Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by vorador 288 days ago
Well the problem with SF is less density and more than half of it is single-family home neighborhoods with zero amenities.

Anti-growth people will point to neighborhoods like Glen Park, NoPa and Noe as "SF" while forgetting most of the surface area of the city is empty neighborhoods like Parkside, Mt Davidson Manor, etc.

1 comments

It’s a matter of degree, not difference. If you fit 2x the number of people in them - you’d still have the same general problem. Just 2x the number of people now.

And because larger cities tend to also be more attractive (Tokyo is still growing, for instance), you’ll never have enough density to be ‘enough’ - aka where it’s cheap enough for everyone to live where they want.

You will have more people though.

It's a false premise, cities do not grow endlessly. If you look at other cities they're actually losing population – NYC for example.
NYC is not losing population. [https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/downloads/pdf/our-work/r...]

There were two years during the pandemic when people moved out- because jobs let them - but people moved back and it has more than made up for it since.

Every major city in the world has seen significant population increases as mechanized farm work and fertilizers have removed the need for many farm workers, and economy activity has concentrated.

It’s been a consistent trend for almost 100 years.

And yet, with the Tokyo example, the combination of lots of housing and good public transit means that you can get small but liveable apartments that are a 20-minute walk from central downtown Tokyo (and under a 10-minute walk to multiple train stations with access to the rest of the metro area) for under $1500/month. Here's one right here: https://www.realestate-tokyo.com/rent/B0021114/park-flats-gi...
The tiny salaries in Japan make that even more expensive (comparatively than SF) - last I checked. But yes, the Japanese are significantly more socially coherent eh?