|
Keyser_Soze posted:Companies should be re-locating to Sacramento, but they won't because it's still "too expensive" because it's still in California and they can't treat their employees like poo poo like in Texass, and more importantly, the CEO's don't want to live here even though it's a moderate helicopter ride from Woodside/Los Altos Hills as well as on the way to their 3,500 sq foot "cabins" in North Lake Tahoe. They are, rent's far less affordable on a state salary than it has ever been atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Sep 8, 2019 |
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Xaris posted:They don't have to be nor should they be. I can't hear anyone in my apartment at all which was built in 70s--it's honestly voodoo magic. Building Code does actually specific a minimum noise/privacy ratings, it''s just, never checked or enforced and probably still too low. We have some pretty nifty modern sound proofing technology out there, and there's probably ways to fill walls with injection sound-dampening foam and honey-comb panelling, firewalls, insulation between studs and corkboards, staggering room layouts, and the like, but that I don't really know too much about it. It would be pretty trivial to up the minimum-requirements in the CBC, add that to plan checking, and as part of the inspection before being approved for habitation. I've lived in a million crappy places all over California and IMO either the post 1990 places or pre 1940 places that have absolutely zero sound deadening/insulation, it's like builders cared for a few decades. Any apartment built now is built as cheap as possible and most don't even have any insulation between units, just sheetrock. I was in a short term place for 3 months back in 2014 and yes, someone playing Call of Duty at full volume from some undetermined location all you could hear was bass - boom boom boom, rumble rumble but clearly wasn't music. I was in a 1 br condo in San Mateo back in the late 90's and the entire place was converted to "condo" units (Edgewater - now Sr apts lol) and they sent in some guys to drill holes in the joining walls and fill them with blow in insulation. It worked really well and I had the same thing done in my 1980 built house where the living room/master share a wall. It knocks down a ton of noise, makes the wall feel very solid and I wish I had it done throughout the interior/bathroom walls as well (would have cost "only" $5k or so inluding drywall repair). Keyser_Soze fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Sep 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Snipee posted:Thank you for sharing. This is absolutely horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 23:23
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Fly Molo posted:That's an awful technocratic solution, but yeah, probably way more likely. agreed for the record though, there already is a cement plant in SF
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Everything old is new again! Not only did Pittsburgh, in the '80s, have the first workstation company (Three Rivers), but it was being pushed in the 90s as the new affordable Silicon Valley. It always made sense as a tech city due to location; I wonder why it didn't get its feet under it the way Austin did in the '90s. 80's Pittsburgh was loving awful. The steel had mostly gone by then but the city was a dirty, awful, half abandoned wreck with a hideous local reputation. There was still industry in the 70's but as everything transitioned into the 80's there was pretty much a total industrial collapse. This of course led to a lot of problems as well as a massive migration out of the city. The city has also been dealing with the Rust Belt decline that has been happening for the last like...century. Things are improving now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:That's an awful technocratic solution, but yeah, probably way more likely. We should just admit that SF itself is a pretty lovely place to build a socialist utopia/tech center of the world. So much of the peninsula is mountainous parks that SF is practically an island, built in part on rubble landfill, sitting on a major earthquake zone. Did I mention it has aggravating micro climates across the city, is practically the only place in CA that isn't sunny and gorgeous in June, and features not insignificant rolling hills? I don't know if trying to squeeze another million people into it is the best idea. Probably better off doing that in San Jose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
cheese posted:We should just admit that SF itself is a pretty lovely place to build a socialist utopia/tech center of the world. So much of the peninsula is mountainous parks that SF is practically an island, built in part on rubble landfill, sitting on a major earthquake zone. Did I mention it has aggravating micro climates across the city, is practically the only place in CA that isn't sunny and gorgeous in June, and features not insignificant rolling hills? I don't know if trying to squeeze another million people into it is the best idea. Probably better off doing that in San Jose. I can never seem to stop wondering just why the gently caress so many people decided to build a city there in the first place. It's like hey why don't we just pick one of the worst places possible for a city and then cram as many people into it as possible for like 150 years. I'm sure that will end we- -oh hey it just burned down for the eightieth time. gently caress it, just rebuild it. Again. I'm sure it won't catch fire another ti- -we just got hit by another gargantuan earthquake and it burned down again. Nobody could have predicted that this would happen! It's like people being shocked that New Orleans got demolished by a hurricane and flooded to death again. Like yeah, no poo poo, you built a city below sea level right in the middle of Hurricane Alley. Of loving course it floods why are you so surprised? Why do we still have a city there anyway? If Silicon Valley just insists on being there then why not just like...let all the programmers work remotely? So many tech companies absolutely insisting that their employees all go to offices in such weirdly specific places is another thing that confuses me to no end. They can just send their code to you through the internet. We have that technology. We could probably figure out how to beam that poo poo to Earth from the Moon in like an hour, tops. This isn't bleeding edge technology nobody understands yet. Certain cities getting hosed up by disasters on the regular also isn't new. For a bunch of supposedly smart people they're making some really stupid decisions. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Sep 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
In New Orleans case it didn't start out below sea level, it's entirely due to control methods imposed on the Mississippi River. Terrible place to keep a City now though
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I can never seem to stop wondering just why the gently caress so many people decided to build a city there in the first place. It's like hey why don't we just pick one of the worst places possible for a city quote:It's like people being shocked that New Orleans got demolished by a hurricane and flooded to death again. Like yeah, no poo poo, you built a city below sea level right in the middle of Hurricane Alley. Of loving course it floods why are you so surprised? Why do we still have a city there anyway? I spent five or six years telecommuting from the East Coast to the West. Being on a videoconference or a conference cal is *not* the same thing as being there. A lot of important stuff happens because you bump into person B in the hall, and they say "Oh, yes, I was meaning to ask you ...." or you are in the breakroom and overhear C and D gossiping and realize your project needs to integrate with theirs. Telecommuting is doable -- I enjoyed my years doing it -- but it isn't trivially substitutable for being on-site. I could never have made it work at all without regular flights back to home base.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
We should all just telecommute into VR workplaces 8 hours a day
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:We should all just telecommute into VR workplaces 8 hours a day Great so the people who still play second life now get to be the next techbro billionaires selling VR work spaces customised to your specifics
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Great so the people who still play second life now get to be the next techbro billionaires selling VR work spaces customised to your specifics Good, they're usually nice people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
SF experienced the exact same sort of boom in the 60s when every Boomer in the country wanted to move there. Then most of them moved away, either to the 'burbs to raise families or back out of state. Now Millennials are doing it, it's going about as well for them as it did for their parents, and the actual fix will be people realizing that it's stupid to live in SF and commute 3 hours a day on a shuttle bus. The strange belief that this is somehow a unique experience, that the universe is torturing your generation, and that it's the end of the world as we know it is kind of the essence of being a Millennial (at least as far as my apathetic GenX brain can discern) You all should've gotten here in like 1990  
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
Family Values posted:SF experienced the exact same sort of boom in the 60s when every Boomer in the country wanted to move there. Then most of them moved away, either to the 'burbs to raise families or back out of state. SF was already losing people before the 1960s hippie stuff, thanks to de-industrialization and white flight. Also, i'm not sure how the 1960s was the "exact" same situation as now. The population was smaller, there was more housing, and it was cheaper. quote:The strange belief that this is somehow a unique experience, that the universe is torturing your generation, and that it's the end of the world as we know it is kind of the essence of being a Millennial lol what the hell is this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
Weird to suggest they had a population Boomer boom in the 60s then post a graph that shows population decline from the 50s through the 80s
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
Family Values posted:SF experienced the exact same sort of boom in the 60s when every Boomer in the country wanted to move there. Then most of them moved away, either to the 'burbs to raise families or back out of state. Now Millennials are doing it, it's going about as well for them as it did for their parents, and the actual fix will be people realizing that it's stupid to live in SF and commute 3 hours a day on a shuttle bus. That chart sure shows population going up in the 1960s
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
Family Values posted:SF experienced the exact same sort of boom in the 60s when every Boomer in the country wanted to move there. Then most of them moved away, either to the 'burbs to raise families or back out of state. Now Millennials are doing it, it's going about as well for them as it did for their parents, and the actual fix will be people realizing that it's stupid to live in SF and commute 3 hours a day on a shuttle bus. According to your graph, the current population climb began in the 80's, before, or around the same time, as most Millennials were born. Not sure how you can say "now Millennials are doing it" when it could only have been previous generations that kicked off the current trend. For somebody who claims to be "apathetic", you certainly seem to be a bit bitter about Millennials.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
Rah! posted:lol what the hell is this poo poo An old person who likes to think themselves a wise sage when in reality they’ve not actually gotten to know and understand how things are different. Xers probably embraced apathy because the Soviets were supposed to nuke the world so why care. And because climate change can end the world, it’s the same thing! Except it’s not. But understanding the nuance is harder and doesn’t allow someone a smug experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
Some GenXers are really bitter that Millennials aren't propping them up the way that the Boomers tricked GenXers into propping them up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
Family Values posted:SF experienced the exact same sort of boom in the 60s when every Boomer in the country wanted to move there. Then most of them moved away, either to the 'burbs to raise families or back out of state. Now Millennials are doing it, it's going about as well for them as it did for their parents, and the actual fix will be people realizing that it's stupid to live in SF and commute 3 hours a day on a shuttle bus. I wonder what else could be different between the 1960s and maybe, let's say, 1978 onward. You know, anything that might have benefited those 60s boomers while loving everyone else. Nah, nothing comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I can never seem to stop wondering just why the gently caress so many people decided to build a city there in the first place. It was conveniently close to the gold fields in 1850, and then a rail line reached it. That and the harbor were enough to keep it growing until poo poo went crazy with the tech boom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:It was conveniently close to the gold fields in 1850, and then a rail line reached it. That and the harbor were enough to keep it growing until poo poo went crazy with the tech boom. SF is a postage stamp on the tip of a peninsula. It is and will always be a boutique city, and the tech industry didn't cause that. I mean, by all means increase density and do whatever else to shoehorn more people into it, but it's never going to have the population of NYC or Chicago or whatever. Hell it isn't even the most populous city in the Bay Area.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
As long as the South Bay remains a bland suburban blob (it’s getting better, but people still see places like San Jose as a wasteland) SF and Oakland are going to remain the biggest hotspots for “culture” and people will want to live as close as possible to those places even if they work in SV. My wife and I also hate heat and don’t want to leave SF because there’s literally nowhere else in the country where the temperature is consistently 50-70 degrees year round. I’ve met quite a few others who feel the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
Family Values posted:SF is a postage stamp on the tip of a peninsula. It is and will always be a boutique city, and the tech industry didn't cause that. I mean, by all means increase density and do whatever else to shoehorn more people into it, but it's never going to have the population of NYC or Chicago or whatever. Hell it isn't even the most populous city in the Bay Area. oh yeah, agreed. I was just looking at the historical whatevers, why it exists at all as an urban center instead of being the Palos Verdes/Malibu of the bay area.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:My wife and I also hate heat and don’t want to leave SF because there’s literally nowhere else in the country where the temperature is consistently 50-70 degrees year round. I’ve met quite a few others who feel the same. I have some bad news for you. Climate change is going to make the future Bay Area feel more like Lisbon, Portugal by 2050 and LA county by 2100 under optimistic projections. If you want to keep enjoying this weather, you might want to consider moving further north to Portland or Seattle. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/11/san-francisco-to-be-as-hot-as-portugal-by-2050-scientists-say.html https://earther.gizmodo.com/by-the-end-of-the-century-san-franciscos-climate-could-1832559738
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 10:27
|
|
|
Family Values posted:SF is a postage stamp on the tip of a peninsula. It is and will always be a boutique city, and the tech industry didn't cause that. I mean, by all means increase density and do whatever else to shoehorn more people into it, but it's never going to have the population of NYC or Chicago or whatever. Hell it isn't even the most populous city in the Bay Area. But yeah we need to increase density all over the bay area, not just SF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
Snipee posted:I have some bad news for you. Climate change is going to make the future Bay Area feel more like Lisbon, Portugal by 2050 and LA county by 2100 under optimistic projections. If you want to keep enjoying this weather, you might want to consider moving further north to Portland or Seattle. PNW wont work because it’s too white, at least for now. And Portland and Seattle are almost as bad as the Bay Area in terms of housing costs. We certainly could never own a home in either of those places.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
SF was mostly banking, law and insurance prior to 2000 or so, all the tech companies were still San Mateo and south unless you consider McKesson a "tech" company. BofA, Wells Fargo (still the biggest SF employer) and Schwab were probably SF's largest employers with regional hubs for smaller places like Dean Witter, Lehman, and then smaller local banks like Montgomery Securities, Hambrecht & Quist, etc as well as huge law firms. The marina district was filled with east coast Patrick Bateman investment bank bro types from ivy league schools and not tech-bros. In the 90's anyone who lived in SF and worked in tech was driving to at least San Mateo (Siebel Systems, Inktomi, others) like me or Oracle, Excite, others in Redwood Shores and further south. There were a few tech startups popping up in SOMA around 1999 or so I remember interviewing at (Netcentives, Xoom.com and some others I can't remember). yeah, 1999....is when SF locals starting getting annoyed. https://www.salon.com/1999/10/28/internet_2/ 2001 in full gear.... http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Boom_and_Bombshell:_New_Economy_Bubble_and_the_Bay_Area Keyser_Soze fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Sep 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
Keyser_Soze posted:SF was mostly banking, law and insurance prior to 2000 or so, all the tech companies were still San Mateo and south unless you consider McKesson a "tech" company. BofA, Wells Fargo (still the biggest SF employer) and Schwab were probably SF's largest employers with regional hubs for smaller places like Dean Witter, Lehman, and then smaller local banks like Montgomery Securities, Hambrecht & Quist, etc as well as huge law firms. The marina district was filled with east coast Patrick Bateman investment bank bro types from ivy league schools and not tech-bros. Heck, I knew a bunch of teachers who lived in SF and commuted down to Menlo Park at my high school back in the early 00’s purely because the Peninsula was lame and SF rent hadn’t gone totally off the wheels yet. One of them could afford a whole house in the Excelsior.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Granted SF is geographically small, but fun fact it's actually a bit bigger than Paris, which has more than double the population. The only way I think it's really "shoehorning" to fit more people in is that it really needs more of a subway system. Yeah exactly. If the state is going to subsidize housing in the Bay Area I think it should be in San Jose, along the BART corridor in the East Bay, and along the Caltrain corridor on the peninsula. All of which would yield far more housing per dollar than trying to turn SF into Manhattan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
We don't need to turn SF into Manhattan, but we're way behind turning it into Paris, which is what it should be. SF absolutely needs more housing and more density, regardless of what gets built in the rest of the bay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Keyser_Soze posted:SF was mostly banking, law and insurance prior to 2000 or so, all the tech companies were still San Mateo and south unless you consider McKesson a "tech" company. BofA, Wells Fargo (still the biggest SF employer) and Schwab were probably SF's largest employers with regional hubs for smaller places like Dean Witter, Lehman, and then smaller local banks like Montgomery Securities, Hambrecht & Quist, etc as well as huge law firms. The marina district was filled with east coast Patrick Bateman investment bank bro types from ivy league schools and not tech-bros. I thought things didn't really get gross in SF until Ed Lee's employment tax manipulation in 2011ish. I still worked in the city until 2009 or so and obviously there were tech businesses, but it seemed relatively...contained? And my rent was still *well* under $2k for a huge non-rent-control 1 bedroom with a parking space.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:I thought things didn't really get gross in SF until Ed Lee's employment tax manipulation in 2011ish. I still worked in the city until 2009 or so and obviously there were tech businesses, but it seemed relatively...contained? And my rent was still *well* under $2k for a huge non-rent-control 1 bedroom with a parking space. 2009 was kind of on the on slope before the tipping point but yeah really 2010+ was when it started skyrocketing, probably plateauing as of 2017. A lot of this is smart phone adoption in 2009 was still weak but by 2010-11 they were almost the entire market and associated fart app n zynga n startups going full steam ahead. This also associated with the changes in monetary policy with <1% fed rates and quantitative easing following the meltdown in 2008 where money was a flowing to the top 0.1% and they had so much access to free money spigot that they didn’t know what to do with it: enter tech and the smartphones with everything from fart apps to gig economy and suddenly you have a new speculative investment commodity industry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thejdmorris/status/1170728500409655298
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
My favorite part was the hand wringing on KQED about how it won’t be fair to all those white boomers that wanted their own private McMansion fiefdom in the forests away from all those dirty urban ferals and now their rates will go up if those evil tax stealing mooching libs in San Francisco aren’t going to be subsidizing their rates Anyways pge isn’t going to go for it because they don’t want to set a precedent that municipalities are significantly better for everyone without shareholders siphoning off profits. Imminent domain and take em over
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Xaris posted:My favorite part was the hand wringing on KQED about how it won’t be fair to all those white boomers that wanted their own private McMansion fiefdom in the forests away from all those dirty urban ferals and now their rates will go up if those evil tax stealing mooching libs in San Francisco aren’t going to be subsidizing their rates The one person I know who did that is a hairdresser who would gladly have stayed in the bay area instead of building an extremely fire-retardant bunker in the foothills, but it's not like two older people semi-retired from normal jobs can buy a home here. When I met her she was still commuting to the bay area to cut dirty urban feral hair a few days/week to cover expenses. quote:Anyways pge isn’t going to go for it because they don’t want to set a precedent that municipalities are significantly better for everyone without shareholders siphoning off profits. Imminent domain and take em over The precedent is pretty well established even in the bay area, we have municipal power in Santa Clara. I suspect it's a lot less costly for the city to operate our grid than it will be for San Francisco, though. My impression is that they have a good amount of older and under-provisioned service to deal with eventually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
PG&E has already issued a reply:quote:The company immediately brushed off the city’s offer, telling the San Francisco Chronicle that selling assets to San Francisco wasn’t in “the best interests of our customers and stakeholders.” But it added that it’s willing to discuss the issue with the city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
I wonder what PR person sent them back a track changes version of this statement with "shareholders" changed to "stakeholders"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
Nutting
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
PG&E worked too hard stealing San Francisco’s municipal power infrastructure in the first place to let them have it now. More info if you aren’t familiar with the history: http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Hetch_Hetchy_Story,_Part_II:_PG%26E_and_the_Raker_Act
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 05:04
|
|
