fflint |
May 15, 2013 9:01 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbanite
(Post 6129049)
Off-topic, but how firm are the boundaries around San Francisco? For example on Google Maps, I see an area labeled as a "regional wilderness." Are titles like that just a formality? Or do they actually limit development?
|
Bay Area greenbelts are off limits to development, into perpetuity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
(Post 6129158)
There's the answer I was looking for. So if you have $250,000, what type of housing is available in San Francisco?
|
An apartment. Roughly 66% of San Franciscans rent, and it's been that way for the better part of the city's history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
(Post 6129165)
But is there detached housing available in San Francisco for $250,000 for people like teachers and people in retail?
|
Detached? Only 17% of San Francisco housing units are detached.
Local teachers and retail workers most likely rent like everyone else, probably outside city limits. If they own, they own far outside the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok
(Post 6129219)
How would amalgamation help?:???:
|
Extra land upon which to build at high densities and the attendant increase in population? SF has been built-out since WWII, and has zoning laws allowing much higher densities than any other Bay Area city generally allows. Apply SF zoning to Oakland, for example, and the town could easily double in population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
(Post 6129226)
So if you have an average paying job, home ownership isn't an option in San Francisco?
|
Correct. Hell, if you have a relatively good-paying job home ownership isn't really an option, and hasn't been for decades. I find your questions oddly naive--did you really expect me to tell you a retail worker can afford to buy a detached house in the city of San Francisco for $250,000?
|