Re:San Francisco’s Skyline, Now Inescapably Transformed by Tech
by closeparen on Saturday December 30, 2017 @09:48PM
(#16039072)
>As these office high rises are constructed, we need to be pumping investments into public transit
Salesforce Tower is accompanied by the adjacent Salesforce Transit Center and several residential skyscrapers built over the last few years. It's not enough, but it's something. Not as egregious as a giant Apple/Google expansion with 0 homes.
>How else will the city be able to keep up with the growing housing demand?
Why would it do that? Less than 10% of the population is exposed to market rate rents. That segment (tech-driven transplants) also happens to be regarded as obnoxious, privileged, and undesirable.
Re:San Francisco’s Skyline, Now Inescapably Transformed by Tech
by teekno on Saturday December 30, 2017 @10:36PM
(#16039204)
Tech-driven transplants strike me as a related but slightly separate issue. Yes, they make up a large portion of the recent influx and gentrification needs to be addressed. I don't have a good solution for this and it deserves a lot of discussion, but ignoring the rising housing demand is certainly not the answer. If anything, that will force out even more tenants who can't afford tech-salary rents, right?
The Bay area is at the heart of the Third Industrial revolution and hopefully will continue to be a driving force in the Fourth. Not evolving city infrastructure and housing to match this strikes me as Luddism.
Re:San Francisco’s Skyline, Now Inescapably Transformed by Tech
by closeparen on Saturday December 30, 2017 @10:46PM
(#16039235)
Funny you should mention the industrial revolution, because resisting tech-industry-driven growth is done under the banner of progressivism, with the same pride and zeal of old-timey Peogressives fighting for better labor conditions in factories.
Re:San Francisco’s Skyline, Now Inescapably Transformed by Tech
by teekno on Saturday December 30, 2017 @11:01PM
(#16039279)
I don't follow. Progressivism advocates for the general improvement of society. This applies to both technological advances and social reform. Why not modernize social structure, infrastructure, and technology simultaneously? That should at least to the goal - hindering one will likely hinder the others.
Re:San Francisco’s Skyline, Now Inescapably Transformed by Tech
by closeparen on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @01:49AM
(#16050356)
Stopping money from getting what it wants (which in this case is housing, infrastructure, and attendant changes in the character of the region) seems to be enough of a social reform to be satisfying on its own, regardless of the consequences.
[dead]
As of mid-2014, HK's population was 7.24 million across the Island, Kowloon, and the New Territories [1]. The main Island alone has a population density of 16,390/km^2 with an area of 78.59 km^2 [2]. The city is covered in high rises and there is still a drastic housing crisis [6]. However, public transportation was readily available, on-time, affordable, and clean. I was able to travel across the region, to/from Macau, and to/from Shenzhen using only these services. At no point did I need to call a Lyft/Uber/Didi/taxi.
Looking at the 9-county portion of the Bay Area, we have a population density of 425.7/km^2 over 18,040 km^2 [3][4]. I realize it's more difficult to support a larger region with accessible public transit, so let's focus on the 7x7 in the city: 7,170/km^2 over 121.46 km^2 [5][7]. Over 40+ km^2 with under half of the population and we can barely keep MUNI/BART running, residents can't afford rent increases, and employees are commuting hours to reach the city [8]. How is the city so far behind HK with a 2016 GDP $470.5 billion (compared to HK's 2016 GDP of $319.7 billion) [9][10]?
These articles that complain about skyscrapers changing the skyline or ruining the historic feel of the city drive me nuts. How else will the city be able to keep up with the growing housing demand? We're on a peninsula - we have a fixed area in which we can build. The construction of SF tower has brought 60-ish floors of new employee space into the city without providing an equivalent number of apartments (yes, there are condos but those are certainly not housing all new employees). As these office high rises are constructed, we need to be pumping investments into public transit (a new 60 floors worth of employees will now be commuting within the city) and high rise apartments. They don't need to be luxury apartments (ie. Jasper) but affordable options that can house more than the standard 3 story house in Pacific Heights.
[1] https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/populati... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20090824065021/http://www.statis... [3] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/counties... [4] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-me... [5] https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/gazetteer/20... [6] http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-coffin-homes-housin... [7] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/06075,0667... [8] I'm getting tired of finding citations, but there have been numerous articles re:housing/transit/commute posted to hacker news these past few months [9] https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2017/pdf... [10] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weo...