changing. Have you seen all the new high rise condo's going up? That's not helping anything. 1 Bedrooms in there are going for 900K and renting for 5500. Explain how building more will help anything when they are pricing them at these outrageous numbers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2015, 03:34 PM
 
Location: California
1,424 posts, read 1,633,162 times
Reputation: 3144
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalparadise View Post
So what about the newcomers who are working their butts off to be here, yet not complaining about the lack of affordability because they knew the deal when they moved? What's "parasitic" about paying what something costs, because it beats the alternative, which is to live somewhere else?

I think, to be fair, Lagunitas should cost less than a dollar. That's what Coors costs. But I pay about $1.50 for a Lagunitas at Safeway because it's a Northern California beer that's brewed in smaller quantities and I like it better. If you want to know my true preference, though, I prefer Sculpin. It's more like $2.00 per beer, which is a bit too pricey for me at the grocery store. So, I go for Lagunitas and am happy.

How is that different from choosing a place to live in Oakland if you don't want to pay SF prices?

As for infrastructure improvements, I couldn't agree more. I also support building as many high-rise condo towers in places like Soma as the market will bear. Nothing wrong with redeveloping industrial areas with affordable housing either, if you can find the developer willing to take on a project like that. The problem with areas like The Richmond or Sunset in this regard is, they are already hyper-desirable in their low-rise state. The property values are tied to that state. Disrupting that state would change the dynamic of that desirability.

So, who do you propose takes the hit in this social experiment, where the land is already seemingly at "highest and best use," based on the prices it commands? Do you propose that developers stick their necks out? Does the city build a subway on spec to serve the increased density on the hopes that it will happen as some disinterested, yet weirdly obsessed guy from Canada thinks it will? Do current individual landowners roll the dice en masse and risk losing big time value in their nest egg? What about local businesses in the neighborhood? What if the City decides not to build the subway on spec? How will all these new people get to work? What about water and traffic in what was a much less dense part of the City? What happens when you address all the above angles smartly and end up building something like Uptown Dallas out there that people don't really like all that much and property values plummet?
I will respond to this in greater detail, but literally not a single problem you have listed is unique to San Francisco. Somehow, all these other cities have managed to grow without someone getting hammered for sticking their neck out and building a subway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2015, 04:22 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,888,584 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bisaro TMF View Post
But SF's downtown skyline is changing. Have you seen all the new high rise condo's going up? That's not helping anything. 1 Bedrooms in there are going for 900K and renting for 5500. Explain how building more will help anything when they are pricing them at these outrageous numbers?
A lot of people will say it "takes pressure off of those other houses/apartments in SF". And while they're technically correct, don't count on that actually making any significant impact in the real world. Because SF is so drastically under-supplied, we'd have to build tens of thousands of units similar to what's being built in SOMA to make any sort of actual dent in overall SF rental prices.

Last edited by HockeyMac18; 03-30-2015 at 04:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2015, 04:23 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,797,822 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bisaro TMF View Post
But SF's downtown skyline is changing. Have you seen all the new high rise condo's going up? That's not helping anything. 1 Bedrooms in there are going for 900K and renting for 5500. Explain how building more will help anything when they are pricing them at these outrageous numbers?
This covers it pretty well.
Economics Basics: Supply and Demand | Investopedia
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:02 PM.

© 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