4 ms·

I live in SF and the problem with housing here is that although the residential neighborhoods are very extended (think of the Richmond), most of the residential

by fosk 11y ago

I live in SF and the problem with housing here is that although the residential neighborhoods are very extended (think of the Richmond), most of the residential buildings are 2/3 story houses that cannot accomodate many people. We need to start replacing these little residential houses with 10 story buildings. There is nowhere else to build, we need to start upgrading the existing buildings. Will that change the city? Well yes, but cities evolve and some of the houses built after the earthquake are anachronistic and of out place in this time.

martinshen 11y ago
This is one of many problems that disincentivizes construction projects. To build a new condo in San Francisco is rarely profitable: 1) Unlike other cities, when your building plan fits all criteria, it is not effectively automatically approved. To get your permit, you must comply AND be very lucky. In other cities, you generally must ONLY comply. 2) Once your building has been approved, small community groups may oppose it and the government will reject you if you do not. 3) A substantial percentage of your building must be sold at a loss for affordable housing. Development projects here are effectively the highest risk and highest cost. On top of this, most buildings can only be 4 or 5 stories tall. Of course, the only way to stay afloat is to build luxury overpriced condos. The question is how do you overcome the rich and entrenched voters who effectively control these policy.
- fosk 11y ago
  > The question is how do you overcome the rich and entrenched voters who effectively control these policy. I can't talk for every category, but the tech industry as a whole would be more than happy to promote these initiatives, because cheaper rents mean cheaper salaries for their employees.
aetherson 11y ago
While I do support infill development, San Francisco is already a dense city (the second-densest city in the US after New York City, unless you count much smaller municipalities), and the idea that everyone must, must, must be given the opportunity to live in San Francisco proper is naïve, as is the idea that any but a tiny minority of the homeless in the city would ever be able to afford any kind of market-rate housing even with a wholesale program of infill development. You say "there is nowhere else to build." Sure there is. There is Daly City and Colma and Millbrae and so forth down to San Jose and out into the east bay and even the north bay. Not everyone is going to live in the 49 square miles of SF, even if it becomes considerably more dense. Now, we should also build higher-density housing in SF. But that's not going to change the homelessness situation in any meaningful way.
- fosk 11y ago
  > There is Daly City and Colma and Millbrae and so forth down to San Jose Sure, but then the city better start spending some billions to improve the infrastructure and public transportation: BART is a joke by modern standards, slow and dirty; the Caltrain is even worse with its diesel-powered locomotives like it's 1899.
  - jkyle 11y ago
    > Sure, but then the city better start spending some billions to improve the infrastructure and public transportation Now you're onto the crux of the issue. People, generally, don't want to commute more than 30m each way. The further away you get from that time frame, the more people "drop out" or start sacrificing in other areas (e.g. housing). Having reliable passive transit such as trains or subways extends this time window some. Build a bullet train that gets you from Modesto (random town 90 miles away) to S.F. in 30m and watch how many families are perfectly willing to buy a 4 bedroom house for 350k and commute every day. Not to mention all the towns in between. edit The LA -> SF bullet train's a good start if it lives up to the hype.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  While san francisco maybe dense, one thing I've noticed is that people live very small here. It may just be my social circle, granted anecdotal, but I seem to see tight living situations here. A quick search didnt turn up data about over crowding conditions, consider things like People per room, People per sq ft. Nearl everyone I know has housemates, may have roommates (literally same room). Compared to what I've seen elsewhere San francisco is a very compact city and people are making great sacrifices in order to make rent affordable on a per person basis.
exolymph 11y ago
I'm not sure whether shameless self-promotion is frowned upon here, but I wrote a manifesto on this topic: http://www.tradeoffs.press/product/user-friendly-urbanism-against-preservation-for-its-own-sake http://www.tradeoffs.press/product/user-friendly-urbanism-ag...

by fosk 11y ago

martinshen 11y ago

This is one of many problems that disincentivizes construction projects. To build a new condo in San Francisco is rarely profitable: 1) Unlike other cities, when your building plan fits all criteria, it is not effectively automatically approved. To get your permit, you must comply AND be very lucky. In other cities, you generally must ONLY comply. 2) Once your building has been approved, small community groups may oppose it and the government will reject you if you do not. 3) A substantial percentage of your building must be sold at a loss for affordable housing. Development projects here are effectively the highest risk and highest cost. On top of this, most buildings can only be 4 or 5 stories tall. Of course, the only way to stay afloat is to build luxury overpriced condos. The question is how do you overcome the rich and entrenched voters who effectively control these policy.

fosk 11y ago
> The question is how do you overcome the rich and entrenched voters who effectively control these policy. I can't talk for every category, but the tech industry as a whole would be more than happy to promote these initiatives, because cheaper rents mean cheaper salaries for their employees.

aetherson 11y ago

While I do support infill development, San Francisco is already a dense city (the second-densest city in the US after New York City, unless you count much smaller municipalities), and the idea that everyone must, must, must be given the opportunity to live in San Francisco proper is naïve, as is the idea that any but a tiny minority of the homeless in the city would ever be able to afford any kind of market-rate housing even with a wholesale program of infill development. You say "there is nowhere else to build." Sure there is. There is Daly City and Colma and Millbrae and so forth down to San Jose and out into the east bay and even the north bay. Not everyone is going to live in the 49 square miles of SF, even if it becomes considerably more dense. Now, we should also build higher-density housing in SF. But that's not going to change the homelessness situation in any meaningful way.

fosk 11y ago
> There is Daly City and Colma and Millbrae and so forth down to San Jose Sure, but then the city better start spending some billions to improve the infrastructure and public transportation: BART is a joke by modern standards, slow and dirty; the Caltrain is even worse with its diesel-powered locomotives like it's 1899.
- jkyle 11y ago
  > Sure, but then the city better start spending some billions to improve the infrastructure and public transportation Now you're onto the crux of the issue. People, generally, don't want to commute more than 30m each way. The further away you get from that time frame, the more people "drop out" or start sacrificing in other areas (e.g. housing). Having reliable passive transit such as trains or subways extends this time window some. Build a bullet train that gets you from Modesto (random town 90 miles away) to S.F. in 30m and watch how many families are perfectly willing to buy a 4 bedroom house for 350k and commute every day. Not to mention all the towns in between. edit The LA -> SF bullet train's a good start if it lives up to the hype.
maerF0x0 11y ago
While san francisco maybe dense, one thing I've noticed is that people live very small here. It may just be my social circle, granted anecdotal, but I seem to see tight living situations here. A quick search didnt turn up data about over crowding conditions, consider things like People per room, People per sq ft. Nearl everyone I know has housemates, may have roommates (literally same room). Compared to what I've seen elsewhere San francisco is a very compact city and people are making great sacrifices in order to make rent affordable on a per person basis.

exolymph 11y ago

I'm not sure whether shameless self-promotion is frowned upon here, but I wrote a manifesto on this topic: http://www.tradeoffs.press/product/user-friendly-urbanism-against-preservation-for-its-own-sake http://www.tradeoffs.press/product/user-friendly-urbanism-ag...