3 ms·
The fact there are height limits in the first place are part of the problem. Height limits should be removed, and height minimums should be put in place. SF is
by mahyarm 11y ago
The fact there are height limits in the first place are part of the problem. Height limits should be removed, and height minimums should be put in place.
SF is giving pathetic 2 floor height limit increases in exchange for a larger amount of BMR units when new development should be multifamily only development with a minimum of 10 floors.
- ceras 11y agoI agree the height restrictions should be more generous, but we shouldn't go to the other extreme. A minimum isn't necessary: property developers will build as much as they think will turn any profit whatsoever. You don't need to force them to try to make money -- just get out of there way! There's also a downside to minimums: 10-story buildings aren't very cheap to build (unlike 5-story buildings), causing problems if you want new housing stock to target the poor and working class. This makes it challenging to build on the urban fringe where 3-story buildings should be replacing single family homes. 10-story buildings have no business out there, unless maybe you're building next to a transit hub. You can try to define the "core" part of the city that needs 10-story buildings, but this is more micromanaging than you need to be, and the law will need to keep up with a changing urban landscape. As we've seen in SF and many other US cities, that's a tall order.