Isn't SF an earthquake area?
* The skyscrapers in SF did not have problems during the last big one.
* Tokyo has earthquakes too, and manages to house a lot of people at 'reasonable' rates.
"How an Average Family in Tokyo Can Buy a New Home" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w
Where I live in England you want a house that's as old as possible in most cases. Older houses are usually in more desirable locations, with better space around them, and far more character.
I think Japan's zoning laws are great because in the US, generally you cannot walk to anything interesting (bar, coffeeshop, restaurant), because nowhere near your home is zoned for commercial, there are exceptions in the big cities obviously, but much of the population lives in non-walkable suburban layouts.
I sometimes wonder if the Europeans know how good they have it... So many beautiful walk-able cities and only a train ride away. I'm in Minnesota so there's basically nothing interesting for 1000 miles.
The skyscrapers in SF did not have problems during the last big one
It'll be interesting to see how the Millennium Tower fares in a meaningful earthquake.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/why-c...
All because we don't allow the market to function properly.
Seems like a failure to me. Here's Ed Glaeser:
"Reforming local land use controls is one of those rare areas in which the libertarian and the progressive agree. The current system restricts the freedom of the property owner, and also makes life harder for poorer Americans. The politics of zoning reform may be hard, but our land use regulations are badly in need of rethinking."
https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-land-use-regula...
That would be the case if we were talking about their own property, but they're using rules and regulations to force other people to not do what they want with their property.
In a healthy market, yeah, some people would not sell out and change would be gradual as the city built up incrementally. That's how things should be, but we do not allow that.
How dare people elect politicians to represent their own interests, rather than the interests of the allegedly marginalized.
Absolute majority rule has some serious downsides.
The thing is I see both sides: I am in favor of private property, and I don't like the idea of e.g. home owners' associations that try to limit what color you can paint your own house. But I also grew up in San Francisco, and I really do not think this city will be more livable with ~100,000 or more people trying to live here.
But then how do we decide who does get to live here? And who gets to build what?
It's not easy, but standing around yelling "You NIMBY!" at your neighbors isn't productive.
My mother lives in a rent-controller home in SF. In effect, her landlord is donating ~$1500 to her every month (comparing what she pays with what a new tenant could expect to pay.) On the same token, does ownership of a building really confer on you the right to make as much money as you can, or are you just the temporary steward of a physical artifact the primary purpose of which is to provide a good life for its residents and the neighborhood? What is the purpose of real estate? What is the purpose of a city?
(also, the ecological "footprint" of that burger compared to a salad or veggie-burger or something blah blah yadda-yadda...)