Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdl | Hacker News Reader

I mostly hate San Francisco, but I don't think there would be any serious negatives (except displacing renters, predominately poor and minority, and SRO residents, which could if politically needed be addressed by other forms of assistance and resettlement) by completely redeveloping the TL, Bayview, and HP as high-density, and the Mission heavy rail corridor as at least the original 8 story plan.

The current Mission Bay and South Beach stuff seems to have gone really well.

Leaving Haight, Noe, etc. with the Victorian character would probably be enough to preserve SF's historical features.

I'm not really sure about increasing density in "suburban" SF (Sunset, Richmond) -- it's already 2-3 story apartment buildings and townhomes, so the next jump is up to 5 or so, and it's not very well served with transit now.

View on HN

Agreed on TL, Bayview, HP. For those unfamiliar with SF: Tenderloin is in the heart of SF (walking to Union Square shopping, Financial District) and where you go if you want to score drugs, offload stolen good, pick-up, or feel scared at night. Bayview and Hunters Point comprise miles of water-front property, close to the city center, on transit (T-line trolley car). Today they are a mix of industrial use, abandoned/empty/derelict industrial (there are brick warehouses that have been condemned since the 1989 quake), mixed in with some low income housing, and converted military barracks.

For a city infamous for its high rent, small rental stock, and boom in highly paid jobs to leave miles of water-front property undeveloped is near criminal. AFAIK, there are some complexities around industrial clean-up, but either way someone needs to get it done.

HP is particularly special because of all the ships from Pacific nuclear tests being taken there to be cleaned, which mostly consisted of spraying them with water (left to drain on-site). So in addition to chemical contamination from Navy facilities of the era (PCBs, particularly), there are various radioisotopes.

Yup, cleaning up HP will be expensive. But isn't that a perfect case for an economic stimulus project? Invest now to create an asset that will improve economic productivity for the following century.

The fact is that HP will one day be a gorgeous place to live and watch the sun rise over the bay. The question is whether that's a 100 years from now, or whether we start on it now, so we can see the benefits in our life times.

The Geary and California lines have upwards of 80,000 riders a day. It's absolutely insane. There's a lot of plans for Geary BRT, but really it seems like they should have done something about a subway for Geary. Geary itself is the most ridden muni line, rail or bus, in SF.

If you captured most of those riders for a subway (which should have been done instead of this central subway mess) that patched into the current MUNI system, that line alone would be the 8th most ridden light rail system in the US, and put SF to the top of light rail usage in the US.

I was in a cab of someone that has lived in SF for 30+ years and he said that's how the TL got like that. People got displaced fromt their respective neighborhoods and all ended up there.

That area is prime real estate though. It's crazy to think that it's adjacent to down town.

The issue is the SROs, which are legally protected as housing for the semi-homeless/insane.

I don't think there's an inherent right/need for people to live in a specific area of the city. I'd far prefer to see the land used for market-rate developments and then some of the profits taken as fees to fund programs to de-fuck these people somewhere else.

Most of the people in dire straits in SF came here from elsewhere. I don't think subsidizing is the city's responsibility, and doing so only encourages more to come.

I know this sounds harsh, but I can't see how incentivizing low-income people to move to an unaffordable city is feasible or prudent.

Even if you believe that, it's politically non-viable to propose demolishing SROs and kicking the existing semi-homeless out, many of whom are older, minority, genuinely mentally ill, drug addicts, etc., particularly in SF. So the libertarian or capitalist greater harm is keeping the TL as an undeveloped warzone, way beyond the cost of resettlement and assistance.

City demographics are changing. I think it will become viable soon. Most San Franciscans are tired of filth and squalor, and moving the dependent population onto land cheaper by a factor of 100 is compelling.

A lot of the issue is that people rich/smart enough to move to SF now (vs. those who pre-existed) value education. They're not going to send their kids to SF public schools, so they move to Hillsborough or Palo Alto for the schools. That leaves a population of 20-30s childless people, who are more likely to be liberal, and old hippies, the same.

I wouldn't call the Richmond suburban. Given better transit on Geary, which has been planned for something like 50 years, the area could support a lot more housing. Similar areas in Brooklyn are being Zoned for 15 story buildings. I don't see why Geary couldn't be zoned similarly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com