We should focus on high density housing around transit hubs and then build more transit hubs. We should focus on livability of the high density housing.
There was a measure on the ballot in the south bay where a major builder wanted to rezone an area for more housing. That part was good since it was not zoned for open space but rather industrial. But then they wanted to remove all ordinances for livability. That was wrong and the measure was correctly defeated.
Part of the problem is with the planning department, part was with NIMBYs, but part is with the builders. There are only a few builders who are capable of high density housing and they want to play hard ball.
I couldn't agree more!
Why should those hubs only be inside, south and east of SF, but not north of it?
At some point something has got to give. Building more apartment buildings and decreasing the amount of "open space" to accommodate more housing makes sense.
Building anything in the open space in Marin is nonsense and would create an enormous commute problem as well as harm the environment -- both directly and with secondary effects of increased commute emissions.
Go to Paris. SF needs Parisian-level density. This means six-story buildings, a few on each block. That's easily 10x the density of single-family homes, which if you spend any time in western SF, dominate the landscape.
All that space for lawns, garages, 3rd and 4th bedrooms, basements, etc. really adds up.
The choice isn't between lower Manhattan and the Outer Sunset, it's between that or Paris. Paris is just fine.
Also, incidentally, SF condo prices aren't even that bad relative to prevailing wages. It's just that everyone's so hung up on having a SFR (actual house), and the clickbait media loves talking about SFR prices to get pageviews.
2. Even if that is true, it's not as bad as it looks. There are many, many couples here with incomes in the 200-300k range, as almost all families are two-income, even with kids. Considering a condo costs 4x what many families earn, it's not far out of line with other places in the US.
The reality is that SF is a primo job market, in terms of variety of positions, type of work, and tons of high-income options. If you're part of a dual-degree couple where both people want serious careers, the argument rapidly becomes, where else would we go? It's a lifestyle choice; if you want that kind of access, it's going to cost a lot, but you need to work your ass off, BOTH of you, pay a ton for housing. If you want a slower quality of life, less noise, or want to be a one-income family, probably better to live somewhere else.
I actually don't have much of a problem with this. It's like this in every country, though I'll grant the regulatory climate in SF does make it somewhat self-inflicted.
High density living is by far the most efficient way to use land.
For every apartment building that is made, that is 100 LESS urban sprawl creating suburban houses that we need.
High density living frees up massive amounts of space that could instead be used for all the awesome things that people love.
(Disclaimer: I live in New York.)
You want cheap housing? Come to the Midwest. You want an ultra high paying job? Stay in Silicon Valley/Seattle etc.
It's like the model complaining that she's too skinny for her jeans.
“The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.” -- Jack London
That doesn't make sense because I want to live there and I can't afford to live there unless we do that.
You just described my impression of what Marin County already is. No exaggeration. The thing about Marin is that all the sprawl and strip malls are hidden behind trees and hills, but aside from the Federal park lands it's really no different than most of Alameda County or San Mateo County.
That said, Marin is Marin. I'm a homeowner in SF and I absolutely support increased development here. What Marin does or doesn't do is irrelevant to whether SF needs to densify.
There's a unique history in Marin surrounding open space and conservation, including the Marincello development and the actual creation of "national recreation areas." If you're interested, I'd encourage you to check out "Rebels With a Cause" ... there really is something special in Marin on this issue. http://rebelsdocumentary.org
That said, I totally agree that SF needs more density :)
How would people living north of the Golden Gate commute to their jobs in SF? The only option is driving across the bridge, which already has horrendous traffic during commuting hours. That doesn't work as a solution. Building denser housing in San Francisco itself, close enough to workplaces or transit that people don't need to drive to work, is the real solution.
It is a waste. People want to work in San Francisco and live nearby. The government should be concerned about making that possible... because whatever the environmental impact, it can't be worse than the 3 hour commutes in a single-occupant vehicle that people have today.
Maps were drawn for BART in Marin showing stations in Sausalito, Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Santa Venetia with a possible extension to Ignacio. A 1956 poll found 87.7 percent of Marin residents wanted BART in the county.
Dreams of BART in Marin took another hit when San Mateo County pulled out of the plan, saying costs were too high. Additionally, San Mateo County had Southern Pacific commuter trains - which later morphed into Caltrain - to meet local demands.
With San Mateo out, the tax base to support the BART plan was significantly weakened. Marin's small population would not provide much tax base to support the project with San Mateo County no longer in the plan.
BART officials also worried that Marin voters - faced with conflicting bridge studies - might vote against the plan believing they might never see service.
"There was a big concern that Marin might vote it down and if that happened that could have killed the entire proposal," Dyble said, noting votes from all the BART counties were tallied as one.
With those concerns, BART directors asked the Marin County Board of Supervisors to vote the county out of the system.
"There is one significant difference - (San Mateo) withdrew voluntarily," Supervisor Peter Behr said at the time Marin withdrew in May 1962. "We are withdrawing involuntarily and upon request."
After that vote, Marin tried to get back in before the November election, but BART officials rejected the idea and the county was locked out of the system, Dyble said.
Without BART, the bridge district later started bus and ferry service to serve Marin commuters.
[0] http://www.marinij.com/article/ZZ/20100807/NEWS/100809186
It was the 1960's... so I'd probably say "vetoed by Racists"
Despite California's stereotyped liberal/progressive values, the 1960's also saw Prop 14 "allow property owners and landlords to turn away colored people" winning 65% support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(196...
I don't want to argue against this.
I want to point out that people can't even imagine building new bridges or tunnels anymore!
The GG bridge was built in 3 years in the thirties. Today we have enormously better technology and are vastly richer. Why can't we build 2 bridges and 3 tunnels the next 10 years?
Why clear-cut and destroy wilderness instead of building vertically? Expanding the metro region just increases commuting times and removes and recreational value the wilderness provides.
Not sure why people would want suburban waste lands instead of denser metro areas.
Imagining a Sci-fi scenario. Elon Musk has Tesla develop an autonomous hovercraft ferry, which only requires ramps into the water to be built to allow operations. Access to and from Marin becomes several times easier, causing its population and development to rapidly increase.
Me: "Man I wish BART went up here."
Marin landlord: "Nope. We don't want those people here."
How about having them in the east and north bay? How about large vessels operating as gated communities, with integral ferry docks?
Getting into, or especially through SF from Marin is a nightmare.
This is all such an epic waste.