4 ms·

SF has a law (1986's Prop M) that restricts the supply of new office space: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-law-blocks-tech-boom-expansion-5652707.php

by raldi 11y ago

SF has a law (1986's Prop M) that restricts the supply of new office space: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-law-blocks-tech-boom-expansion-5652707.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-law-blocks-tech-bo... One saving grace of the law is that in years when nobody wants to build, the city "banks" the excess for years when construction is over the limit. But we've just about exhausted those savings, and are now hitting the cap. The developers and the owners of existing office space know that the carryover is about to run dry, and that the cap is going to be in full effect every year for many years to come, and are pricing their long-term leases accordingly. And companies, knowing the same thing, are signing them. Did you hear that the Sierra Club is going to have to leave the San Francisco headquarters they've occupied since the 1800s, because the rent is now too high for them to afford? (http://www.sfexaminer.com/sierra-club-moving-headquarters-from-sf-to-oakland-due-to-rising-rents/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/sierra-club-moving-headquarters-fr...) The irony is that those rising rents are due in no small part to their acting against their stated mission when it comes to allowing tall buildings in this city. They'd rather sprawl people out into the suburbs and beyond, where they'll bulldoze swaths of nature to build their buildings, and the people living and working there will have much larger carbon footprints.

alsetmusic 11y ago
> The irony is that those rising rents are due in no small part due to their acting against their stated mission when it comes to allowing tall buildings in this city. They'd rather sprawl people out into the suburbs and beyond, where they'll bulldoze swaths of nature to build their buildings, and the people living and working there will have much larger carbon footprints. Berkeley is especially guilty of this. Last I heard, a few years ago, the building cap was something ridiculously low. I was told six stories was the max by a friend as we carpooled to work from East Bay to South Bay due to the scarcity of attractive rental spaces in SB. Thus, there is major congestion toward and away from SF every day as the population cannot be condensed. Berkeley is the most NIMBY city I've seen. It took me two years to find a high quality space to rent in an attractive part of Oakland and this was about eight years ago. Today, there's no chance I'd give it up as I'm doubtful I could ever get as lucky in the present market. I've concluded that if I opt to spend a year traveling, I'll have to pay rent on my present space while I'm not using it because I don't want to live in a delapidated unit at an even higher rate when I come home.
- raldi 11y ago
  Six stories isn't so bad; that's what they have throughout most of Paris, and it's enough to support vibrant, gloriously walkable neighborhoods with world-class transit and lots of public open space. In SF, the vast majority of the city is zoned for a maximum of four stories, including the parcels surrounding most of its major transit hubs: http://redd.it/3qu9uv http://redd.it/3qu9uv If we added those two extra stories, even just within 1/8th of a mile of transit hubs, it would yield enough housing to make a big dent in everyone's rent. We wouldn't even need any truly tall buildings.
  - kemiller 11y ago
    It's not bad if it's the whole city but good luck re-zoning the low density neighborhoods (or anything at all) in Berkeley. Berkeley politics are best described as leftist conservative. You should have seen the fight over just the downtown plan.
  - nikanj 11y ago
    Compare the streets of Paris with the streets of Berkeley. The former was built before cars were a thing, and the narrow roads with less parking lots make for a greater density.
  - simonebrunozzi 11y ago
    There is a TON of extra (wasted?) space in SF as compared to Paris. Look at a street in Paris; then look at a street in SF: huge lanes, parking, large boardwalks, etc. Even if they had the same limits on stories, it would still be significantly different.
    - raldi 11y ago
      What large boardwalks are you referring to? If you mean sidewalks, they're much wider in Paris. That's why their sidewalk cafes are so much more charming than ours.
      - jacobolus 11y ago
davidw 11y ago
I'm kind of saddened with where the Sierra Club has ended up. I'm very favorable to the idea of defending the environment, but those guys are pretty stodgy in their ways. For instance, their opposition to mountain biking has turned a large and growing number of people away from them and their message, which is sad, as it's a group that has a lot in common. Their opposition to density is even battier.
- codyb 11y ago
  That sounds similar to my experience when exploring the Green party's platform a few years back (maybe 2012). In theory, it'd seem like I'd be on their side with most issues but everything was presented in this unprofessional, amateur hour style that left me wondering about the efficacy of the entire movement. It's almost as if these movements aren't based on a rational perspective, but instead an emotional one, which just happens to overlap in many ways with a rational (from my, let's not destroy the Earth, let's let people be the people they'd like to be, let's invest in our infrastructure, and children, and reduce the inequality view of things) one. This is very anecdotal as I only looked once and who knows they could be more professional now, or their platforms more fully fleshed out. But back when I checked it out, it just sounded like any old person off the street talking about their beliefs. It's not a particularly good look in my opinion.
  - pmorici 11y ago
    "It's almost as if these movements aren't based on a rational perspective, but instead an emotional one" Aren't most politics based on emotional appeals it's the nature of the beast.
    - codyb 11y ago
      Well... yea I guess that's true. Or a bordering on sociopath's rational perspective of themselves over everyone judging by the riches a lot of these guys and gals "success" stories post winning elections. That's why I really appreciate Sander's constant peppering of statistics into every talk he gives. As an engineer, it speaks volumes to me.
rsync 11y ago
"The developers and the owners of existing office space know that the carryover is about to run dry, and that the cap is going to be in full effect every year for many years to come, and are pricing their long-term leases accordingly. And companies, knowing the same thing, are signing them." ... just in time for the inevitable and predictable downturn.
- raldi 11y ago
  ...which will be followed a few years later by an inevitable and predictable recovery which will grow to surpass the highs of the previous boom.
Tempest1981 11y ago
To be livable, a city needs a balance between 3 things: - Business (commercial real estate) - Housing - Transportation (streets, busses, trains, flying cars) The first 2 are easy, since they're very profitable to the city and developers. But taxpayers don't want to pay for transportation, and commuters are willing to tolerate horrible traffic and the resulting poor quality of life. Does San Francisco have a good balance now? What if we doubled business and housing?
- raldi 11y ago
  But in SF, there's a transit-impact fee commercial and residential real estate developers have to pay. Between that, the market-rate property tax they'll be paying, all the taxes the people inside the building will pay, and their transit fares, new construction is great for transit. Unless there are too many new parking spaces, of course.
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  SF has plenty of money for transportation. It's just used very ineffectively.
  - Tempest1981 11y ago
    Citation needed. :-) Is the money used on the wrong things? Or on the right things, but not efficiently? Many public works projects end up over budget and behind schedule, so I guess that should be factored in. Where is the money going, and/or where should it be going? What % of people who work in San Francisco also live there?
    - iiiggglll 11y ago
      San Francisco's budget is vastly less efficient than other comparable US cities: http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-us/Content?oid=2175354 http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-worst-run-big-city-... As for people living vs. working in SF, this comment does an excellent job explaining it, with sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10875936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10875936 tl;dr: The increase in population due to daily workers commuting in from outside is vastly smaller than in NYC.
pkaye 11y ago
I'm surprised that the Sierra Club didn't buy their own offices if they have been there since the 1800s.

by raldi 11y ago

alsetmusic 11y ago

> The irony is that those rising rents are due in no small part due to their acting against their stated mission when it comes to allowing tall buildings in this city. They'd rather sprawl people out into the suburbs and beyond, where they'll bulldoze swaths of nature to build their buildings, and the people living and working there will have much larger carbon footprints. Berkeley is especially guilty of this. Last I heard, a few years ago, the building cap was something ridiculously low. I was told six stories was the max by a friend as we carpooled to work from East Bay to South Bay due to the scarcity of attractive rental spaces in SB. Thus, there is major congestion toward and away from SF every day as the population cannot be condensed. Berkeley is the most NIMBY city I've seen. It took me two years to find a high quality space to rent in an attractive part of Oakland and this was about eight years ago. Today, there's no chance I'd give it up as I'm doubtful I could ever get as lucky in the present market. I've concluded that if I opt to spend a year traveling, I'll have to pay rent on my present space while I'm not using it because I don't want to live in a delapidated unit at an even higher rate when I come home.

raldi 11y ago
Six stories isn't so bad; that's what they have throughout most of Paris, and it's enough to support vibrant, gloriously walkable neighborhoods with world-class transit and lots of public open space. In SF, the vast majority of the city is zoned for a maximum of four stories, including the parcels surrounding most of its major transit hubs: http://redd.it/3qu9uv http://redd.it/3qu9uv If we added those two extra stories, even just within 1/8th of a mile of transit hubs, it would yield enough housing to make a big dent in everyone's rent. We wouldn't even need any truly tall buildings.
- kemiller 11y ago
  It's not bad if it's the whole city but good luck re-zoning the low density neighborhoods (or anything at all) in Berkeley. Berkeley politics are best described as leftist conservative. You should have seen the fight over just the downtown plan.
- nikanj 11y ago
  Compare the streets of Paris with the streets of Berkeley. The former was built before cars were a thing, and the narrow roads with less parking lots make for a greater density.
- simonebrunozzi 11y ago
  There is a TON of extra (wasted?) space in SF as compared to Paris. Look at a street in Paris; then look at a street in SF: huge lanes, parking, large boardwalks, etc. Even if they had the same limits on stories, it would still be significantly different.
  - raldi 11y ago
    What large boardwalks are you referring to? If you mean sidewalks, they're much wider in Paris. That's why their sidewalk cafes are so much more charming than ours.
    - jacobolus 11y ago

davidw 11y ago

I'm kind of saddened with where the Sierra Club has ended up. I'm very favorable to the idea of defending the environment, but those guys are pretty stodgy in their ways. For instance, their opposition to mountain biking has turned a large and growing number of people away from them and their message, which is sad, as it's a group that has a lot in common. Their opposition to density is even battier.

codyb 11y ago
That sounds similar to my experience when exploring the Green party's platform a few years back (maybe 2012). In theory, it'd seem like I'd be on their side with most issues but everything was presented in this unprofessional, amateur hour style that left me wondering about the efficacy of the entire movement. It's almost as if these movements aren't based on a rational perspective, but instead an emotional one, which just happens to overlap in many ways with a rational (from my, let's not destroy the Earth, let's let people be the people they'd like to be, let's invest in our infrastructure, and children, and reduce the inequality view of things) one. This is very anecdotal as I only looked once and who knows they could be more professional now, or their platforms more fully fleshed out. But back when I checked it out, it just sounded like any old person off the street talking about their beliefs. It's not a particularly good look in my opinion.
- pmorici 11y ago
  "It's almost as if these movements aren't based on a rational perspective, but instead an emotional one" Aren't most politics based on emotional appeals it's the nature of the beast.
  - codyb 11y ago
    Well... yea I guess that's true. Or a bordering on sociopath's rational perspective of themselves over everyone judging by the riches a lot of these guys and gals "success" stories post winning elections. That's why I really appreciate Sander's constant peppering of statistics into every talk he gives. As an engineer, it speaks volumes to me.

rsync 11y ago

"The developers and the owners of existing office space know that the carryover is about to run dry, and that the cap is going to be in full effect every year for many years to come, and are pricing their long-term leases accordingly. And companies, knowing the same thing, are signing them." ... just in time for the inevitable and predictable downturn.

raldi 11y ago
...which will be followed a few years later by an inevitable and predictable recovery which will grow to surpass the highs of the previous boom.

Tempest1981 11y ago

To be livable, a city needs a balance between 3 things: - Business (commercial real estate) - Housing - Transportation (streets, busses, trains, flying cars) The first 2 are easy, since they're very profitable to the city and developers. But taxpayers don't want to pay for transportation, and commuters are willing to tolerate horrible traffic and the resulting poor quality of life. Does San Francisco have a good balance now? What if we doubled business and housing?

raldi 11y ago
But in SF, there's a transit-impact fee commercial and residential real estate developers have to pay. Between that, the market-rate property tax they'll be paying, all the taxes the people inside the building will pay, and their transit fares, new construction is great for transit. Unless there are too many new parking spaces, of course.
BurningFrog 11y ago
SF has plenty of money for transportation. It's just used very ineffectively.
- Tempest1981 11y ago
  Citation needed. :-) Is the money used on the wrong things? Or on the right things, but not efficiently? Many public works projects end up over budget and behind schedule, so I guess that should be factored in. Where is the money going, and/or where should it be going? What % of people who work in San Francisco also live there?
  - iiiggglll 11y ago
    San Francisco's budget is vastly less efficient than other comparable US cities: http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-us/Content?oid=2175354 http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-worst-run-big-city-... As for people living vs. working in SF, this comment does an excellent job explaining it, with sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10875936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10875936 tl;dr: The increase in population due to daily workers commuting in from outside is vastly smaller than in NYC.

pkaye 11y ago

I'm surprised that the Sierra Club didn't buy their own offices if they have been there since the 1800s.