Hacker News Reader

Comment by fatjokes | Hacker News Reader

Personally I'm a big fan of skyscrapers for a practical reason: they have more capacity, which a city like San Francisco certainly needs. Can't help but feel the writer has an axe to grind.

View on HN

I'm a fan of high-density work spaces, as long as they're built in tandem with high-density residential spaces and high-density transportation systems.

San Francisco does the former without the latter. BART is an embarrassment when compared with Manhattan's subway:

* Manhattan subway map: https://i.imgur.com/jOJO2C3.jpg

* Bay Area subway map: https://i.imgur.com/9vKbKoq.gif

* Manhattan compared to SF: https://i.imgur.com/nAvcoS3.jpg - the entire first subway map fits in the white space of this one

Price is the big argument against BART... because we're thinking so small. More ambitious expansion benefits from economies of scale. If we could coordinate projects in multiple metropolitan areas, standardizing technology (boring, rails, power, etc), prices would drop even further... that's where Musk's Boring Company comes into play.

The size comparison is a bit off; Manhattan is about half the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r2552485+r111968). Of course, NYC is over 6x the size of SF (https://www.comparea.org/r175905+r111968).

Thanks, I didn't know about that tool. Better than the images I provided.

Still, NYC subway is far denser both within Manhattan as well as the surrounding area.

I've heard SF described as a Brooklyn without a Manhattan.

Which generally checks out in numbers. Brooklyn's density is ~14,700/km^2, SF's is ~18,500/km^2.

By comparison, Manhattan is 27,800/km^2.

Where did you get 18,500/km^2 for San Francisco? 870,887 / 121.46 km^2 = 7170. More like Queens, not Brooklyn.

Ah, I got it wrong. Mixed miles and square kilometres.

You mixed up some units here: Brooklyn is way denser than SF (about twice as dense). Your SF number is people per square mile, not per square km.

Same units, Brooklyn is ~35,300/m^2, SF ~18,500/m^2

Manhattan ~69,400/m^2

all from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

My figures are based on square kilometres. A square mile is quite different.

Edit: bonus round! I got Manhattan right but did the reverse error for SF (quoting km^2 for miles^2).

There is also the MUNI metro as well. But it's true that even those two combined are inadequate.

That's true, a fair comparison would include metro and Caltrains, and NYC's equivalent long-distance commuter lines... what just makes NYC look even better.

BART does exactly what it's supposed to: indulge the public's desire to live in single family detached houses while benefitting from an urban economy.

I'm grateful that we decided to do this in a way that has fewer negative externalities, and probably lower total cost to society, than a freeway expansion. Seriously, we're lucky that the intention behind BART gave us anything resembling a train.

If you try to read it as a way to connect urban neighborhoods (like Manhattan's subways), you're going to be disappointed, because it isn't one.

Remember that most city land area is essentially suburban, and that SF/Oakland/SJ are less than a third of the region's population. Transportation that serves the needs and preferences of the regional electorate is vanishingly unlikely to resemble the Manhattan subway system, or make any sense for the tiny minority of us living on urban blocks. It's going to look like BART and Caltrain: infrequent stations in low-rise neighborhoods with big parking lots, infrequent service outside peak commute hours, etc.

It's still epic bullshit. Here's the Menlo Park station: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4548376,-122.1829295,3a,75y,....

Here's the Metro North station in New Rochelle, NY: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.911459,-73.785247,3a,75y,93..... Lot's of parking, but also several 30-40 story high-rises within walking distance.

This is Mamaroneck, a fancy NY suburb: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9537644,-73.7359993,3a,75y,3....

This is Portchester: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0002183,-73.6633792,3a,75y,2.... New York is the only place I'm familiar with where a Costco out in the suburbs is accessible to people taking public transit.

"New York is the only place I'm familiar with where a Costco out in the suburbs is accessible to people taking public transit."

The Sunnyvale CA Costco is literally next door to the Lawrence Caltrain station and has been for over 30 years (it was originally built as a Price Club).

Caltrain isn't exactly as cheap as a bus, and the schedule is focused on commuters, not suburban shoppers. It's actually looks cheaper to use Uber if you combine bus and Caltrain fares.

Wouldn’t most Peninsula households have at least one car for non-commute trips, even if they ride Caltrain to work?

Skyscapers are fine, but the housing in them can really only be so cheap, since they're inherently expensive to build. SF could do with a lot more low- and mid-rise buildings too.

They are also very expensive to maintain which is why they are often sold after a decade or two often below cost.

For sure. By area, SF is still mostly single-family homes. Neighborhoods like the Sunset and Forest Hills are shockingly underdeveloped.

Yeah, the whole article is one giant "sic transit gloria mundi".

And yet, the city grows bigger and taller every year. And that's awesome. Fuck the NIMBY crowd.

I’m sure there’s a pun in there about “sick transit”.

Yeah -- "inescapably"? Tyler Cowen would call this mood affiliation.

Indeed, the twin towers alone were capable of accomodating Google and Apple who currently exist as gigantic suburban sprawl

Imagine all of that replaced by public transportation and two buildings

NYC is no wonderland with its antiquated infrastructure but get it together Cali

Reply on news.ycombinator.com