Vancouver has built tower after tower after tower, it's not recognizable from 25 years go. Also - it's not the responsibility of local residents to demolish their homes and move into flats 'so you can live there'. The NIMBYism argument is rubbish as you have no right to influence or dictate the terms by which some other community wants to live.
If people want to live in homes instead of jammed into skyscrapers Hong Kong pr NY style - which many would view as a horribly reduced quality of living - it's their choice.
NY, HK - two of the most densely urban place in he world have not solved the 'housing crisis' - they're among the most expensive places in the world to live.
That said, cost of living has skyrocketed far beyond what can be attributed to that - fairly high migration, a lot of foreign buyers (only 4% directly, but 'kids with citizenship using parents money' amounts to a big other cohort) and that is very easily enough to drive prices. Combined with low interest rates, an aging population with incredible voting power/influence, a booming economy and there you have it.
'Globalization' means SF and Van. basically are 'up for grabs' by everyone on the planet, not just locals.
1/2 of the real estate in the most posh parts of London are owned by foreigners for he very same reason.
There needs to be a total rethink on how taxation works in those parameters.
That said, it's rational: if a lot of talent wants in, prices will be higher. I don't know if 'artists' are going to be able to live there without some kind of very specific interventions.
Other things, such as public transport can have a huge effect - if SF Bay were to be amalgamated into at least some kind of 'mega city' you might see high speed commuter trains.
Imagine a very fast train from Stockton, Pleasanton, Gilroy, Santa Rosa - getting you to 'wherever' in the Bay area within 25 minutes?
There's tons of real estate around the Bay Area, for artists, working class, middle class, regular folks, people who want 'big houses' etc.. it just not 'accessible' to the core.
Or even micro/satellite offices as a civic mandate: building out offices that can be adjusted in size quickly, so that Salesforce, FB, Snap etc. will all have offices in San Jose, SF, Sacramento and bounce back and forth as needed.
The government fails in its mission if it lets a handful of people hold the most valuable land hostage. At least Nimbys should pay much higher property taxes to make up for the economic damage they cause the rest of the country, so they can live in a single family home next to a major city downtown.
Free up zoning, get rid lopsided tax breaks like prop 13. Or end up with a revolution like in France in 1700s. Or lose to China.
I painted with some broad strokes here, but the picture is clear.
"The government fails in its mission if it lets a handful of people hold the most valuable land hostage."
? This is upside down.
It's only valuable because you want it. It's not 'intrinsically valuable'.
The great thing about America as opposed to most parts of the world is that there is plenty of land.
Go 100Km out of SF Bay and land is very cheap.
'Life Liberty and Pursuit of Hapniness' means a bunch of angry people cannot arbitrarily force you out of your home, because they want to 'move in'.
If this were a perverse issue of resource hoarding - i.e. everyone in SF was living on 30 acres of land and not willing to budge, then this would be a different discussion.
The 'American Dream' is not the right to live in the most choice plot in the US, it's just to have a nice spot, safe, secure etc..
If SF/Valley is where the jobs are, and you can't afford to live there - that's very fair. Push the companies to get some kind of good transport in place. Or adapt in some other way.
The American Dream is not when some NIMBY tells me I can't bulldoze my SFH to put up a six story apartment building.
Your framing of this issue is frankly ridiculous - it's SF homeowners vs other residents and property owners in SF who would like to densify their land.
It's not about people's right to live anywhere, it's about people's right to do as they wish with their property.
The issue is your defining the community arbitrarily to be people in some city limit. Others including myself are defining community to be the homeless, workers who would like to be residents, but live outside the city limit, and employers who probably want more workers in commuting distance.
Unfortunately, there is only one San Francisco peninsula with cold air from the Pacific and warm air from the desert. I think the California legislature should over rule the city to deal with the homeless crisis and cost of living crisis. The Nimbys in San Francisco, like other cities, have no skin in the game to fix that problem as they benefit enormously from the crisis they make much worse.
We're not talking about skyscrapers, which have serious infrastructure requirements and need to be planned.
We're talking about low-rise apartment buildings.
Perhaps if I rephrased your statement as "If the community doesn't want poor people and minorities - you can't have poor people and minorities" you'd better understand why this is a morally bankrupt argument. Given the price of housing, it's effectively the same thing.
Vancouver has crazy low property tax which explains the rampant speculation and unaffordability. And capital gains - without limit - aren't taxed for primary residences.
I think you just used a few hundred words to still spell out “not in my backyard.”
I’ve lived in NY. Many of my friends are people who moved from SF to NY. The housing in ny is much better than SF. For the same rent you get a place with 3x better commute, and 100x less syringes and feces. This is just for the skilled workers. Even a commute from Staten Island is nothing compared to the horrendous commuting conditions I’ve heard from some of the less fortunate folks still trying to make it in the Bay Area.
All because a bunch of rich privileged people keep insisting some grass in front of their house will make them happy and nothing else will so screw everyone else.
This is brutally selfish populism, totally lacking self awareness.
It's none of your business what other people want to do within their communities, and it's ridiculous that you think you have the right to tell them - but worse - to disparage and gaslight others for not wanting to change their lives dramatically to suit your little agenda and lifestyle choices?
Of course - SF vs. NY is mostly a matter of choice.
From my purview - NY is a giant pile of hot concrete and garbage, I would never live there for any reason. It's laughable that anyone would contemplate spending such vast sums to live in a 'tiny box' even for a shorter 'shorter commute'. But that's just me.
In my (previous) years of living in SF, I've never come across a 'syringe' or 'shit' - moreover, that's entirely a function of civic break down and kind of besides the point - it's another, separate issue.
SF is otherwise a lovely city that I have no interest in living in anymore, but if they don't want to build skyscrapers it's entirely their prerogative.
I probably could not afford to live there now, much like I can't afford to live many places, that's just reality. Other, richer people want to live there. Oh well. There are innumerable nice places where I, and others, can live and be just as prosperous.
If people want to live in homes instead of jammed into skyscrapers Hong Kong pr NY style - which many would view as a horribly reduced quality of living - it's their choice.
NY, HK - two of the most densely urban place in he world have not solved the 'housing crisis' - they're among the most expensive places in the world to live.
That said, cost of living has skyrocketed far beyond what can be attributed to that - fairly high migration, a lot of foreign buyers (only 4% directly, but 'kids with citizenship using parents money' amounts to a big other cohort) and that is very easily enough to drive prices. Combined with low interest rates, an aging population with incredible voting power/influence, a booming economy and there you have it.
'Globalization' means SF and Van. basically are 'up for grabs' by everyone on the planet, not just locals.
1/2 of the real estate in the most posh parts of London are owned by foreigners for he very same reason.
There needs to be a total rethink on how taxation works in those parameters.
That said, it's rational: if a lot of talent wants in, prices will be higher. I don't know if 'artists' are going to be able to live there without some kind of very specific interventions.
Other things, such as public transport can have a huge effect - if SF Bay were to be amalgamated into at least some kind of 'mega city' you might see high speed commuter trains.
Imagine a very fast train from Stockton, Pleasanton, Gilroy, Santa Rosa - getting you to 'wherever' in the Bay area within 25 minutes?
There's tons of real estate around the Bay Area, for artists, working class, middle class, regular folks, people who want 'big houses' etc.. it just not 'accessible' to the core.
Or even micro/satellite offices as a civic mandate: building out offices that can be adjusted in size quickly, so that Salesforce, FB, Snap etc. will all have offices in San Jose, SF, Sacramento and bounce back and forth as needed.