4 ms·

Given that the supply of land cannot be increased (the huge omission in GP's argument), repealing Prop 13 is indeed a large part of the solution.

• davidw 10y ago
  Thanks to technology, the supply of land is not really the constraint on housing supply in most of San Francisco, and especially not in most of the Bay Area.
  • muzz 10y ago
    What technology are you referring to?
    • davidw 10y ago
      At the extreme, these things can hold a lot of people without too much land: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper But you don't really need those in most places. Simply building 'in' more and up 2/3/4 stories would add a ton of housing in much of the bay area.
      • muzz 10y ago
        Those are very expensive to build, approaching $1000/sqft. Also require utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police, fire, etc).
        • davidw 10y ago
          Prices are high enough in San Francisco to pay for them. 2/3/4/5/6 stories are significantly cheaper to build.
        • Touche 10y ago
          There isn't a cheap way out of SF's situation. > Also require utilities, transit, and other city services (schools, police, fire, etc). High rises don't require those things. People require those things.
          • dragonwriter 10y ago
            For some of them, the requirements (for the same number of people and the same overall outcomes) increase with density, so, in a sense, high-rises (or other arrangements which increase density) do require them.
            • Touche 10y ago
              I didn't state my point well enough; people are the driving factor here. The density is caused by people wanting to move to SF. High rises are a way to deal with the reality, not providing housing isn't going to solve the problem in any way people are going to be happy with.
              • dragonwriter 10y ago
                > The density is caused by people wanting to move to SF. High rises are a way to deal with the reality, not providing housing isn't going to solve the problem in any way people are going to be happy with. Quite likely, just as many (if not more, in both absolute and proportional terms) people in SF will be unhappy with adoption of high-rises as the solution; the lack of availability under the current regime constrains some of the problems because it limits the ability of people to move in regardless of their desire to do so; relieving that constraint -- especially if the problems besides finding places to store the bodies aren't addressed -- just makes all the other problems of density worse.
        • ericd 10y ago
          It's about as expensive to live here as it is in many skyscrapers in Manhattan. NYC seems to have those other problems pretty well figured out. I've never heard a very convincing reason that SF can't be more like Manhattan in terms of density, except that the existing residents who've "got theirs" don't like the idea.
      • dragonwriter 10y ago
        > At the extreme, these things can hold a lot of people without too much land: They can hold a lot of people without too much land, but they don't reduce the land requirements for transporting goods and supplies to and waste products away from those people. Sure, you can hold a lot more people in San Francisco if you fill the city with high-rises, but that's not going to, e.g., suddenly give the city a greater supply of water to support that population, or a greater ability to handle the solid waste produced by that population.
        • davidw 10y ago
          Cities are greener than suburbs by and large, so actually putting more people in cities that otherwise would have lived in a burb is a win for the environment.
          • cweiss 10y ago
            Is that true when you factor in utilities? IE - Where does all the water come from? At least in the burbs, you can set up your own well.
            • davidw 10y ago
              Yes, it is, especially when you consider utilities. Average house in the burbs has some lawn or shrubs or something that uses water, and it's not like well water is ultimately 'free' - it comes from somewhere. Also, it means less land developed, less extensive electrical and water distribution systems, and so on.
              • nitrogen 10y ago
                What makes cost of living so much more expensive in cities vs. suburban or rural areas if they're really so much more efficient?
                • devdas 10y ago
                  Demand.
      • bashinator 10y ago
        They also do best in areas where there is a large amount of bedrock close to the surface. NYC is geologically blessed in this regard. The Bay Area has far less geologically stable ground to build on, and a lot of what there is makes up our gorgeous parks and nature preserves.
        • xxpor 10y ago
          Chicago seems to do ok. I don't know what the ground is like in SF, but Chicago is basically a swamp.
        • davidw 10y ago
          There is ample room to build in San Francisco - not much construction even needs to be skyscrapers. More 4/5/6 story construction would help a lot. The problem is entirely political.
    • Touche 10y ago
      Presumably building high-rise apartments.
• dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Given that the supply of land cannot be increased Supply of land can be increased, but its expensive (and, for geological and hydrological reasons, particularly so in the SFBA.)