San Francisco would be a much better city with twice the population(slate.com)
slate.com
San Francisco would be a much better city with twice the population
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/san_francisco_housing_policy_it_would_be_a_better_city_if_twice_as_many.html
6 comments
Caltrain was actually intended to be upgraded as part of a high-speed rail project, but people in peninsular suburbs opposed the upgrade because they feared it would devalue their homes which double in value every decade or something like that.
Further, it has been massively defunded because the largest peninsula employers send their employees on the dirtiest, most disruptive, private means of transit rather than participating in and funding regional transit expansion. A couple years ago something like 1/3 of the caltrain stops were shuttered, and today I hear from friends who ride it that it is bursting at the seams and people are often turned away from boarding trains that are too full.
The peninsula needs to urbanize if peninsula businesses want to attract young talent who want to live in urban areas, but the suburban residents are happy to approve office developments while opposing further housing development.
When people talk about building being restricted in SF, what they don't know is that they're talking about building being restricted on the peninsula.
Also, while there are some areas of SF which have larger homes (hey, some people have kids and do not want to raise them in a studio) and room for cars, even if you presented a very strong argument and accompanying civil planning to further urbanize these areas, in a city where everyone is basically hanging onto their housing by a thread, is your proposal to evict the entire Excelsior and Outer Sunset in order to undertake this change?
Yes, it would be easier to design SF from scratch with no regard for its' current or past residents, but even if you could do this, do you think you could retain demand for housing in san francisco long enough to complete any of this construction?
Further, it has been massively defunded because the largest peninsula employers send their employees on the dirtiest, most disruptive, private means of transit rather than participating in and funding regional transit expansion. A couple years ago something like 1/3 of the caltrain stops were shuttered, and today I hear from friends who ride it that it is bursting at the seams and people are often turned away from boarding trains that are too full.
The peninsula needs to urbanize if peninsula businesses want to attract young talent who want to live in urban areas, but the suburban residents are happy to approve office developments while opposing further housing development.
When people talk about building being restricted in SF, what they don't know is that they're talking about building being restricted on the peninsula.
Also, while there are some areas of SF which have larger homes (hey, some people have kids and do not want to raise them in a studio) and room for cars, even if you presented a very strong argument and accompanying civil planning to further urbanize these areas, in a city where everyone is basically hanging onto their housing by a thread, is your proposal to evict the entire Excelsior and Outer Sunset in order to undertake this change?
Yes, it would be easier to design SF from scratch with no regard for its' current or past residents, but even if you could do this, do you think you could retain demand for housing in san francisco long enough to complete any of this construction?
"600–1500 sq. ft. apartments without dedicated parking
spots"
For the past 30 years, housing space per occupant in new constructions has grown 50%. That is an unsustainable growth in living space in places that don't have room to grow. Unfortunately because SF has gotten so out of control, the only types of units being built now are luxury apartments that house fewer people than could have been comfortably housed on the same parcel of land, even before you factor in absurdities like very low height restrictions and minimum parking mandates.
I have been reading the fantastic summer issue of Boom magazine, which is dedicated to the San Francisco housing conundrum. Boom is a small, high quality journal put out by UC Press, and they really killed it on this issue. (http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/06/summer-2014/)
They have articles from both pro-growth and anti-growth people, including Rebecca Solnit, whose piece on Google buses in the February LRB really touched a nerve.
They have articles from both pro-growth and anti-growth people, including Rebecca Solnit, whose piece on Google buses in the February LRB really touched a nerve.
This is the best article I've found this year regarding housing in SF.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
Was the idea of this article really to make SF more crappy (and more like other big cities) so then it would be less desirable by higher income people which would drive rent prices down?
I am not sure why my comment was down voted but guess I should expound on my flip comment more...
Increased population density for cities and less sprawl is something I generally agree with but not so much for SF. It's a very unique city with few issues and apparently the people who live there can afford the rents. I think creating high rise residential buildings and doubling the population would ruin that city.
Now, Buffalo (pop. little over 400,000) on the other hand, where I live could really benefit from increased population density. We have been destroyed by suburban sprawl over the years which has resulted in unnecessary higher taxes for everyone and other issues.
Increased population density for cities and less sprawl is something I generally agree with but not so much for SF. It's a very unique city with few issues and apparently the people who live there can afford the rents. I think creating high rise residential buildings and doubling the population would ruin that city.
Now, Buffalo (pop. little over 400,000) on the other hand, where I live could really benefit from increased population density. We have been destroyed by suburban sprawl over the years which has resulted in unnecessary higher taxes for everyone and other issues.
Boy, if there's one thing I always find myself saying when I visit a big city, it's "hey, this is nice but you know what it needs? More people."
The population density, and the proximity to other people that it affords, is the primary benefit of big cities. The high density of entertainment, restaurants, companies, etc, is only possible because of the high population density. If you want more of the benefits of a big city, increase the population density. Otherwise, you can get a compound in Montana on the cheap, and you don't have to deal with any of those pesky people.
Well, then you definitely won't be saying that if you visit SF, because it's not a very big city (less than 850k people).
Boy, if there's one thing I always find myself saying when I visit a big city, it's "hey, this is nice but you know what it needs? More people."
You're being sarcastic but it's actually true, per Triumph of the City (http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health...)
You're being sarcastic but it's actually true, per Triumph of the City (http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health...)
But no one ever seems to consider that there might be a point of diminishing returns to density. Or, even if they do recognize the possibility somewhere in the back of their minds, they assume their understanding of returns is the transcendentally true one.
If there is a diminishing returns, I haven't encountered a city like that. I've only encountered cities that are poorly managed relative to it's population.
SF has certainly encountered the diminishing returns of limiting the number of people. The city has adopted policies that prevent growth that make it impossible to invest in those features of cities that increase the returns. Transportation is far worse than it could be and its impossible to justify investments in upgrades and improvements, because the city won't experience the growth to justify making those investments in the first place, and the current tax base (and land tax policies) is inadequate to fund those investments.
I've lived in three cities that have gotten worse over the time I lived there as the population grew and all the problems were the result of policies, not more people. Those cities are São Paulo, Beijing and San Francisco. The main thing all three cities have in common is an existing populace of extremely selfish people not only unwilling to give up their cars, but demanding more car conveniences. It's a classic tragedy of the commons issue.
Heck, even my gf, who didn't have a car when we met, tries to justify her car ownership ("it's a smart car" or "I share it via getaround and city car share"). The attitude of entitlement and "but my car usage is an exception" is the reason SF is getting shittier, not better.
I myself have been hit by cars twice cycling in the bay area and I'm recognized as a much better cyclist than most of my peers. If that happens to me, it becomes easy to understand why many people I know find SF to be too dangerous to bike in, especially during the work week.
I'm slowing reaching the point where I greatly resent that the core of the tech industry I want to be part off has chosen such an ass backwards city full of people who try to be progressive with respect to the policies of the rest of world, but are too selfish to be progressive here at home.
SF has certainly encountered the diminishing returns of limiting the number of people. The city has adopted policies that prevent growth that make it impossible to invest in those features of cities that increase the returns. Transportation is far worse than it could be and its impossible to justify investments in upgrades and improvements, because the city won't experience the growth to justify making those investments in the first place, and the current tax base (and land tax policies) is inadequate to fund those investments.
I've lived in three cities that have gotten worse over the time I lived there as the population grew and all the problems were the result of policies, not more people. Those cities are São Paulo, Beijing and San Francisco. The main thing all three cities have in common is an existing populace of extremely selfish people not only unwilling to give up their cars, but demanding more car conveniences. It's a classic tragedy of the commons issue.
Heck, even my gf, who didn't have a car when we met, tries to justify her car ownership ("it's a smart car" or "I share it via getaround and city car share"). The attitude of entitlement and "but my car usage is an exception" is the reason SF is getting shittier, not better.
I myself have been hit by cars twice cycling in the bay area and I'm recognized as a much better cyclist than most of my peers. If that happens to me, it becomes easy to understand why many people I know find SF to be too dangerous to bike in, especially during the work week.
I'm slowing reaching the point where I greatly resent that the core of the tech industry I want to be part off has chosen such an ass backwards city full of people who try to be progressive with respect to the policies of the rest of world, but are too selfish to be progressive here at home.
>people who try to be progressive with respect to the policies of the rest of world, but are too selfish to be progressive here at home.
+9000
THIS. It's everywhere, you know. You just have to look for it.
Isn't it possible, though, that if nice, enlightened liberals, in their characteristic broad-mindedness, are choosing to restrict population density when it's good for them, that restricting population density (at some threshold, at least, if not necessarily theirs) might have something to recommend it?
Or, maybe not. Maybe we can safely just call them hypocrites and be done with thinking about it. I dunno.
+9000
THIS. It's everywhere, you know. You just have to look for it.
Isn't it possible, though, that if nice, enlightened liberals, in their characteristic broad-mindedness, are choosing to restrict population density when it's good for them, that restricting population density (at some threshold, at least, if not necessarily theirs) might have something to recommend it?
Or, maybe not. Maybe we can safely just call them hypocrites and be done with thinking about it. I dunno.
Of course Slate would write an article like this.
The site was always liberal, but it used to represent a sort of rational leftism. In recent years it's churned out increasingly deranged and self-parodying social justice warrior-esque articles, to the point where Marx himself would call them a bunch of dirty commies.
The site was always liberal, but it used to represent a sort of rational leftism. In recent years it's churned out increasingly deranged and self-parodying social justice warrior-esque articles, to the point where Marx himself would call them a bunch of dirty commies.
Check before you comment. The writer is a conservative; his other recent articles include a description of a tea-party utopia ("Teatopia"), an argument that the US should never have pulled out of Iraq, and a critique of NYC making it easier to get welfare. Furthermore, the article is just proposing a market-based solution to high rents: increase supply.
With an irrelevant dig at minimum wage thrown in as a bonus "not as bad as" argument.
Of course we had a liberal bashing rant posted since the article didn't criticize Obama, say global warming is wrong, or plead for Sarah Palin to run for Senate. Geez...
If transit were better around the city (more subway lines, more frequent trains, more express buses), I think there are big areas of the city that could support substantially more people while remaining very pleasant. (But massive high-rises suck. We don’t need those. I’m thinking mixed-use, 3–6 stories here, to replace the current 1–2 story buildings.)
I also think the city could use a lot more 600–1500 sq. ft. apartments without dedicated parking spots, if transit were better and if the streets were a bit more bike friendly.
* * *
Better density in cities along the peninsula and in the east bay, plus improved transit infrastructure in those places, would also be a big help for the whole region. Replacing the Caltrain with something less shitty would be wonderful (though this is pretty unlikely).