
Changing San Francisco Is Foreseen as a Haven for Wealthy and Childless (1981) - TMWNN
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/09/us/changing-san-francisco-is-foreseen-as-a-haven-for-wealthy-and-childless.html
======
jedberg
The solution is the same as every other time this comes up. Upzone the city.
They tried this at the state level with SB827. That bill was flawed but the
idea was good.

The city could fix this for itself if they could get the political will to do
so. Follow the lead of Minneapolis, and make R1 zoning good for up to four
units, instead of single family. That one change alone would make a huge
difference.

People are afraid whole city blocks would be converted, but that wouldn't
happen. Single family homes with good transit would slowly be sold to
developers who would replace them with quads, bringing in increased taxes so
that transit could be expanded, leading to more SFHs near transit, and so on.

It's just that the people who have SFHs don't want to ruin the "character" of
their neighborhood.

~~~
geebee
I am curious - how old were the houses that were getting demolished in
Minneapolis?

A lot of the houses that would be torn down SF are nearing 100 years old. That
probably sounds comically young to people from Europe, but SF's neighborhoods
are among the oldest west of the Mississippi.

You put "character" in quotes... but how far would you go with this? Would you
support the right of a property owner to tear down an old building in the
French Quarter of New Orleans and replace it with a modern steel and glass
structure? How about an old building in the left bank of Paris?

The complicated thing about NIMBYism is that not all backyards are alike.

I say this with full acknowledgement that SF's housing policy has created a
horrendous situation. But I actually do think it's possible to build
substantially more density here, close to public transportation, without
tearing down the older neighborhoods.

~~~
OkGoDoIt
I've lived in San Francisco for 5 years now, and one thing I find ridiculous
about this city is how ancient most of the residential buildings are. I'm
currently living in an apartment that was built in the 60's, and have been to
open houses of single family homes originally built in the 40's. Nowhere else
I have ever lived would people be proud of that fact. In Atlanta and Vegas and
Seattle I was able to find nice modern apartments to live in that weren't
thin-walled, ancient plumbing, creaky floor wooden buildings well past their
expiration date. But in San Francisco somehow people get offended when I
suggest that an old building would be better torn down and rebuilt. (And yes
there are some modern condos/apartments in SF but they are all in the range of
$4000/m for a one bedroom and mostly clustered in the Dogpatch or SOMA which
isn't a great area to actually live in my experience)

To answer the parent's question, I absolutely would support the right of a
property owner to tear down an old building in the French Quarter of New
Orleans and replace it with a modern steel and glass structure. Likewise with
an old building in the left bank of Paris. I'd even like to incentivise that
with tax breaks or whatever other levers are available.

~~~
newsoul2019
I've lived in SoMA. Great place to live. Best weather in the city. Easy access
to the waterfront, ballpark, Bart, Muni, and CalTrain.

edit: forgot bart

------
spullara
San Francisco described in a 1930s era book about the Gold Rush:

"Despite the amazingly high cost of living and the extraordinary opportunities
for frittering away money, everyone in early San Francisco was supremely
confident that he would soon be able to return home with an incalculable
amount of gold. Everything was conceived on a vast scale, and there was always
plenty of cash available for any scheme that might be proposed, no matter how
impossible or bizarre it seemed. No one hesitated to borrow money, ..."

~~~
_bxg1
Wow. This could still be said today. I wonder what it is about that city.

~~~
maxxxxx
It’s beautiful in a perfect location with perfect climate. San Francisco will
always be a desirable place to live.

~~~
ghaff
The South Bay is probably closer to a "perfect climate" than SF itself which,
after all, inspired the Mark Twain quote "The coldest winter I ever spent was
a summer in San Francisco." That said, the overall Bay area climate doubtless
contributes to the desire of many to live there to a degree that probably
wouldn't exist if the equivalent job market were in Minneapolis.

~~~
kilbuz
SF over South Bay weather any day, especially summer.

~~~
ghaff
It does depend. I actually like SF weather a lot but have also been
unexpectedly frozen there from time to time. And don’t like hot weather
either.

------
leptoniscool
This wsj article suggests that Tokyo, a much larger city, has been able to
keep housing costs flat by building a much larger supply than most other city:
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-
ho...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-
stay-flat-11554210002)

This could work in SF I think, as there's a lot of potential for up-zoning. On
the other hand, the city is surrounded by water, so it doesn't leave a lot of
space to expand.

~~~
idlewords
There are vast tracts of vacant land in SF, and the whole western half of the
penninsula is low-density housing.

What Tokyo has that the Bay Area lacks is excellent public transit, and a
willingness to build at high density.

~~~
acchow
Tokyo also merged with its Prefecture in 1943.

If only the Bay Area cities would amalgamate and solve housing and public
transit as a unified force....

------
dang
For the curious, 2017:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13464747](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13464747)

2015:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10070103](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10070103)

------
scarejunba
SF will never be a place people will want to have children. Americans do not
believe children can grow up in cities. They do not believe kids can take
buses or trains. We're going to see the effect of this suffocating parenting
style in a next generation that is dominated by fear and discomfort with
unfamiliarity.

~~~
abeppu
But SF has its own issues beyond those of many other American cities.

There are blocks and muni buses where many adults feel understandably
uncomfortable with what they see during their normal commute. I see drug use
and nudity and feces on the street almost daily. I've kicked needles while
walking down SF sidewalks with some regularity. I'm not a parent, but in those
conditions, I wouldn't want a kid I cared about to go around unchaperoned.

Yes, America may have a fixation on children needing yards and minivans, but
SF could become a much more appealing place to raise kids if it we could
better address factors like the cost of housing, or the opioid crisis.

~~~
scarejunba
> _But SF has its own issues beyond those of many other American cities._

I agree with this.

But this

> _Yes, America may have a fixation on children needing yards and minivans_

means that fixing those problems won't make this any likelier

> _SF could become a much more appealing place to raise kids if it we could
> better address factors like the cost of housing, or the opioid crisis_

------
HuShifang
Of course, the Bay Area in general is comparable to other American
metropolitan areas in terms of its number of children.

[https://www.kqed.org/news/11735556/map-where-do-kids-live-
in...](https://www.kqed.org/news/11735556/map-where-do-kids-live-in-the-bay-
area)

------
jdreyfuss
San Francisco: on the verge of pricing everybody out since 1850

