News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by mc32 on Friday October 27, 2017 @01:29PM (#15570464)
I do live here, but I've also lived in the far east. There is no comparison. We see cranes in a few places, mainly SoMa, that is not sufficient. We should see building along geary, van ness, sunset Blvd, third, Octavia, California, etc.,etc.
Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by wahern on Friday October 27, 2017 @01:42PM (#15570574)
I absolutely agree! Except for the part where SF is being myopic by criticizing Brisbane.

Imagine Tokyo was located near SF. Would you criticize Tokyo for complaining about the pace of development in SF, simply because Tokyo could be doing a better job?

By defending Brisbane, you defend every other city in the Bay Area that has been dragging its feet, especially those on the peninsula. Don't forget that both Santa Clara County and San Mateo County have substantially greater median incomes than SF, yet most of the cities in those counties--especially the richest ones--have literally flat-out opposed growth in residential units.

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by mc32 on Friday October 27, 2017 @02:35PM (#15571024)
Compared to San Mateo (city), Palo Alto, Brisbane is a speck of land. South City, Daly City have lots of underused land. I would be in favor of having all of them increase housing, as they have land and transit infra.

I call out SF for its/our blatant hypocrisy. It's a bona fide city but they/we act as if we're still in the late 1800s Victorian times. Oh, historic, oh, views, oh, character, oh residential displacement. Always some provincial excuse.

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by Johnny555 on Friday October 27, 2017 @01:33PM (#15570498)
Agreed, the Sunset and Richmond is too low density if SF really wants to address its housing shortage.

Give homeowners/developers incentives to turn low density blocks into mid to high density housing. And build Geary Street light rail (and put most of it underground so it doesn't take as long as the N-Judah does to get downtown)

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by 2xlbuds on Friday October 27, 2017 @03:21PM (#15571399)
SF definitely needs more underground transit. I recently found out that it takes on average 5 minutes less to take a bus from the inner sunset to forest hill to catch a K/L/M inbound than taking the N-Judah.
Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by NickC_dev on Friday October 27, 2017 @02:39PM (#15571052)
Grow The Richmond (https://growtherichmond.com/) will have a table set up tomorrow at Balbooa Fright Fest. Come say hi!

There is a growing group of people on the west side of the city who do want density.

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by http-teapot on Friday October 27, 2017 @05:29PM (#15572377)
There has been many apartment buildings built around Van ness (south and/or east of Whole Foods on California)... it's not just SoMa but you are right it's not enough.