G+_George Kozi Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Just a thought... Originally shared by George Kozi What Google could do for San Francisco. 1) San Francisco has a serious housing problem. You only have to look at the recent Kevin Rose thing and the vomiting on the Yahoo bus to realize that. 2) San Francisco is on a peninsula, to there's no room for expansion. 3) San Francisco is surrounded by water... so... why not build housing on that? A barge could accommodate quite a few micro apartments... for example made out of shipping containers, on multiple levels. Build housing barges, and moar them on that very long coastline out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Never going to happen. You think the SF proletariat are upset are upset about housing prices? You can't imagine how upset they get about building any new units... especially asking the pristine coastland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Randy Hudson Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 How about people just move a little inland? Does everyone have to live right in the city? Hell, I wouldn't even want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 We have plenty of people living a little inland... but the point of the protesters is that THEY shouldn't have to move. It's THEIR city. (Emphasis on my point... done to ridicule and belittle) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_George Kozi Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 floating houses (entire neighborhoods of them) are a reality here in The Netherlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Wouldn't work in the Bay Area.... along the coast means they're in the path of some seriously mean waves... inside the bay means they're in the path of a busy shipping channel. In fact, we ALREADY have floating housing... it's called Marin. (No seriously... I drive past it every day on my way to the Brickhouse.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_George Kozi Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ then, this is all an alienation problem. People realizing that the world is changing around them, and they are being left behind wishing it all stayed as it once was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Tor Iver Wilhelmsen Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Maybe start building in the height? As far as I remember, only the financial district has "skyscrapers". If other cities can bear the look of tall buildings then perhaps the "cosiness" of low-built SF needs to give way to the practicality of more effective use of the space available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Skyscrapers + earthquakes + unstable ground = death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Randy Hudson Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Is that bad Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Tor Iver Wilhelmsen Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Japan appears to consider building tall buildings in earthquake zones to be an engineering challenge. Then again they have a population engineer ratio that matches the US population lawyer ratio... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_George Kozi Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 If you have an old problem, look for the one that doesn't want it fixed. Because someone obviously doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 George Kozi the "problem" is that you're not looking at the right problem. -- The problem ISN'T that there isn't enough housing in the bay area. There's PLENTY of housing within two hours of San Francisco. The problem is that there isn't enough housing IN San Francisco at a price that some people believe is their RIGHT to pay. Here is a grossly simplified explanation San Francisco has become an expensive place to live because it's the center of so much money-making potential. That money-making potential has allowed for a crazy-high city income from local taxes and fees, which in turn has made SF a favorable city in terms of services, which in turn drives demand for living space in SF for those who are partaking in that money-making potential. Those who were renting units have found themselves slowly driven out by the law of supply and demand as property owners realize they can make more money off a sale of said property than they could from 100 years of renting. The renters don't want to leave because SF has become an attractive place to live (because of the tax base that provides for city services) and they are now demonizing the very people from whose taxes and fees the city is made attractive. In the meantime, every initiative to build new housing units in the city has been rejected by the very same people who are upset that there isn't enough housing. They argue (justifiably) that such units will be cost-accessible only to the wealthy... while refusing to see that the rejection of such measures means that those wealthy people will buy up units that were previously used by renters. In other words, the protesters are people who want "Old San Francisco" (housing) while keeping "New San Francisco" (services) all without allowing in the people who are making New San Francisco possible. You can't fix that with floating condos or oceanside "shipping container" camps -- because it's not about space, or real-estate or even available housing.... but rather gentrification and a sense of entitlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Tor Iver Wilhelmsen Remember that's it's not just about being in an Earthquake zone... it's about the kind of land that you're on. Much of SF sits on top of land that liquefies in an earthquake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 George Kozi As an added aside... I grew up ACROSS the bay... in Fremont... and we never really understood the brewhaha... even 20 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_George Kozi Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ What about social housing? So many people have said the following, that a precise attribution is impossible. So I shall go with Mahatma Gandhi's words: “The true measure of any Society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members” Those people who feel not a part of the new SF buzz, are nonetheless San Franciscans (I'm sure that's not spelled right) , thus the City has a responsibility towards them, just as every citizen, rich or poor has a responsibility towards the city. If nothing big and visible is done to put out this fire, it will only grow and will burn the guilty and innocent alike. Frustration is cumulative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_George Kozi Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ I appreciate your perspective on this, and you taking the time to explain it. I just try to understand what's going on, and why is that this has been allowed to grow to this size. Of course, understanding it is not easy. I'm looking at it from over the Atlantic, and from a different culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Randy Hudson Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 This sort of over-pricing of real estate is not uncommon in the United States George Kozi and it is at the very root of every financial collapse we've experienced in the past 50 years. The prices simply cannot be sustained over time, home owners default on their loans and the banking system collapses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_George Kozi Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 someone is always losing when there is a bubble get rich fast scheme going. If the same people always lose, it ain't good. Whatever happened to organic growth? What happened to sustainable growth? Or common sense, prudent growth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Randy Hudson Aren't you the one who just suggested that a lot of death in San Francisco wouldn't be a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 George Kozi Normally I would agree with you (after all, that is my day job)... but not in this case. The problem is that rent control in the city has NOT been sustainable. There's a reason why owners of rentable properties have been selling them or turning them into condos... because the city has hamstrung them on making reasonable profits on their investments for the last 3 decades. As for the "San Francisco has a responsibility for San Franciscans" -- they AREN'T San Franciscans... they're Americans. They can move to any of a dozen cities in transit distance of San Francisco... but they've decided that they have a RIGHT to affordable housing in the city. That's great and all... but every RIGHT is somebody else's responsibility... and since the "somebody else" in this case (the same protesters who voted down every housing measure) decided that it WASN'T their responsibility to provide new housing units in the city, then they can't very well claim said right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Randy Hudson Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 No, Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ I don't believe I suggested any such thing. I will say however that I think your assessment that (some) San Franciscan's think that living there is their RIGHT is spot on, and not surprising given the Liberal tendencies of their population as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_George Kozi Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 Fr. Robert Ballecer, SJ It is always sad to see people clinging to an ever faster vanishing past. Sometimes things change around you and you feel powerless, or drained, and you can't see any way to stop it. Maybe that's the underlying feeling on the protestors part. Someday someone probably told those who protest today, or maybe the cynicism in themselves convinced them, that if they allow new development, only strangers will benefit. Not them. Maybe that's why they did it. Humans have a tendency to want to defend their turf. And if these people lived for years in that place, or were even born there, they are considering SF their home turf. Moving away means breaking up communities and starting again in a different place. It means taking all the risks, gambling all over again. That's alright when you are young, and even then it isn't easy. But when you are middle aged... or old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts