News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Housing Can’t Be Both Affordable and a Good Investment (2018). Parent comment

Re:Housing Can’t Be Both Affordable and a Good Investment (2... by blobbers on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @11:25PM (#19804373)
Consider the opposite - if San Francisco allowed building. Your charming San Francisco would get demolished in the same way the Pudong in Shanghai did. Housing prices would level out a bit as developers cashed in on the gold rush and the housing supply leveled off with the demand. SF has room to build up but no incentive with rent control and restrictions.

Consider Shanghai as described below. Consider following the link.

"In 1996: After the mayor boasted that 18% of the world’s construction cranes were at work in Shanghai, international media widely reported – and exaggerated – the statistic. Reports described the crane as China’s national bird. The figure on how many cranes were working in Shanghai got rounded up to “a fifth,” “a quarter” and, in more than one publication, “half” the world’s total. "[https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/12/21/china-shangha...]

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Housing Can’t Be Both Affordable and a Good Investment (2... by BurningFrog on Thursday May 02, 2019 @12:22AM (#19804700)
That would be fantastic! It would house and employ enormous amounts of people, and eventually turn SF into the world class city it imagines it is!

BTW, people who call SF "charming" have not visited it recently!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Housing Can’t Be Both Affordable and a Good Investment (2... by CPLX on Thursday May 02, 2019 @02:38AM (#19805327)
Or you could just landmark a couple charming districts of SF to preserve some of its uniqueness, and let the rest get developed.

You’d lose some neighborhoods composed of endless streets dominated by garage doors at the ground level, and all those surface parking lots, but I think you guys could figure out how to cope.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Housing Can’t Be Both Affordable and a Good Investment (2... by xvedejas on Thursday May 02, 2019 @02:23AM (#19805242)
If you don't do any land seizures, shouldn't the result of upzoning be more mixed levels of density, according to who sells to developers and who doesn't? I don't see any scenario where SF gets "demolished" without active government redevelopment like what happened to the western addition.
[ Parent | on HN ]