

San Francisco would be a much better city with twice the population - jseliger
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/san_francisco_housing_policy_it_would_be_a_better_city_if_twice_as_many.html

======
jacobolus
There are some parts of SF which have enough people already (the quirky
Victorian buildings are for the most part just fine), and some parts where
buildings are larger than I wish they were. But there are also various big
areas full of abandoned industrial buildings, parking lots, very low density
residential neighborhoods, etc., some of which have pretty shitty access to
transit, so everyone needs a car and a garage.

If transit were better around the city (more subway lines, more frequent
trains, more express buses), I think there are big areas of the city that
could support substantially more people while remaining very pleasant. (But
massive high-rises suck. We don’t need those. I’m thinking mixed-use, 3–6
stories here, to replace the current 1–2 story buildings.)

I also think the city could use a lot more 600–1500 sq. ft. apartments without
dedicated parking spots, if transit were better and if the streets were a bit
more bike friendly.

* * *

Better density in cities along the peninsula and in the east bay, plus
improved transit infrastructure in those places, would also be a big help for
the whole region. Replacing the Caltrain with something less shitty would be
wonderful (though this is pretty unlikely).

~~~
justizin
Caltrain was actually intended to be upgraded as part of a high-speed rail
project, but people in peninsular suburbs opposed the upgrade because they
feared it would devalue their homes which double in value every decade or
something like that.

Further, it has been massively defunded because the largest peninsula
employers send their employees on the dirtiest, most disruptive, private means
of transit rather than participating in and funding regional transit
expansion. A couple years ago something like 1/3 of the caltrain stops were
shuttered, and today I hear from friends who ride it that it is bursting at
the seams and people are often turned away from boarding trains that are too
full.

The peninsula needs to urbanize if peninsula businesses want to attract young
talent who want to live in urban areas, but the suburban residents are happy
to approve office developments while opposing further housing development.

When people talk about building being restricted in SF, what they don't know
is that they're talking about building being restricted on the peninsula.

Also, while there are some areas of SF which have larger homes (hey, some
people have kids and do not want to raise them in a studio) and room for cars,
even if you presented a very strong argument and accompanying civil planning
to further urbanize these areas, in a city where everyone is basically hanging
onto their housing by a thread, is your proposal to evict the entire Excelsior
and Outer Sunset in order to undertake this change?

Yes, it would be easier to design SF from scratch with no regard for its'
current or past residents, but even if you could do this, do you think you
could retain demand for housing in san francisco long enough to complete any
of this construction?

------
mturmon
I have been reading the fantastic summer issue of _Boom_ magazine, which is
dedicated to the San Francisco housing conundrum. _Boom_ is a small, high
quality journal put out by UC Press, and they really killed it on this issue.
([http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/06/summer-2014/](http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/06/summer-2014/))

They have articles from both pro-growth and anti-growth people, including
Rebecca Solnit, whose piece on Google buses in the February LRB really touched
a nerve.

------
mateo411
This is the best article I've found this year regarding housing in SF.

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-
housing/](http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/)

------
01Michael10
Was the idea of this article really to make SF more crappy (and more like
other big cities) so then it would be less desirable by higher income people
which would drive rent prices down?

~~~
01Michael10
I am not sure why my comment was down voted but guess I should expound on my
flip comment more...

Increased population density for cities and less sprawl is something I
generally agree with but not so much for SF. It's a very unique city with few
issues and apparently the people who live there can afford the rents. I think
creating high rise residential buildings and doubling the population would
ruin that city.

Now, Buffalo (pop. little over 400,000) on the other hand, where I live could
really benefit from increased population density. We have been destroyed by
suburban sprawl over the years which has resulted in unnecessary higher taxes
for everyone and other issues.

------
MrZongle2
Boy, if there's one thing I always find myself saying when I visit a big city,
it's "hey, this is nice but you know what it needs? More _people_."

~~~
jseliger
_Boy, if there 's one thing I always find myself saying when I visit a big
city, it's "hey, this is nice but you know what it needs? More people."_

You're being sarcastic but it's actually true, per _Triumph of the City_
([http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-
Health...](http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-
Healthier/dp/159420277X))

~~~
jmromer
But no one ever seems to consider that there might be a point of diminishing
returns to density. Or, even if they do recognize the possibility somewhere in
the back of their minds, they assume their understanding of _returns_ is the
transcendentally true one.

~~~
malandrew
If there is a diminishing returns, I haven't encountered a city like that.
I've only encountered cities that are poorly managed relative to it's
population.

SF has certainly encountered the diminishing returns of limiting the number of
people. The city has adopted policies that prevent growth that make it
impossible to invest in those features of cities that increase the returns.
Transportation is far worse than it could be and its impossible to justify
investments in upgrades and improvements, because the city won't experience
the growth to justify making those investments in the first place, and the
current tax base (and land tax policies) is inadequate to fund those
investments.

I've lived in three cities that have gotten worse over the time I lived there
as the population grew and all the problems were the result of policies, not
more people. Those cities are São Paulo, Beijing and San Francisco. The main
thing all three cities have in common is an existing populace of extremely
selfish people not only unwilling to give up their cars, but demanding more
car conveniences. It's a classic tragedy of the commons issue.

Heck, even my gf, who didn't have a car when we met, tries to justify her car
ownership ("it's a smart car" or "I share it via getaround and city car
share"). The attitude of entitlement and "but my car usage is an exception" is
the reason SF is getting shittier, not better.

I myself have been hit by cars twice cycling in the bay area and I'm
recognized as a much better cyclist than most of my peers. If that happens to
me, it becomes easy to understand why many people I know find SF to be too
dangerous to bike in, especially during the work week.

I'm slowing reaching the point where I greatly resent that the core of the
tech industry I want to be part off has chosen such an ass backwards city full
of people who try to be progressive with respect to the policies of the rest
of world, but are too selfish to be progressive here at home.

~~~
jmromer
>people who try to be progressive with respect to the policies of the rest of
world, but are too selfish to be progressive here at home.

+9000

THIS. It's everywhere, you know. You just have to look for it.

Isn't it possible, though, that if nice, enlightened liberals, in their
characteristic broad-mindedness, are choosing to restrict population density
when it's good _for them_ , that restricting population density (at _some_
threshold, at least, if not necessarily theirs) might have something to
recommend it?

Or, maybe not. Maybe we can safely just call them hypocrites and be done with
thinking about it. I dunno.

------
Humjob
Of course Slate would write an article like this.

The site was always liberal, but it used to represent a sort of rational
leftism. In recent years it's churned out increasingly deranged and self-
parodying social justice warrior-esque articles, to the point where Marx
himself would call them a bunch of dirty commies.

~~~
comicjk
Check before you comment. The writer is a conservative; his other recent
articles include a description of a tea-party utopia ("Teatopia"), an argument
that the US should never have pulled out of Iraq, and a critique of NYC making
it easier to get welfare. Furthermore, the article is just proposing a market-
based solution to high rents: increase supply.

~~~
davidgerard
With an irrelevant dig at minimum wage thrown in as a bonus "not as bad as"
argument.

