For $700 a Month, Sleeping Pods Make SF More Affordable(kqed.org)
kqed.org
For $700 a Month, Sleeping Pods Make SF More Affordable
https://www.kqed.org/news/12080289/700-a-month-sleeping-pods-make-sf-more-affordable-but-at-what-cost
29 comments
They say sleeping pods, I say those photos look like any backpackers hostel the world over only with a curtain around the bed. Only difference is anyone in a backpackers hostel knows it's temporary cheap accommodation and doesn't try to glorify it making it in to something it's not.
I rent in my country (first world) for 1000ish. I get a 60 sqmt home with garden And two rooms.
It saddens me that the usa startup culture gave us this.
It's more NIMBY culture that's doing it
non american here with a stupid question: why doesnt san fransisco build vertically? like 50 storey buildings
There are some 50 story buildings. But cost increases pretty dramatically. Especially when you build on fill and mess up the foundation work [1]. There's a fairly consistent stream of tall buildings built over the years, not all of them are 50+ floors though [2]. There's gaps in building during economic distress, as you would expect.
Because of the expense, high rises are either offices or luxury homes. It doesn't make sense to build a 50 story flop house. Zoning also pushes you to build high rises in the neighborhood of other high rises, and land is expensive there. All in all, better to build a 6-12 story midrise flophouse in a cheaper part of town.
Also, from looking at the street view, and what a listing site said, it's pretty clear this particular 2 story building is pretty old (1919), and the neighboring buildings have been built up, but this one held out. Chances are, one day, a new, larger building will replace or subsume it. That's the circle of life, as happened to its neighbors.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Tower_(San_Francisc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_S...
Because of the expense, high rises are either offices or luxury homes. It doesn't make sense to build a 50 story flop house. Zoning also pushes you to build high rises in the neighborhood of other high rises, and land is expensive there. All in all, better to build a 6-12 story midrise flophouse in a cheaper part of town.
Also, from looking at the street view, and what a listing site said, it's pretty clear this particular 2 story building is pretty old (1919), and the neighboring buildings have been built up, but this one held out. Chances are, one day, a new, larger building will replace or subsume it. That's the circle of life, as happened to its neighbors.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Tower_(San_Francisc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_S...
I'm not sure about the cost. A lot of Mumbai's middle class housing is 30-40 floor towers. These are flats that sell for well under 200k, most under 100k. Labor cost is lower in India, but most material and equipment costs are not.
Another cost difference that you're not accounting for is building code. It would be entirely unacceptable for an SF skyscraper to fall down in a 7.9 magnitude earthquake. Likewise, fire safety is a huge factor in the US, and especially in California. Safe evacuation routes for people get more and more difficult to provide when the number of stories climbs higher, too.
The reveal that the pods building is only 2 stories is pretty funny to me. 12 Mint Plaza btw for anyone who wants to poke around the area in street-view. It's right next to an 8 story apartment building, across the block from what must be a 20+ one, so it's not like tall buildings are infeasible there.
Some folks have actively fought against the "Manhattan-ification" of SF for many years. So much so they have a name for them "NIMBY" standing for not in my backyard. Now there are YIMBY folks too. It's a whole thing.
Because we mustn't disturb the unique character of the box-like 2-storey homes stretching off into the Sunset district (and served by 2 different light rail lines, no less).
Because that might harm retirement accounts of the rich.
Because while generations have passed since 1906, building codes have not forgot the fate of most of San Francisco's buildings, and the fault lines that most all Californians deal with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault
Earthquakes. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1868calif/vir....
There's even a movie starring the Rock about it. (San Andreas)
There's even a movie starring the Rock about it. (San Andreas)
SF has tall buildings downtown, so that can't be it. A better question is, why are they only downtown and not so much west of there.
It's possible, just expensive. Just like everything else about SF.
how come japan has crazy tall buildings despite getting an earthquake few times every year?
Reminds me of the PGs in Bengaluru, but way worse since there aren't sound dampening walls.
How is this (or not) a suitable thang for the homeless folks ?
Someone remind me: which work of dystopian science fiction are we living in this week, again?
I don't think NIMBY capture and restrictive zoning regulations are popular distopian SciFi tropes.
The one where soylent emerges before massive overpopulation and lack of food and housing. Who knew we wanted it?
Definitely of cyberpunk genre.
Bladerunner is our future.
[deleted]
You forgot a word in your headline.
“For $700 a Month, Sleeping Pods make SF more affordable, dystopian”