It's absolutely gorgeous. The homes are in the $20-100M range and are nothing less than works of art.

To me they are disgusting. Monuments to extravagance. All I can think of when I see homes like that are the thousands of people across town huddled under awnings begging for housing. And in this one neighborhood enough money was spent to house all the city’s homeless 100 times over. Appalling. Disgusting. Inhuman.

If art has meaning, these “works of art” represent oppression and selfishness.

Sure I get that perspective. But this is a small neighborhood. The problems that plague the city are not because of this neighborhood.

The reason more housing doesn't get built is not because of this neighborhood.

Prop 13 that was passed in 1975 is not because of this neighborhood.

I get that you see the neighborhood as a symbol for something that angers you, but this is a nationwide problem where we do not build enough housing in general.

I lived next to Sea Cliff in the Richmond for a very long time. I’d say that it’s basically less than 3 blocks away from higher density solidly middle class housing at almost all points, and except for a few blocks, much of the neighborhood is more modest than you’d think (by Bay Area standards). The golf course is public too. As far as exclusive rich people places go, it’s incredibly relaxed.

What’s the name of the golf course?

Probably Lincoln Park GC, adjacent to the Palace of the Legion of Honour.

There's also the Presido Golf Course (on the grounds of the former Presidio), and a total of six in The City, AFAIU.

https://www.google.com/maps/search/golf+course+san+francisco...

https://www.sanfrancisco.org/golf

Lincoln Park Golf Course. Obviously it’s accessible to a lot of neighborhoods not just the wealthy one I mentioned. But when I see golf courses I think of all the affordable housing that could be built on that land.

Ah. Not that I think golf courses are a good use of public land, but it’s worth noting that that’s a public golf course run by the city.

Oh of course it's public. Why would these people want to pay for their golf course when they can get the city to do it? Obviously it is accessible to a lot of other folks, but it's bordering this high end neighborhood ostensibly so they all have a nice place to play golf. Actually there is ANOTHER golf course on the other side of this neighborhood, in the Presidio.

Yeah when I see basketball and tennis courts, city parks, or zoos I think of all the affordable housing that could be built there instead.

Hell, bulldoze Golden Gate Park in SF and build a ton of cheap housing there! Same with Central Park in NYC.

No more fun until more housing gets built.

/s

I get what you're saying, but golf courses usually take up a lot of space that is used by a proportionally smaller group of people. Those other things you mention can be enjoyed by many many more people in a much denser fashion.

I definitely agree that golf courses are inefficient uses of land, but even if we built mid-density housing on all of them here, it wouldn't solve the problem. There are plenty of other low-density areas that need to be upzoned if we're going to solve anything.