3 ms·

I'm thinking the same thing. Is it physical limitations of building (such as earthquake proofing) that makes it difficult? Or is it the suffocating amount of bu

I'm thinking the same thing. Is it physical limitations of building (such as earthquake proofing) that makes it difficult? Or is it the suffocating amount of bureaucratic red tape imposed by short-sighted interest groups?

nibs 10y ago
Red tape. All red tape. See top comment.
lyqwyd 10y ago
Definitely red tape. I'm doing an expansion on my house in SF. 1 year in already, and at least another year to go before we get permits, if we even wind up getting them. It will probably cost over $10,000 just in planning review / permitting costs when it's all done. That does not include the added time architectural costs of changing the plans as demanded by the various planning departments.
- bane 10y ago
  By way of comparison, out here on the East Coast, I went by my county office on a Friday, talked over what I wanted to do with the clerk, sketched out a basic plan on a blank sheet of paper, paid $75 in fees, taped the permit to my front window and started work on an expansion the next day.
  - lyqwyd 10y ago
    Yes, SF's process is incredibly broken. It's not just that they are too expensive and time consuming (which they are!), it's also that the rules are arbitrary, and there are multiple departments, which often have the exact opposite requirements. Additionally, any approval can be appealed by neighbors for any reason, at very little cost, but then the person applying for the permit will then have to spend thousands more, and potentially years more, to fight the appeal. The uncertainty and lack of clear rules is actually worse than the cost (which is ridiculous). I find it hard to imagine a more dysfunctional planning process.
eru 10y ago
> Is it physical limitations of building (such as earthquake proofing) that makes it difficult? Can't be worse than in Japan. They manage to build plenty. So, definitely red tape.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  Yup if Tokyo can build safely skyscrapers on landfills (look at the Ariake area in the Tokyo bay -- an area that is friendly for young families btw), then there is no structural reason why SF can't.

nibs 10y ago

Red tape. All red tape. See top comment.

lyqwyd 10y ago

Definitely red tape. I'm doing an expansion on my house in SF. 1 year in already, and at least another year to go before we get permits, if we even wind up getting them. It will probably cost over $10,000 just in planning review / permitting costs when it's all done. That does not include the added time architectural costs of changing the plans as demanded by the various planning departments.

bane 10y ago
By way of comparison, out here on the East Coast, I went by my county office on a Friday, talked over what I wanted to do with the clerk, sketched out a basic plan on a blank sheet of paper, paid $75 in fees, taped the permit to my front window and started work on an expansion the next day.
- lyqwyd 10y ago
  Yes, SF's process is incredibly broken. It's not just that they are too expensive and time consuming (which they are!), it's also that the rules are arbitrary, and there are multiple departments, which often have the exact opposite requirements. Additionally, any approval can be appealed by neighbors for any reason, at very little cost, but then the person applying for the permit will then have to spend thousands more, and potentially years more, to fight the appeal. The uncertainty and lack of clear rules is actually worse than the cost (which is ridiculous). I find it hard to imagine a more dysfunctional planning process.

eru 10y ago

> Is it physical limitations of building (such as earthquake proofing) that makes it difficult? Can't be worse than in Japan. They manage to build plenty. So, definitely red tape.

hkmurakami 10y ago
Yup if Tokyo can build safely skyscrapers on landfills (look at the Ariake area in the Tokyo bay -- an area that is friendly for young families btw), then there is no structural reason why SF can't.