|
Ron Jeremy posted:Saying Hella is dumb. Or even worse, hecka So hella people who grew up in Nor Cal are hella dumb then 
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
Not a bad map for the most part, but the part labelled "western addition" on it should be titled "the Fillmore" instead. Everything between the tenderloin/tendernob/civic center, the Richmond, Pacific heights, and the Haight is technically the "Western Addition" (because it was all built around the same time period in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and was the westernmost part of the city with any real population). And in SF's black community (and among some other people mostly in the lower classes), the entire Western Addition is often referred to as "the Fillmore". And in case anyone is interested in lesser-known/dying neighborhood names: Ingleside/Oceanview/Ingleside terrace is often referred to collectively as "Lakeview", once again mostly within the city's black community and among some other working class people. Also, in my experience "parkside" is interchangeable with "outer sunset", and is probably used less often than "outer sunset" by most people. And Hunters Point/The Bayview used to often be used interchangeably with each other when i was growing up, though that seems to have been changing over the years. A lot of this renaming stuff was started by real estate agents trying to make the area they're selling in seem separate from the rest of the neighborhood, if said neighborhood doesn't have the best reputation. What the hell is this stupid "La Lengua" poo poo though? I've been living in SF my entire life, and always knew that area as part of the mission district or part of Bernal Heights, depending on who you asked...and then one day a few years ago, google maps started calling that area "La Lengua", and now a ton of people call it that. I blame hipsters and/or techies, of course. It's like Godwin's law for annoying things in a gentrifying city. I bet some google employee thought that renaming their part of the neighborhood to "the tongue" in Spanish, would be totally cool and unique and authentic, and seeing as 75% of SF residents aren't from here, people just accept it. And now a local merchants group is rolling with that new name, because it makes them stand out from the rest of the area, and might lead to more business.   Get off my lawn.withak posted:NOPA is where your favorite restaurant is. The Western Addition is where you find that your car has been broken into while you were inside your favorite restaurant. Pretty much.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
What's so hard about paper bags? I have no car, and routinely carry fully-loaded paper bags (with heavy poo poo in them, like beer, jars of stuff, etc) home on the train/bus, and almost never have them rip on me. Just get your groceries double-bagged and never apply diagonal pressure to the handles...always lift the bags straight up if they're heavy, and make sure you don't swing them all retarded when you're walking. And if you're worried the handles might break, hold the bag from the bottom. It's not rocket science. We may all be goonlords that have trouble leaving the bathroom alive*, but paper bags are some easy poo poo to figure out. *I just never use my bathroom. What do you think i use the paper bags for when i get home? Checkmate, bag failures 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Kaal posted:"Groceries" is a strong word for Dr. Pepper and microwave meals. Dr. Pepper? Pshh, only the finest Mountain Dew is worthy of any self-respecting goon. Then again, that guy drives an SUV instead of a rascal scooter, so maybe Dr. Pepper is more his style.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I'll take a dry 110F in Texas to a humid 90F in South Bay any day. In what insane backwards alternate reality is texas dry and the south bay humid?  Aside from the desert part (where like 10 people live), Texas is a lot more humid than the Bay Area. Space-Bird posted:in my experience, people in SF complain about how 'cold' it is, whenever it gets below 70. I'm an SF native, and my happy zone is around 50-80 degrees. Get higher or lower than that and I get too hot or cold and turn into a whiny baby. Especially if it's really humid, gently caress that. Rah! fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Mar 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
etalian posted:Northern california is basically the stealth east coast due to their obsession with status and career. Except the only people in Northern California who are obsessed with status and career are transplants from the east coast. Most of us that are from here are actually dirty hobos that will soon be purged and replaced by even more career/status-obsessed east coast transplants. Bip Roberts posted:Nothing in the world is more funny than Northern Californians acting like they don't ship in water from across the state. At least we're shipping water within our own half of the state though. It's not stealing if it's staying in Nor Cal 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Not just that, but people moving to NYC basically want to live close to where they work. So do most people living in NYC. We've got a really strange situation in the Bay where people are choosing not to live near their work because they want the city life. It'd be like if the financial industry was based way out on Long Island but they all lived on Manhattan and drove. It would really create a lot of weird pressures everywhere. This is really exaggerated by most people in regards to SF though. There are definitely more "reverse commuters" in SF than there used to be, and most of them seem to work in the tech industry, but around 80% of employed SF residents actually work within SF city limits. Not to mention It's the largest single job center in the Bay Area, and draws around 200,000 commuters into it every weekday (compared to Oakland drawing 40,000 per day and San Jose actually losing 5% of it's population to suburban job centers). Downtown SF has like four times as much office space as Downtown Oakland and downtown San Jose combined.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
And the thing that NIMBYs need to get thought their thick skulls, is that development and redevelopment does not necessarily equate to "destruction of existing homes and historic architecture". People fail to realize that SF is not actually 110% built out, and there are empty lots, parking lots, warehouses, lovely little commercial buildings with no historic value, abandoned rail yards etc, that can and have been getting replaced with new stuff. In fact, the vast majority of housing that's been built since 2000 (all 20,000 units or so), has not involved the demolition of any existing housing. And the 50,000 housing units that are currently approved/proposed/under construction? The vast majority of those projects don't involve demolishing any existing housing either. So it would actually be very possible to add the needed 100,000 units, without changing the beloved character of SF's historic neighborhoods, as many NIMBYs fear...unless you consider a growing downtown skyline and/or the replacement of lovely vacant buildings/parking lots/gas stations/etc, with a residential midrise/highrise to be an affront to humanity. Rah! fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Bad Mr Frosty posted:Living all over the bay area for 35 years, I never understood the fascination with SF. If you find a nice job in SF, just take BART. You don't need to live in the city limits The bay area isn't like many other metro areas in the USA, SF doesn't have a monopoly on good food and entertainment. It's a cool fuckin place with a level of urbanity that you can find in very few US cities, and in a beautiful setting. It's also well known around the world to a much larger extent than any other Bay Area city, and it's also a huge business center. It's not surprising why so many people want to live within SF city limits. And it is the biggest entertainment center in the bay area too, since you brought that up (nightclubs, bars, events, theater, opera, blah, blah, etc, etc). But the housing crisis is a Bay Area thing anyways, it's not unique to SF. And despite all the NIMBYism, SF is actually better at building housing than 99% of towns/cities around here. Rah! fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Cities should start discouraging business congestion that creates some of these problems. Amazon isn't making Seattle unlivable. It being a desirable city with a growing lack of housing supply is making it unlivable (for the non-wealthy). Do you see the pattern?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Eh, I dunno. Just the other day I was reading an article about new hyper-luxury condos popping up in Capitol Hill where single bedrooms are four thousand loving dollars a month. The only reason that's happening is because Amazon is just a mile or two away and pays very good wages, so there's people who can afford that kind of rent and developers want to take advantage of the demand. That's true, and it sucks, and is also understandable given the way our economy works. But the thing that contributes most to skyrocketing housing prices is a lack of housing supply. If there were enough housing, those $4,000 apartments might not be "cheap" (unless there was a huge surplus of housing), but they would be less expensive than $4,000 a month. http://www.seattlepi.com/realestate/article/Supply-of-houses-for-sale-in-Seattle-remains-tight-6065192.php quote:Supply of houses for sale in Seattle remains tight
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Wrong. Read the post I made right before you made that one. If you think Amazon alone is causing prices to rise, you're kind of a moron. This "Amazon effect" wouldn't be nearly as bad if Seattle had an adequate housing supply. It's not rocket science. Also, 13,000 apartments is not a significant number of housing units unless that much is getting added every year for like a decade straight (as far as SF is concerned...the amount needed is probably a little lower for Seattle, but still far above 13,000). Rah! fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The entire population of Seattle is just over 600,000. What's your point? The population of San Francisco is 850,000! Thanks for sharing population stats with me? Seattle still needs more housing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Seattle needs more cheap housing. Yes, and the average home/rent price will never become cheaper unless there's more housing, or the economy collapses, or there's a zombie apocalypse or some poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:The SF rental market is basically entirely saturated..and hyper inflated rent/housing prices are extending out to the rest of the bay area. Not to say Seattle isn't having problems too, I just hope they don't end up in the same situation SF/Bay area is in now. They seem to be headed in that general direction unfortunately, and it's the same with a lot of other cities too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
etalian posted:it's true, despite SF's cool hip image most of the bay area is cookie cutter suburbs and office parks. Yeah, outside of SF/Daly City and Oakland/Berkeley, the Bay Area is basically suburban LA. And while they have plenty of differences, even SF and Oakland have more similarities to central LA than many people realize. We even have our own equivalent of the inland empire (but with more farms): the outer east bay to Stockton/Tracy, etc. And as of 2013, San Joaquin county is actually considered by the US census to be part of the Bay Area combined statistical area (CSA), which makes it an even better comparison to San Bernardino county (which is part of LA's CSA) than it was before. Rah! fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:How far do we have to get from downtown SF? Maybe I'm misreading you, but are you saying that looks like "cookie-cutter suburbia?" Because those are early 20th century row houses within SF city-proper, which is basically the exact opposite of "cookie-cutter suburbia". Even the second pic, which looks like Daly City or maybe southern SF (in the 1940/1950s, when those homes were first built), isn't like any suburb I know. Those areas are more densely populated than 99% of America.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Little boxes on the hillside, Yeah I'm familiar with that poo poo-tastic song about Daly City. I admit I was giving Daly City too much credit overall, because like half of it is pretty typical CA-style suburbia. It's still more densely populated than 99% of America though, and has significant areas of rowhouses and density that you typically don't see in suburbs. When I think cookie-cutter American suburbia, I think of low density, pointlessly windy streets, bigger lots than the inner city, mcmansions, lawns, and cul-de-sacs, all of which is almost non-existent in SF and the part of Daly City closest to SF, and I'm definitely not seeing it in those pics, aside from the mini lawn strips, half of which are paved over with concrete nowadays. I don't think of early/mid century rowhouses with high population density that are built on a grid, no matter how similar each building might look to each other. Most CA suburbs are more dense than normal for the US, but still not Daly City dense, let alone SF dense...with maybe one or two exceptions, like Santa Ana (though it doesn't have rowhouses like SF or Daly City).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:Isn't SF's problem all the 1950-1970 2 story places out on the "avenues" that need to be leveled and built into 10 story places, but I believe anything over 4 stories can't be built with wood framing and immediately costs 3x as much to construct so no $75k income "poors" are going to ever be able to afford those either. There are plenty of two story buildings in the avenues (as well as 3 and 4 story ones), but SF doesn't need to demolish any of them to build enough housing. It would help if there were some raised height limits though, especially along transit corridors/busy streets, like taraval, Irving, Judah, and 19th ave. Also, you can build wood frame structures taller than 4 floors, it happens all the time in SF.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Family Values posted:But there are no bars full of bros with alleys that smell like vomit and poo poo, so it's nearly uninhabitable. Hey man, those bars used to be filled with elderly professional drunks and/or gangsters instead of bros. It wasn't always this bad 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:google fu shows that most are "Type III common wood framing" and can go up to around 5 stories or 65 or 80 feet or something...........although Seattle weezed some up to 8 by creating some "mezzanine" floors. There is also a Type IV (using heavy timber and steel bolts like a mill or pre-1960 buildings). There are a lot of those larger type III buildings going up in SF lately. Here's one of them (an 80' six story building with 5 wood frame floors above a concrete podium) burning down in Mission Bay last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGyyB317II0 Keyser S0ze posted:I'm happy to be an old fart in Sacramento now and only have to commute once per week on the rickety rear end Amtrak and it's actually okay (although slow on shared Union Pacific tracks) when it's not running over people and causing 3 hr delays. The last time I rode Amtrak to visit a friend in the central valley, it was delayed on the way there because it hit a person. Then on the way back it was delayed because it hit a car There was a short freight train delay too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:
I've never been hassled for smoking tobacco in SF, whether it be a bar patio, the sidewalk, a park, etc. Maybe I've just been lucky, or have only smoked around passive aggressive weenies who wait until I'm gone to complain. I rarely smoke tobacco these days though, maybe the smoke haters got more militant.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
I'm sure people will be falling over themselves to support loving with a large source of high-quality water (and electricity) during the worst drought ever recorded in CA. And they'll be extra happy to support it when it costs a shitload of money to do. Yep.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:You maniacs haven't earned that privilege. My girlfriend and I visited our friends in SF not too long ago on a weekend when the bridge was closed for maintenance, so the BART was running until 2 or 3 AM. We left the bar to go home and it was like the scene in loving Batman Begins where the League of Shadows gassed the Narrows. The subway platform was packed, shoulder to shoulder. I am glad you enjoyed your time in SF, good sir  It appears you observed the honorable local pastime of making GBS threads/pissing/loving/fighting/being crazy on public transportation. Perhaps next time you'll be lucky enough to have someone steal your teeth!
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
That girl has some skill. But don't forget classy behavior like this: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/shooting-on-muni-train-in-bayview-injures-one/Content?oid=2928078 And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTeaEL5xSII Also, I wasn't joking when I mentioned getting your teeth stolen: http://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Muni-rider-Tooth-bandit-followed-her-off-bus-3208454.php 
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Eh. San Fran sounds OK. It's "Frisco" that makes people sound like retards. This isn't the 1850s. Except it's actually San Fran that's retarded. Plenty of SF natives call it Frisco, but they're mostly working class, hip-hop fans, gangbangers, drug dealers, or Hells Angels. So "Frisco" tends to get hated on by people who aren't those things. There are natives who constantly say San Fran too, and those people are bad. SlimGoodbody posted:The fact that no one seems to be in any way disturbed, or even surprised, by my recollections of Hell Night chills me to the bone. I officially want to know what each of you considers the worst thing you've seen go down in the city. I've seen things mannnnnnnnn. I've lived in SF my whole life, so it's kind of hard to pick one crazy/gross/bad thing. So here's a bunch of stuff, for your reading pleasure: Bloody fights (half of them on Muni), a car chase, street-making GBS threads, bus stop crack smoking, a gay sidewalk blowjob, non-gay back alley loving...A naked dude with a raging boner and a cockring, who was letting people fondle his balls and take pics. More naked dudes, just chilling on the street (and they're all ugly or old of course). A crazy homeless guy who really needed to show me his gaping neck wound. A spherical fat man on the bus, who was covered in open sores. A guy who looked like he had just been hit in the head with a brick and had a large of chunk of his forehead flesh missing. A drunk homeless dude who fell down some stairs, broke his head open and died. Multiple crazy dudes brandishing large knives at no one in particular. A drunk driver who lost control going down a hill with a 90 degree turn onto a split-level street at the bottom, who bailed out right before his truck rammed through the guard rail and smashed into the lower level. Too many horrific crusty rear end/genital smells as well, and I once saw a lady in her death throes after she got hit by a bus. I've also heard gunfire several times, and knew a few people who were shot and killed, but have never seen it happen, thankfully. Unfortunately, people fighting or a dude getting butt-fingered in pissmud is not very surprising to me. That doesn't mean your BART hell night doesn't sound hosed up though...especially the rapey dudes. That's a lot of bullshit to endure in a short amount of time. Rah! fucked around with this message at 09:26 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
Yeah it's kind of misleading measuring by the county level, because SF is the only city-county in CA. But when you measure by city limits, SF still has the third highest violent crime rate of medium/large CA cities (population of 250,000+): Total reported violent crime rate per 100,000 residents, in 2013: Oakland - 1,976.8 Stockton - 1,208.2 San Francisco - 847.1 Sacramento - 656.0 Bakersfield - 513.2 Fresno - 501.5 Long Beach - 499.5 Los Angeles - 426.0 Riverside - 420.3 San Diego - 393.0 Santa Ana - 336.8 Anaheim - 327.2 San Jose - 324.0 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...y_city_2013.xls Despite being third overall though, SF has the second highest robbery rate in CA, after Oakland. SF also doesn't report aggravated assaults correctly (they've been re-categorizing all aggravated assaults related to domestic violence, so that they're absent from the year-end reports), so the real violent crime total is probably more in the range of 900-1000 incidents per 100k residents. I'm sure many other cities do stats-fixing too, but I know for sure that for a long time the SFPD was (and apparently still is) doing it. Trabisnikof posted:So what exactly makes Sunset and Ocean Beach qualify as urban and not suburban? Because it's more densely populated than 95% of everything else that's called "urban" in America (going by census tract, we're talking anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 people per square mile in the sunset district), is covered in wall-to-wall unbroken development and concrete, has decent public transit that is really good by suburban standards, and it's within SF city-proper? Rah! fucked around with this message at 00:36 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Absolutely nothing. We need to get a bart line out there and get them some of that culture quick. Nope, never lived in the Tenderloin....it's not like you have to be there to see some pissmuddin', though it is a great place for it. I live in the outer sunset district now, have also lived in the Inner Sunset, and grew up in Noe Valley, The Castro, and the Mission District, before they were overrun with rich yuppies and hipsters (though the mission is still pretty rough and working class east of Valencia...for now). Of course I've also been all over the city too, including some really hosed up areas, and I've been riding Muni regularly for 20 years, which has contributed a lot of gross/shady incidents to my life. And yeah we need more BART. Like, everywhere. Rah! fucked around with this message at 00:37 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
nm posted:edit: San Francisco proper isn't quite fair as a comparison because they draw so many people who do not live there, including criminals. So does every central city in any metropolitan area. Suburbs attract commuter criminals too. Rah! fucked around with this message at 05:21 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
nm posted:True, but I would venture that San Francisco draws far more people per resident than places like LA. SF does draw more people, but doubt it spikes the crime rate so much that we should treat SF as a special case when comparing it to other cities. I would bet that if you put all big CA cities (city-limits only, not metros) in a vacuum, SF would still be near the top for violent crime. The vast majority of the people who come into any city during the day are normal people going to a normal job, not commuter criminals. Here's the daytime population change for a bunch of US cities, as of 2010: http://www.sccommunityprofiles.org/census/daylead.php Sacramento grows the most as a percentage for big CA cities, with SF close behind, while SF grows the most in raw numbers, followed by SD and then LA (and SJ is the only big city to lose people to suburban job centers during the day, instead of gaining population). And there are more cities around the US that draw more people per resident than SF does. The idea that SF's crime is largely the fault of "outsiders" is just something I've heard a lot throughout my life, usually from people with little to no experience with SF's bad side (and they usually blame SF's crime on Oakland, or just "the east bay", unsurprisingly). I grew up with a decent amount of exposure to the hosed criminal side of SF (friends who were surenos/nortenos, drug dealers...and all that poo poo i posted about on the last page, among other things), and I'm pretty sure most of SF's crime is committed by SF residents. I've never found any stats on the topic, but I do remember a news article from several years ago, about a weeks-long drug bust operation in the Tenderloin and Mission districts, which are almost certainly the neighborhoods in SF that see the most commuter criminals, because they're on BART lines, have gang presence from statewide/national gangs like the Nortenos/Surenos/MS-13 (so you might have some members from say Richmond or something showing up to hangout in the old hood if they used to live in SF, or if they have family/friends in SF), and they have lots of poor residents, which equals a big drug market. I know lots of Oakland dealers like to hit up the Tenderloin (not that they outnumber the SF dealers), and SF dealers/criminals go to Oakland too, and elsewhere in the bay. Anyways, of the 100+ arrested drug dealers in that operation, 69% were SF residents....so i'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that for SF as whole, the number of criminals who are SF residents is also going to be at least at 70%, if not higher. And on a related note: for metropolitan areas with over 1 million people, the SF-Oakland-Fremont MSA has the highest violent crime rate in CA (incidents per 100k residents, 2011): San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA - 508.3 Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA - 420.2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA - 405.4 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA - 354.9 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA - 351.5 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA - 256.1 If you go below 1 million people, Stockton and Fresno take the number 1 and 2 spots. Stockton by far, too. That city has problems. Crime chat is serious business  Shbobdb posted:LA is just more spread out. That's part of the reason why I live in Oakland. There are places for the crazy to go. SF is pretty geographically constrained so where else are you gonna poop? That's a good point about density too, which can definitely skew perception of how much crime there is one way or another. Rah! fucked around with this message at 09:43 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:And don't bring up BART, because it was built underneath a Market Street Subway corridor that had existed for decades prior. This is an all new tunnel. What? The market street subway for both Muni and BART was built at the same time. The upper Muni tunnel was originally intended to be for BART trains too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway#1970s_and_.2780s:_Construction_and_reorganization Craptacular! posted:The old CGI transit terminal concept video showing CalTrain and the HSR train (that's never going to happen) arriving downtown caused me to bust out laughing, and I always figured it would be eventually scrapped. Mind boggling that after five years they're still considering the idea of moving very heavy freight style trains under downtown San Francisco. CalTrain is getting electrified soon, so they're getting rid of the diesel locomotives. The tunnel to the transbay terminal won't happen until that happens (and until the feds give the city billions of dollars). As for HSR never happening...you are aware that they've already started construction, right? Rah! fucked around with this message at 02:41 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:The skepticism is about the difference between "A high speed rail line will terminate in San Francisco" and "funds originally slated for 'high-speed rail' will be used to build some sort of railroad somewhere in California." OK...but they've started construction on HSR. Not on "some sort of railroad somewhere in California." The project could end up dying somehow, but as of now it's happening. Slowly of course 
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Can someone please explain Foster City to me? San Mateo Jr.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Ok, all the boats/water access in foster city are freaking me out. I've flown into SF at least 40 times, but this is the first time I've ever flown in seeing Foster City? and all those snakey weird inlets, water and houses that have bay access? It seriously spooked me out... I guess it was just a weird happenstance of sitting on the right side of the plane at the right time on a window seat... The weird thing about those snakey inlets is they don't have any bay access for boats, even though the bay is right there...so if you live there, you can have a dock in your backyard with a boat (like many people do), but you can only go boating in the man made inlets that run behind everyone's houses. Seems like a waste of a boat to keep it there.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:So what you are saying is that 80% of 50% is the same thing as 80% of 100%? It's 80% of water meant for human use, that is used by agriculture. Not 80% of literally all the water in CA.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Rare Indian Burial Ground Quietly Destroyed for Million Dollar Houses Now they get to reenact Poltergeist.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Fun fact: Emeryville Ikea is built on a burial ground too. So that's why my bookshelf is huanted. Thanks Ikea
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
It's been abnormally hot and humid in the bay area too. There was also a small thunderstorm over Daly city/the southern edge of SF, but nowhere else...we need more storm, and less heat. Like most people in not-the-south-bay/outer east bay, my place doesn't have air conditioning
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:What about the South Bay of California's second-largest city, San Diego? It's not really CA's second largest city unless you're measuring things by city-limits, which are pretty arbitrary. The second largest city (metropolitan area) in CA is SF/the Bay Area.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
Finally 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 03:39
|
|
