Singapore Expats Forum

Best Place to Retire??

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Sun, 13 Apr 2014 1:05 pm

zzm9980 wrote:
Barnsley wrote:It depends which vested interests get the upper hand.

Some places in the US would be ideal for High speed rail , however I am figuring the airlines wouldnt be best pleased as they would then have some competition to take them on.


California's HS rail will be killed by rich NIMBYs in the affluent communities of the SF Bay area such as Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Mateo, etc... These are the same ones that killed BART (regional subway system that covers about half the region) due to fears of the crime it would bring.


I've read somewhere that NIMBYs are also to blame with the lack of housing SF and the people directing their anger towards tech workers. They didn't want additional housing built but they didn't mind new companies until the well-compensated nerds moved in, supply-and-demand, and we all know what happens to rent prices when that happens.

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 13 Apr 2014 1:58 pm

nakatago wrote:
zzm9980 wrote:
Barnsley wrote:It depends which vested interests get the upper hand.

Some places in the US would be ideal for High speed rail , however I am figuring the airlines wouldnt be best pleased as they would then have some competition to take them on.


California's HS rail will be killed by rich NIMBYs in the affluent communities of the SF Bay area such as Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Mateo, etc... These are the same ones that killed BART (regional subway system that covers about half the region) due to fears of the crime it would bring.


I've read somewhere that NIMBYs are also to blame with the lack of housing SF and the people directing their anger towards tech workers. They didn't want additional housing built but they didn't mind new companies until the well-compensated nerds moved in, supply-and-demand, and we all know what happens to rent prices when that happens.


Different set of NIMBYs, but yes what you said is basically accurate. Here's a great article on the topic, a bunch of people protested outside a Google employee's house yesterday:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014 ... d-at-home/

The comments are worth reading as they add a lot of insight (more than the article itself) into the overall problem(s) in SF.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Sun, 13 Apr 2014 3:15 pm

The far left's just as bad as the far right.

It's like Singapore where the easy scapegoat is foreign talent. Substitute Singapore with San Francisco and foreign talent with Google/Twitter.

In any case, it's

Put the blame where it belongs - the SF government for making it almost impossible to construct new housing. Fix this and the problem would be solved as fast as the buildings could be put up. It is obvious where this is heading - demand keeps rising and supply is fixed. Econ 101 describes what will happen. Prices will continue their steep increases forever.


For those not in the know, http://www.businessinsider.com/why-hous ... sco-2014-4

zzm9980 wrote:
nakatago wrote:
zzm9980 wrote:
Barnsley wrote:It depends which vested interests get the upper hand.

Some places in the US would be ideal for High speed rail , however I am figuring the airlines wouldnt be best pleased as they would then have some competition to take them on.


California's HS rail will be killed by rich NIMBYs in the affluent communities of the SF Bay area such as Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Mateo, etc... These are the same ones that killed BART (regional subway system that covers about half the region) due to fears of the crime it would bring.


I've read somewhere that NIMBYs are also to blame with the lack of housing SF and the people directing their anger towards tech workers. They didn't want additional housing built but they didn't mind new companies until the well-compensated nerds moved in, supply-and-demand, and we all know what happens to rent prices when that happens.


Different set of NIMBYs, but yes what you said is basically accurate. Here's a great article on the topic, a bunch of people protested outside a Google employee's house yesterday:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014 ... d-at-home/

The comments are worth reading as they add a lot of insight (more than the article itself) into the overall problem(s) in SF.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34782
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Sun, 13 Apr 2014 4:09 pm

They must remember that SF is built on shaky ground..... :o

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Sun, 13 Apr 2014 4:13 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:They must remember that SF is built on shaky ground..... :o


So is Tokyo.

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 13 Apr 2014 11:29 pm

nakatago wrote:
sundaymorningstaple wrote:They must remember that SF is built on shaky ground..... :o


So is Tokyo.


And Taipei. Not only is it shaky, but they have also have catagory 5 typhoons. So they need to build something that won't shake, but will sway. And it's very possible:

Image

Modern mid- and high-rises built to normal code in most places will be more stable than 90% of the residential buildings in San Francisco currently occupied. They all have "soft stories" which are prone to collapse in even minor to moderate shaking if its in the right place.

Image

Image

Image

So the best thing they could do is tear down half the city and rebuild it taller and denser. The real reason is older property owners (longer term) have fought taller buildings on grounds they will ruin their views.

And Nack's BI link is spot on too. That's the other one I was trying to find to paste in.

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 13 Apr 2014 11:37 pm

Afraid of losing their iconic views, San Franciscans started passing referendums that established "sunset zoning," making it illegal for tall buildings to put any city park or public square in shadow for more than an hour after sunrise or an hour before sunset.


I recall a planned medium-cost condo tower a developer wanted to build. Medium cost as in PSF rates that weren't sky-high aimed at the rich. Anyway, this tower would have been 12-14 stories and blocked a park for more than the hour a day at sunset. The developer was going to give another prime parcel of land more than twice the size of the blocked park to the city free to turn into a park as compensation. The board of supervisors (at the time ultra-left wing) instead told the developer NO, but that you will build your tower shorter as to not block the park AND give up that land for the new park or no zoning at all. Needless to say it didn't go through. Not sure what happened since then (this was 6-7 years ago).

earthfriendly
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sat, 20 Aug 2005

Postby earthfriendly » Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:35 am

Many facets to the urban housing crisis.....Warning: it is a loooooooong article.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests