5 ms·

This really isn't rocket science or difficult. Everyone thinks this is a hard-complex problem, it is not. This is a hard simple problem. (easy-hard; simple-comp

This really isn't rocket science or difficult. Everyone thinks this is a hard-complex problem, it is not. This is a hard simple problem. (easy-hard; simple-complex) 1. Upzone SOMA district to 12 stories. 2. Remove requirement that buildings over 50yrs old in SOMA need to pass the historic building committee.

jamespitts 10y ago
It is true, we simply do need more units. And any way can seem like the way to go. But aren't these suggestions a bit like in the late 90s when you would just add more beefy servers to a really slow web site? Even if these ideas would add the required 100,000 units to the market, how do you deal with the politics of making these two changes happen? The housing shortage / underbuilding crisis is actually a wicked problem. Before throwing solutions onto the wall, we should understand its beastly nature better.
- guimarin 10y ago
  The difference is that servers don't self organize, they are static. People on the other hand make things happen. Relatively few small changes have outsized impacts because our current status quo is so optimized for the existing ruleset.
Johnny555 10y ago
Simple solutions are never simple in real life. SF has a complicated review process that basically lets neighbors hold up permit approval indefinitely with appeals. Whether good or bad, it's there. Shadow laws are also in place and would need to be changed. Changing a low to mid density neighborhood into a high density 12 story building neighborhood means a lot more than just removing height limits. Sufficient parks and retail/commercial space need to exist to ensure good quality of life, no one wants to live in a neighborhood full of condos & apartments and little else. Likewise, there needs to be sufficient transit, SF Muni is already bursting at the seams, add a high density neighborhood without adding transit, and no one will be able to get out of the neighborhood. Building high density housing is important but it's a lot harder than just removing a height limit.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  Right. That's why the vote needs to be gotten out: If the rules are a problem, you need to change the rules. We live in a democracy, and there's a process for that. Get people on the council who want to change the rules and the rules will change.
  - Johnny555 10y ago
    But that assumes that the residents that are voting for the board of supervisors are the ones that want to change the system.
    - sdenton4 10y ago
      Not all, just a plurality! And getting out the vote is exactly how you do that.
  - entee 10y ago
    Absolutely. If everyone voted, there would be far more incentive to please the most number of people, not just the most invested in the status quo, or some other ideological view.

jamespitts 10y ago

It is true, we simply do need more units. And any way can seem like the way to go. But aren't these suggestions a bit like in the late 90s when you would just add more beefy servers to a really slow web site? Even if these ideas would add the required 100,000 units to the market, how do you deal with the politics of making these two changes happen? The housing shortage / underbuilding crisis is actually a wicked problem. Before throwing solutions onto the wall, we should understand its beastly nature better.

guimarin 10y ago
The difference is that servers don't self organize, they are static. People on the other hand make things happen. Relatively few small changes have outsized impacts because our current status quo is so optimized for the existing ruleset.

Johnny555 10y ago

Simple solutions are never simple in real life. SF has a complicated review process that basically lets neighbors hold up permit approval indefinitely with appeals. Whether good or bad, it's there. Shadow laws are also in place and would need to be changed. Changing a low to mid density neighborhood into a high density 12 story building neighborhood means a lot more than just removing height limits. Sufficient parks and retail/commercial space need to exist to ensure good quality of life, no one wants to live in a neighborhood full of condos & apartments and little else. Likewise, there needs to be sufficient transit, SF Muni is already bursting at the seams, add a high density neighborhood without adding transit, and no one will be able to get out of the neighborhood. Building high density housing is important but it's a lot harder than just removing a height limit.

sdenton4 10y ago
Right. That's why the vote needs to be gotten out: If the rules are a problem, you need to change the rules. We live in a democracy, and there's a process for that. Get people on the council who want to change the rules and the rules will change.
- Johnny555 10y ago
  But that assumes that the residents that are voting for the board of supervisors are the ones that want to change the system.
  - sdenton4 10y ago
    Not all, just a plurality! And getting out the vote is exactly how you do that.
- entee 10y ago
  Absolutely. If everyone voted, there would be far more incentive to please the most number of people, not just the most invested in the status quo, or some other ideological view.