Comments on: Tartine and Bi-Rite a million years ago

By: Seattlite

Seattlite — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:41:34 +0000

I live in Seattle where they’ve been building more housing, and guess what? The culture isn’t changing and the rent is actually going down in price.

San Francisco’s rent is appalling and the fact that the same people complaining about techies moving in are also whining about high rise apartments shows just how idiotic that city can be. If you want to stop gentrification, you have to build housing to support a growing population. It doesn’t kill the culture, it lets new cultures in.

For a city that prides itself in being so open minded and progressive, a lot of you guys sure do like to put a gate up and keep your city exclusive to your tastes. The saddest thing is, I used to be one of those preservationists when I lived there. Its clearly an ideology that’s heavily ingrained in the cities culture, for better or for worse.

By: MATT

MATT — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 23:07:28 +0000

Carls Pastry shop was my very first job!!! Its nice seeing the old picture thanks

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:42:44 +0000

Two beers: Bingo.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:42:13 +0000

Valenchia: Well said. You are absolutely correct.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:07:07 +0000

I’m for a much more stringent requirement in terms of affordable housing inclusion for privately-funded projects. I’d be fine with 25% or even a third of new construction being ear-marked for below-market-rate. I’d even strongly support construction of more below-market-rate housing at taxpayer expense. But, then, I’m basically a socialist, so go figure.

By: James

James — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 20:44:25 +0000

How do we build affordable housing in SF? New housing is extremely expensive, primarily because of the scarcity and high costs of land. The current system subsidizes affordable housing construction via the sale of market rate housing. What is the realistic alternative?

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 20:38:40 +0000

@two beers
“You’re disingenuously trying to equate increased development/taller buildings with a more equitable housing situation. Increased development only makes housing more equitable if the new development is affordable. Otherwise, it just increases the stratification.”

I don’t at all agree with this. Even IF all we can build is luxury housing, that means that people who can afford luxury houses will move there. These people are then not in the marketplace. So someone making 100k a year living in any open building he can find, can move to a fancy new building freeing open his previous slot.

Removing anyone from the market is a win. Been to any open houses for rental units in a while? They are packed, last time I moved I saw many with 10 or so people there. Now imagine that in SOMA we had 50 places like NEMA, the people that move into the new NEMAs are now not attending open houses in the mission, dogpatch, and soma. You act as if there is an infinite number of people to take their place, what could have ever given you this idea? The local economy is only so big, only a certain percentage of people are willing to travel 40 miles south to their job.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 20:27:12 +0000

two beers: Exactly.

By: two beers

two beers — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:52:40 +0000

Building luxury lofts exclusively is the surest way to $12 candy bars.

You’re disingenuously trying to equate increased development/taller buildings with a more equitable housing situation. Increased development only makes housing more equitable if the new development is affordable. Otherwise, it just increases the stratification.

I suspect you know that, but think you can fool typical knejerk liberals by appealing to their sense of justice.

By: two beers

two beers — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:42:08 +0000

You’re all starting from a false (albeit pervasive) premise.

Building luxury lofts does not only does not ease the housing crunch, it exacerbates it: 1. It raises avg prices, which raises the new target prices 2. it fuels speculation, which leads to higher prices, which leads to further speculation, rinse and repeat, until the bubble collapses.

High-end housing and affordable housing are not fungible.

Building expensive housing does not make housing more affordable. The only way to make housing affordable is to provide affordable housing.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:01:37 +0000

What are you talking about? I support building lots of new housing, throughout the city.

By: umm

umm — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:56:59 +0000

new housing “destroys a city”, this holds true if by ‘destroys’ you mean shaves off a few bucks from the selling prices/rents of property owners. i’d happily destroy the greed.

By: Bob Dole

Bob Dole — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:22:17 +0000

One thing’s for sure, toast sure as shit wasn’t $4 back then.

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:40:57 +0000

“Destroy the city”? Spoken like a homeowner who already has theirs. Too bad for the next generation. “Maybe, if you’re nice, I’ll rent you a closet in my basement.”

By: Temple

Temple — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:32:48 +0000

I got all my birthday cakes at Carl’s.
I grew up in the Mission and it is a shadow of its former self but that is just my perception. The problem is things changes always! You can’t keep things from morphing into something you no longer recognize. So get over it! Saying that we need people fighting to keep in the same and people fighting for progress and hopefully everyone will meet in the middle. I am clearly feeling optimistic today!Oh I also live in New Orleans where the gentrification train in pulling into the station! Its everywhere people!