Comment by ericabiz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericabiz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I had to have a chuckle at these numbers...

"The population is also growing. From 2000 to 2010, 28,500 new San Franciscans arrived in the city. From 2010 to 2012, the city welcomed another 20,600 inhabitants in just three years."

Oh, is that all? I live in Austin, TX, the #1 destination in the U.S. for people aged 25-34. [1] You got 28,500 people in 10 years? We get that many new people every year. In fact, perhaps even as often as every 6 months; 158 people move to Austin every day by another estimate. [2]

You have to increase the supply of rental and housing units in order to accommodate population growth. Austin is struggling with it, too, but condos are springing up downtown.

San Francisco has no choice; Austin is barely managing to handle the growth, and we're a growth-happy boom town teeming with young folks. (Yes, it's pretty awesome to run a startup here too--I'm having a blast!) You must build more housing. If you are an SF resident, vote people in who will support new housing. Vote out the politicians who curb growth with ridiculous laws. Otherwise, all the cool people will end up in Austin (and other cities that can better manage the growth. ;)

[1]: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/for-people-on-the-m... [2]: http://www.realtyaustin.com/blog/how-to-keep-up-with-158-peo...

Austin: 3,262.86 people/sq mi SF: 17,620.2/sq mi

Austin: 272 sq mi, growing SF: 46.87 sq mi, fixed on 3 sides by water and a 4th by other metropolises

Not saying that SF's development managers don't need to rethink their restrictive development policies, but comparing any city that doesn't have fixed boundaries to SF is pretty apples and oranges.

I think it makes it even more relevant. Fast growth isn't easy on cities, but at least places like Austin have the luxury of being able to grow out and up. San Francisco has little opportunity to grow out, so the need to grow vertically is even more pressing.

The issue is that SF can't sprawl like Austin, and there is a large contingent of people who don't want density.

Personally I support increased density and housing in SF, but it's an uphill battle with the other residents who want to fight the "Manhattanization" of SF.

How about the Chicago-ization? If San Francisco were as dense as the densest 47 square miles of Chicago, it could fit 1.1 million people: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak1exuXV7898dDR....

Manhattan is a different world of density. The daytime population (which is what you think of when you think Manhattan-like density) is over 3 million people in 22 square miles. Midtown Manhattan is probably at 200k+ people per square mile in the day time.

My neighborhood in Chicago was ~50k per square mile, and it could seem pretty empty on the weekend (skyscrapers aside). If San Francisco were developed to that density uniformly, it could fit 2m+ people.

This is exactly right. SF could embrace the notion that it was going to be the Manhattan of the West Coast and that would really change both the economics and the whole feel of the bay area. (it would actually be larger than San Jose in terms of population) Or not, SF politics (like many California cities) are pretty dysfunctional.

Since you have considerable insight into politics, what do you reckon is the solution? What could be done to change zoning laws? What are the steps to take, policy-wise and politically, for San Francisco to able to Chicago-ize?

In my opinion, city governments are about personalities. Mayors can wield tremendous authority, so a single person can drastically reshape a city (e.g. Giuliani and Bloomberg in New York). So I guess the hope for San Francisco would be to find a politically opportunistic mayor who realizes that: 1) tech could become to San Francisco what finance is to New York; 2) most of those tech yuppies want to live in a modern city not a quaint charming one, and moves aggressively to court that demographic.

Of course any such reform is a long shot. It's hard to change the character of a city. The best hope for San Francisco is for the tech industry to find it worth staying in the city despite the costs (like finance has done with New York). Otherwise, you might just see a lot of that growth shift to friendlier places like Seattle.

There is nothing really lending SF towards big-mega-dense city status. Manhattan has bedrock and flat terrain, which is great for building underground subways and tall buildings and letting people walk around. SF has hilly terrain and earthquakes.

I hate to say it, but maybe we should just leave SF to be sort of a "jewel." Let the tech companies and employees who can afford to live there remain.

Then, why not pick a place like Oakland or Alameda or perhaps somewhere more south of San Francisco, and build the mega dense business center of our dreams?

Maybe it makes more sense to recognize that SF is beautiful, rare, and limited in space, and leave it be. After all, it's basically the size of some "elite" neighborhoods in other big cities. Do the poor have a right to be accommodated in SF? There is a ton of space around it that can be developed more affordably and let's not forget about the rest of the country.

No, I don't live in SF. I just don't see why it should be turned into a New York clone.

That's Marin, where all the rich professionals who work in SF live, and where they intentionally prevent development because they like their bucolic atmosphere.

So that's what that Dead Kennedys song was about..!

Keep your grubby hands off Alameda!!!

     Which really is the jewel in the bay area. SHhhh....

Actually - what I would prefer is to create a massive floating platform and build a large number of micro-apartments on this platform - with workspace, conference rooms, cafes and grocery.

Put this floating place just off shore and let singles and couples rent the places.

That's a grand idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5032555

the author has said that there's a far more modest development plan somewhat mirroring his proposal: http://www.grandboulevard.net

No, I don't live in SF. I just don't see why it should be turned into a New York clone.

I've lived in New York for 7 years and I'll be leaving (at least for a while) soon and there is exactly one major negative of New York: the cost of real estate.

Of course, there are cultural problems-- douchebags, shitty cutthroat people, unimaginative technology scene-- but all of that garbage flows directly from the extreme cost of living.

Given that San Francisco has now been fully infected by the one major negative of Manhattan, and is already experiencing the attendant cultural complications, it really has nothing to lose by fully Manhattanizing.

What about the heat and the cold?

Where have you decided is a good place to live?

Make it extremely convenient to travel to and from SF from a couple of directions at a distance of 25-50 miles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train

In-valley transport actually sucks. I commute from Alameda to Mountain View - it takes 2.5 hours via public transport. :( (37 miles).

Bike --> Bart --> Cal-Train --> Bike (and reverse, $20 total)

This is one thing that interestingly has been both ignored and solved by tech companies. FB, Goog, Gene - they all have very effective troop transport. But by-in-large, silicon valley has done nothing to provide a solution to the problems with transportation and data access.

(WRT data access: DSL wasn't available in the heart of SV for several years after it was widely avaialble. Cellular coverage from AT&T has had the SAME EXACT dead spots on 280 and 101 corridors for TEN FREAKING YEARS! -- No widely available wifi, data coverage on CalTrain and Bart is horrendous!)

I commute from Oakland to Menlo Park. It's kooky how it's either a 40 minute drive (consistently) or a 100 minute bike->BART->shuttle, the latter being way more stressful due to transitions and multiple failure modes.

How about getting all solo cars off of 101 during b-ness hours. Create exclusive bike/motorcycle/bus lanes. 101 is the problem and the solution!

37 miles should be about 15 minutes on the Google Maglev. Maybe Apple will chip in.

My badge doesn't work :(

And they could still call it the "Shanghai Maglev", considering San Francisco's history with Shanghaiing[0].

Although, in a way, the Bay Area is already Shanghaied without a solid method of medium distance transportation.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghaiing

Well, it is already pretty convenient in one direction (between SF and the east bay). Beyond that, it'll never happen, because Marin and the peninsula are full of NIMBYs.

It's true there is some new housing availability in the form of condos in central Austin, but my experience was that the majority of new Austinites moved into houses in the suburbs -- Round Rock, Pflugerville, Cedar Park, Buda, Kyle, etc. Suburban Austin is starting to look a lot like suburban Houston, and all that sprawl comes with its attendant problems. It's also not clear what Austin is going to do in the long term about it's water problems.

Austin is a great town, but you can't just sit there and say "Hey SF, why can't you be more like Austin?"

Suburbia is not always sexy, but it is very cost-effective for residents and it provides options for people that want or need them.

Houston gets flak for its miles of suburbs, but if you want to live in a nice wooded neighborhood right in the middle there are a number to choose from: Bellaire, West University Place, Memorial, Hunter's Creek Village, and of course River Oaks.

Just be prepared to shell out 3-4x as much as you'd need to out in a suburb. Make that 4-10x for River Oaks. Suburbia exists in places like Houston for two reasons: (1) there's space for it; (2) the vast majority of people don't believe in paying upwards of a million dollars (or more) for a house even if they can afford it. They'd prefer to commute than blow that kind of money just to not commute.

The interesting problem that places like San Francisco and NYC face is that there simply aren't cheap suburbs. You've got a lot of people making a whole heck of a lot of money, but they have to be geographically located right in that particular place to continue making that money. There are so many of them that the prices skyrocket even outside the city proper. In the end, almost ironically, that money ends up losing a lot of its value because through competition with one another they all end up pushing housing prices to their limits.

Most comparisons I hear involving Austin run along the lines of "the San Francisco of Texas," or "next to San Francisco..."

Except surfing. No one ever talks about surfing in the Austin area.

But on the flip side, nobody ever talks about barbecue in San Francisco, so it balances out.

(Hill Country Barbecue in Menlo Park is pretty solid, wouldn't be laughed out of Austin.)

Bubba don't surf.

I live in SF and it's certainly far from perfect. California no doubt has its share of problems too.

But as noted in comments below, I would never -- not ever -- consider living in a state run by people like Rick Perry.

Texas seems much better managed than California, judging by the news. And it does it without an income tax. Sounds pretty good to me.

I'm not bothered by a governor with an accent, as long as he keeps the books balanced, the crime down, and the red tape light.

Texas isn't really run by Rick Perry, it has a weak governor system. The legislature is the major problem.

Yeah, but he said "people like", and don't most of them qualify?

You're in luck - he's leaving next year:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/rick-perry-2014-reelec...

When should we expect you? Just kidding, you'll be out of the country shortly because he'll be President </sarcasm>

Are there a bunch of uplifting stories about Californian, and specifically SFran, governance I'm missing?

It's my experience with young silicon valley engineers that cultural liberalism is more important that taxes, regulatory burden, budget deficits, business climate, crime, education, and transportation put together.

My experience in Silicon Valley is that economic opportunity outweighs cultural liberalism.

BTW, which are are you referring to when you mention budget deficits and crime?

California, and especially SF bay area.

What budget deficit? And the crime that's multi-decade lows?

As noted by another commenter, the governor of Texas has very little power compared to most other governors. The Speaker of the House wields most of the power in Texas.

Your [1] link is hardly a source, and I don't think I'd call Austin the #1 destination for ... well, anyone.

As another user posted, the density of SF is much greater, and it isn't getting any bigger.

> You must build more housing

Funny, downtown Austin hasn't gotten any more affordable with all that fabulous building...

I guess we should further experiment in 78704. If we bulldoze it, it will be cheaper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com