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.
Can we talk about who the real "NIMBY" folks are? Like these mega rich douchebags who want turn San Francisco into a place as characterless and lacking in culture and character as modern day Manhattan? The sort of people who whine and complain about having to see a homeless person sleeping in their car, or nudity in the Castro, or vendors along Valencia, or too many Mexican restaurants in the Mission or teenagers smoking pot in the Haight...
If Manhattan which you seem to have such an affection for, is any indication, eliminating rent control and building luxury condo skyscrapers will not keep costs down, just further real estate speculation and move in more wealthy *******s, while pushing the working poor and middle class further to the margins and their businesses/cultural institutions along with them.
We don't need more jerks making bank off land scarcity, we need clever solutions like community land trusts, cohousing, and tiny homes.
Growth is pointless if only the wealthy are around to enjoy it.
I think you are talking strawman here.
Providing supply isn't necessarily against protecting city character. Nobody is proposing demolishing beautiful historical rowhouses and replacing them with highrise concrete complexes. Rest assured I don't want that to happen either.
However, draconian zoning rules only make things worse. Can you honestly say San Francisco is fully built and there is no land for development/redevelopment without harming neighbourhood characters? Can you say San Fran is so dense that it can't accommodate any more residents? My favorite examples are Paris and Barcelona, both with the same land size as SF but 3X and 2X the population respectively. Do they seem crowded and lacking in characters? They don't even possess half the skyline San Francisco does.
Old established neighbourhoods should be protected. There is no question about it. But there are much of San Fran where supply can be added without destroying anything valuable SFers hold dear.
For example, is there anything so previous to protect at any cost in these?
Stop having knee-jerk reaction every time the word "building" is mentioned. Asking the city to build more and add density doesn't automatically mean replacing Victorian houses with 30s apartment blocks. Any city should strive to solves its problem include housing shortages and SF is probably the worst example to do that. And you know what, not building will only mean more and more sprawl in the remote suburbs, creating more and more gridlock and pollution, as the high wage will keep attracting people there. Of course by owning a house in Russian Hill so close to the core, you don't care, as you probably can walk everywhere, but it puts the life of other commuters and the city in jeopardy.
Bottom line is, the majority rules, and the majority of the people in power in San Francisco vote against mass land redevelopment.
Whining about it will not change a solitary thing. When most people discover the place they live is not aligned with their needs and priorities, they find happiness by moving to a place that is.
Why do you have such a hard-on for a huge skyline? SF neighborhoods are charming, vibrant and full of character. Piling more people into places like my neighborhood of Russian Hill and creating canyons of apartment buildings wouldn't make it more livable. It would have the opposite effect. It would kill what I love about this SF neighborhood for what, a skyline? I'm not even sure it would affect the price all that much.
You've got a Houston mentality, dude. That doesn't fly here. SF doesn't want to be a giant city. It has a hard enough time being SF. But it's the best one we have.
You have a reading comprehension problem. Nowhere did I admire a better skyline. I was merely mentioning by adding supply SF will in no way look like Manhattan. Did you understand it such that I was proposing building more for a better skyline? Didn't I specifically mention 5-10s apartments, and how they hell do they contribute anything to skylines?
I am as far away as having a Houston mentality as anyone can be. I have always constantly proposing for denser and walkable cities relying on transit instead of large cities where car is indispensable. Does pro-building equal Houston? I live in a 600sf condo with no car, and I walk to work and grocery shops, and have a Houston mentality? If I had a Houston mentality, Iiant wouldn't be proposing building more midrise houses in SF, but instead would encouraging extending the suburbs by building more single family homes 50 miles east and south of San Francisco.
And regarding SF doesn't want to be a giant city - it is not a choice you or even the mayor can make. No city can become a giant city just because it wants to, or prevent itself from being a giant city if it is on its way. SF will attract more people to work there, whether you like it or not, it is a trend toward renewed urbanism that is not gonna to stop because the new generations are sick of their car dependent suburban life.
The way I see it, you are a typical NIMBY. You want everything to remain the same with absolutely no change so that you can continue enjoy your privilege as a result of being there earlier, regardless of how the rest of the people struggle with their life.
Bottom line is, the majority rules, and the majority of the people in power in San Francisco vote against mass land redevelopment.
because those people in power represent existing homeowners/landlords, which tend to be wealthier. By restricting supply, the value of their properties is secured, all under the noble excuse of "protecting neighbourhoods characters".
people will move away? Population statistics say otherwise. Plus, do you really want to SF to have declining population, like Chicago or Detroit? That's a dangerous path, and in the end will only hurt the homeowers.
because those people in power represent existing homeowners/landlords, which tend to be wealthier. By restricting supply, the value of their properties is secured, all under the noble excuse of "protecting neighbourhoods characters".
people will move away? Population statistics say otherwise. Plus, do you really want to SF to have declining population, like Chicago or Detroit? That's a dangerous path, and in the end will only hurt the homeowers.
It is a combination of the above plus long term rent controlled tenants that are on the gravy train. They don't want to lose the low rent even if that means screwing new people and future generations by stunting growth and causing exceptionally high rent for the few places that come available. Of corse this is all hidden behind hind the vibe/look/soul of the city arguments.
Can we talk about who the real "NIMBY" folks are? Like these mega rich douchebags who want turn San Francisco into a place as characterless and lacking in culture and character as modern day Manhattan? The sort of people who whine and complain about having to see a homeless person sleeping in their car, or nudity in the Castro, or vendors along Valencia, or too many Mexican restaurants in the Mission or teenagers smoking pot in the Haight...
If Manhattan which you seem to have such an affection for, is any indication, eliminating rent control and building luxury condo skyscrapers will not keep costs down, just further real estate speculation and move in more wealthy *******s, while pushing the working poor and middle class further to the margins and their businesses/cultural institutions along with them.
We don't need more jerks making bank off land scarcity, we need clever solutions like community land trusts, cohousing, and tiny homes.
Growth is pointless if only the wealthy are around to enjoy it.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,138,083 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
You have a reading comprehension problem. Nowhere did I admire a better skyline. I was merely mentioning by adding supply SF will in no way look like Manhattan. Did you understand it such that I was proposing building more for a better skyline? Didn't I specifically mention 5-10s apartments, and how they hell do they contribute anything to skylines?
I am as far away as having a Houston mentality as anyone can be. I have always constantly proposing for denser and walkable cities relying on transit instead of large cities where car is indispensable. Does pro-building equal Houston? I live in a 600sf condo with no car, and I walk to work and grocery shops, and have a Houston mentality? If I had a Houston mentality, Iiant wouldn't be proposing building more midrise houses in SF, but instead would encouraging extending the suburbs by building more single family homes 50 miles east and south of San Francisco.
And regarding SF doesn't want to be a giant city - it is not a choice you or even the mayor can make. No city can become a giant city just because it wants to, or prevent itself from being a giant city if it is on its way. SF will attract more people to work there, whether you like it or not, it is a trend toward renewed urbanism that is not gonna to stop because the new generations are sick of their car dependent suburban life.
The way I see it, you are a typical NIMBY. You want everything to remain the same with absolutely no change so that you can continue enjoy your privilege as a result of being there earlier, regardless of how the rest of the people struggle with their life.
HA!
I got here 3.5 years ago. I willingly pay SF's inflated rate because I love it here. I'm not necessarily anti-growth (but not really pro-growth either), but I do recognize that SF is a completely unique situation with regard to your ideas of "renewed urbanism". That's what's going on in SOMA, and being there is like being in any big city other than SF. Generally speaking, people who love San Francisco don't want to live there.
That said, I do recognize that SF has a housing crisis tied to demand far exceeding supply. This condition has been present throughout virtually its entire history. If SF were to somehow build its way out of this condition, as you suggest it should, the organic urbanism that is naturally built into San Francisco would certainly be lost. It's already happening against the City's best efforts.
SF doesn't have to build "Towne Centres" so people can have walkable neighborhoods of close-quarters, mixed use apartments. It has that naturally. If we were to build them, we would simply pour more people into a less distinct, and certainly less desirable place. They'd have roomier apartments and a newer countertops in their kitchens, but their city would be just another Atlanta or Houston, with better weather. People who don't live here, don't understand the difference.
As for people "struggling with their lives" in SF, that's simple. If the City doesn't represent a good value proposition to you, don't live here! Why struggle? If I wished to start a family, or was forced to take a lesser job, or was suddenly priced out of SF, my instinct would be to live somewhere else, not change the City.
Changing the character, infrastructure, and urban fabric of the City is the root of the problem, not the solution!
I came here knowing full well that it was expensive to live here. I can afford to live here because I neither have nor want children, my professional talents are rewarded, my apartment is rent controlled, and I live and work in a compact area where I don't need the expense of a car for my daily life. I love SF for its unique tension of dense, vibrant urban environment existing within wild, untouched nature. I love my human-scaled neighborhood of 3-10 story apartment and condo buildings, shops, cafes, bars and restaurants. I walk everywhere--often simply to be out in the neighborhood--and I can easily access any point of interest in SF on foot or by public transportation, which is very efficient for me (I have 11-12 bus lines running within eight blocks of my apartment, five of which are less than a block away and one that I can hop on and go up to Marin County on a very regular schedule. Plus, the weather here practically begs me to walk everywhere (or ride hanging off the side of a slow-moving cable car in the open air (two lines near my apartment) year-round.
SF is different, dude. You don't get it and that's fine. What's curious is that you have such passionate opinions about a city in which you've never lived.
Last edited by dalparadise; 03-29-2015 at 11:32 AM..
I came here knowing full well that it was expensive to live here. I can afford to live here because I neither have nor want children, my professional talents are rewarded, my apartment is rent controlled, and I live and work in a compact area where I don't need the expense of a car for my daily life. I love SF for its unique tension of dense, vibrant urban environment existing within wild, untouched nature.
Key info emphasized. You are not paying "inflated rate" like the rest of us so of course you don't want things to change. Exactly the mentality of people here.
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?
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,138,083 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by likealady
Key info emphasized. You are not paying "inflated rate" like the rest of us so of course you don't want things to change. Exactly the mentality of people here.
I moved into an apartment vacated by someone who lived here for 30 years. I estimate that I pay about 5-6 times what he paid in rent.
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.
