11 ms·

Building straight into the sky is easy. You'd be amazed at how earthquake-proof skyscrapers are with modern technology. You want a challenge? Build in a city w

Building straight into the sky is easy. You'd be amazed at how earthquake-proof skyscrapers are with modern technology. You want a challenge? Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property.

snewk 10y ago
i acknowledge that city ordinances can be a huge headache, but consider that trees serve more than just aesthetic purpose. They provide shade, filter particulate matter, and increase air quality for a much larger area than just 'your own property'. This is especially important in the urban core of cities where greenery can be scarce, and mature trees even more so.
- sjf 10y ago
  If you are worried about the environment there are far more effective approaches we could use, like increasing density to reduce transport emissions.
  - r00fus 10y ago
    Yeah, but apparently building out public transport pits you against the petroleum industry (which has held sway in the US over a century). This isn't an either-or, it's a case where special interests have shot down the more efficient approaches, so we're left with what we have.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Consider that you can just girdle the tree to kill it, and then the city will then force you to take it down.
- MBlume 10y ago
  Ok, give everyone a tax break determined by the number of trees on their property.
  - matt_wulfeck 10y ago
    But then you lose control, and that's a lot more valuable than money.
- gdudeman 10y ago
  This is a perfect example of a positive externality. We tend to try to make the producers of negative externalities pay for the problems they create for the rest of us, but we rarely pay the producers of positive externalities for the benefits we all get from them. It's interesting that cities never put their money where their mouths are. If we really valued trees, we, the non-tree owners, would pay people based on the size and benefits of their trees.
- bane 10y ago
  The right way to do it is not by restricting cutting down trees, but by encouraging planting more. I bet a $100/year property tax deduction per tree would have the city absolutely packed full of every kind of tree you can imagine.
  - mcpherrinm 10y ago
    Old, large trees are not easily replaced. A 100 year tree is not the same as 3 or 4 trees that were just planted.
timr 10y ago
"Building straight into the sky is easy." Except, it isn't. Construction costs of taller buildings scale non-linearly with every additional story [1]. Building skyscrapers costs upwards of $300 per square foot, whereas single-family homes cost a fifth or a sixth of that. It's so much cheaper to build low-rises, in fact, that virtually no developers will take on a high-rise project unless the property is so expensive that it can command luxury prices. This is more-or-less true for mid-rise projects as well, though at a lower price point (~$200 per square foot). The conversation about planning and NIMBYs is misguided. As the article concludes, the city is out of land. Any new construction requires buying and knocking down something else, and the choices are all various flavors of "expensive" or "inconvenient". For example, east of Divisadero, the density of SF is actually pretty high: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7907112,-122.424097,3a,75y,49.97h,101.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYg3R-popEOqY7D1nmamSww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7907112,-122.424097,3a,75y,4... But west of Divisadero, there are huge sections of the city that look like a suburb: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7468355,-122.4598049,3a,75y,254.69h,81.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssQVb92JRfHr60VH5_AkY8Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DsQVb92JRfHr60VH5_AkY8Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D316.5%26pitch%3D-3!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7468355,-122.4598049,3a,75y,... ...the problem is, everyone wants to rebuild the dense parts to be skyscrapers (which is very expensive), and transit access to the suburban parts is quite bad. Developers won't build even medium-density projects in western parts of the city, because there's no demand, because there's no transit. Instead, they build higher density in the Mission and SOMA. These buildings will always be expensive, "luxury" units, because at $300+/sq.ft. construction costs the economics don't pencil out otherwise. [1] https://westnorth.com/2014/03/18/between-rocks-and-a-tall-place-two-height-limits-hold-back-affordable-mid-rise-construction-in-dc/ https://westnorth.com/2014/03/18/between-rocks-and-a-tall-pl...
- x0x0 10y ago
  Why is $300/ ft2 construction costs a problem when condos are going for $1k / ft2? Even selling condos for $600 / ft2 would be a major improvement. data: http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/market-trends/ http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/m... then click the wavy graph next to "explore this area" sales price / sqft
martinald 10y ago
It might be 'easy' and 'earthquake-proof', but it sure isn't cheap.
- davidw 10y ago
  No, it's not. But SF's prices could easily make the investment worthwhile.
kafkaesq 10y ago
Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property. That's because you're talking about one of the most beautiful cities in the world (despite the attempts of some people to decry otherwise) and, as expressed through the will of its electorate, intends to stay that way. It's also a city that's keenly aware of ecosystem dynamics and environmental issues generally, and the effect of removing that removing certain kinds of trees (for example, trees of significant age, size, and/or foliage) -- particularly if they're close to the street -- can have on the neighborhood well beyond the tiny confines of your own property. If you want to live in a city that couldn't begin to give a flying F* about trees, or anything else green, for most of its history -- and has the corresponding development footprint and visual character to show for it -- try moving to San Jose.
- Camillo 10y ago
  The west side of the city (the Sunset and the Richmond) has little to recommend in terms of "visual character". It's also poorly connected to the rest of the city and has very poor walkability, save for the N corridor. They could just tear it all up and build mid-rises, if only they had better connections to stimulate demand.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Every city has its underbellies and backsides -- most of them for more unappealing and unsalvageable than SF's. Meanwhile, very few large cities in North America (and I've been to basically all of them) have much to compare with in terms of architecture, character (up until the current boom, anyway) and charm. And in terms of the stunning beauty of its geographic surroundings -- precisely none of them. On balance there's basically no contest.
  - eru 10y ago
    They have enough demand. Zoning (and Nimbys) are bad.
- xfour 10y ago
  So true, San Jose, and the greater Silicon Valley have a huge problem with this. The ongoing fight over Coyote Valley is the flashpoint of the moment but mostly because it's the only open space left.
forrestthewoods 10y ago
It is worth mentioning that building into the sky is expensive. Easy sure. But expensive. Each floor is more expensive than the one below it. I'm not sure what the premium is though. Anyone know? What's the added cost for an apartment building as you go up? Seattle has a lot of 2+4 construction. Where it's 2 floor concrete and 4 floors wood. I believe the limit used to be 2+2 but they raised it. Cheaper construction costs but also cheaper quality. These plastic and cardboard buildings won't be standing in 100 years that's for sure. Or so I'm told.
- steffan 10y ago
  I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. This article talks about housing in Japan depreciating rapidly: http://www.archdaily.com/450212/why-japan-is-crazy-about-housing http://www.archdaily.com/450212/why-japan-is-crazy-about-hou..., a contrast to the U.S., where to some extent, properties gain in value. (Mostly the land value, but to a certain extent the structures as well). I think it's reasonable that a 2+4 building built today last 20-30 years, is depreciated, and then torn down for an even more dense structure at that time. Over 30 years, building heights and technologies should be such that a more productive use of the space can be made. In light of that, it doesn't make sense to spend extra for a “100-year-building.” Not everything needs to be a historic structure. We should recognize that some buildings should be [relatively] transient.
  - forrestthewoods 10y ago
    It's a plausible strategy as long as it's part of the plan. If you're in an environment that that makes construction difficult then cheap may not be the best choice. Seattle still has too many taxes and fees for my liking. I appreciate the desire for below market rate units and and low income housing fees. But it's completely ass backwards. Taxes are disincentives. Don't disincentivize the thing you want more of! Developers are slapped with extra fees if they want to build above a certain height. Complete opposite of what's correct. There should be a fee for not building high enough! Le sigh.
    - OrwellianChild 10y ago
DrScump 10y ago
Boosting housing by building vertically is virtually unlimited. The trickier part is supplying the added people with water, electricity, gas, food, and other supplies without augmenting infrastructure (which is failing left and right as it is) and convincing them to never travel out of or into the city using its already-at-capacity freeways and rail.
- Retric 10y ago
  Impact fees can help solve this @ 40+k per apartment it adds up fast. However, rent controls + property tax limits are the real issue.
- bpchaps 10y ago
  Would available living spaces in downtown areas reduce congestion in some way? I could see it going both ways.
- rtpg 10y ago
  For the last part, having mixed-zone development is essential. Put housing above supermarkets! Offices inside apartment complexes! Make it easy for people to walk around. I think that people don't need convincing not to use their cars... it's more that the space needs to be built in a way to where cars are not necessary.
  - Aeolun 10y ago
    Like Tokyo?
    - bluejellybean 10y ago
      Or for a more American example. Denver has been doing a good job with their new construction over the last few years. While I haven't looked into actual codes, the majority of new buildings I've seen have work/live offices or full-on commercial zoning on floor 1 and dense luxury apartments on 2~20; Denver is also investing quite heavily into public transit, specifically they've been working on a fairly impressive light-rail system. [1] At the end of the day, it's simple density that allows me to live inside the city and bike 15 minutes to work. City life isn't perfect for everyone but it does offer some great benefits if we go dense. [1] http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/se_68 http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/se_68

snewk 10y ago

i acknowledge that city ordinances can be a huge headache, but consider that trees serve more than just aesthetic purpose. They provide shade, filter particulate matter, and increase air quality for a much larger area than just 'your own property'. This is especially important in the urban core of cities where greenery can be scarce, and mature trees even more so.

sjf 10y ago
If you are worried about the environment there are far more effective approaches we could use, like increasing density to reduce transport emissions.
- r00fus 10y ago
  Yeah, but apparently building out public transport pits you against the petroleum industry (which has held sway in the US over a century). This isn't an either-or, it's a case where special interests have shot down the more efficient approaches, so we're left with what we have.
oh_sigh 10y ago
Consider that you can just girdle the tree to kill it, and then the city will then force you to take it down.
MBlume 10y ago
Ok, give everyone a tax break determined by the number of trees on their property.
- matt_wulfeck 10y ago
  But then you lose control, and that's a lot more valuable than money.
gdudeman 10y ago
This is a perfect example of a positive externality. We tend to try to make the producers of negative externalities pay for the problems they create for the rest of us, but we rarely pay the producers of positive externalities for the benefits we all get from them. It's interesting that cities never put their money where their mouths are. If we really valued trees, we, the non-tree owners, would pay people based on the size and benefits of their trees.
bane 10y ago
The right way to do it is not by restricting cutting down trees, but by encouraging planting more. I bet a $100/year property tax deduction per tree would have the city absolutely packed full of every kind of tree you can imagine.
- mcpherrinm 10y ago
  Old, large trees are not easily replaced. A 100 year tree is not the same as 3 or 4 trees that were just planted.

timr 10y ago

"Building straight into the sky is easy." Except, it isn't. Construction costs of taller buildings scale non-linearly with every additional story [1]. Building skyscrapers costs upwards of $300 per square foot, whereas single-family homes cost a fifth or a sixth of that. It's so much cheaper to build low-rises, in fact, that virtually no developers will take on a high-rise project unless the property is so expensive that it can command luxury prices. This is more-or-less true for mid-rise projects as well, though at a lower price point (~$200 per square foot). The conversation about planning and NIMBYs is misguided. As the article concludes, the city is out of land. Any new construction requires buying and knocking down something else, and the choices are all various flavors of "expensive" or "inconvenient". For example, east of Divisadero, the density of SF is actually pretty high: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7907112,-122.424097,3a,75y,49.97h,101.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYg3R-popEOqY7D1nmamSww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7907112,-122.424097,3a,75y,4... But west of Divisadero, there are huge sections of the city that look like a suburb: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7468355,-122.4598049,3a,75y,254.69h,81.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssQVb92JRfHr60VH5_AkY8Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DsQVb92JRfHr60VH5_AkY8Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D316.5%26pitch%3D-3!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7468355,-122.4598049,3a,75y,... ...the problem is, everyone wants to rebuild the dense parts to be skyscrapers (which is very expensive), and transit access to the suburban parts is quite bad. Developers won't build even medium-density projects in western parts of the city, because there's no demand, because there's no transit. Instead, they build higher density in the Mission and SOMA. These buildings will always be expensive, "luxury" units, because at $300+/sq.ft. construction costs the economics don't pencil out otherwise. [1] https://westnorth.com/2014/03/18/between-rocks-and-a-tall-place-two-height-limits-hold-back-affordable-mid-rise-construction-in-dc/ https://westnorth.com/2014/03/18/between-rocks-and-a-tall-pl...

x0x0 10y ago
Why is $300/ ft2 construction costs a problem when condos are going for $1k / ft2? Even selling condos for $600 / ft2 would be a major improvement. data: http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/market-trends/ http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/m... then click the wavy graph next to "explore this area" sales price / sqft

martinald 10y ago

It might be 'easy' and 'earthquake-proof', but it sure isn't cheap.

davidw 10y ago
No, it's not. But SF's prices could easily make the investment worthwhile.

kafkaesq 10y ago

Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property. That's because you're talking about one of the most beautiful cities in the world (despite the attempts of some people to decry otherwise) and, as expressed through the will of its electorate, intends to stay that way. It's also a city that's keenly aware of ecosystem dynamics and environmental issues generally, and the effect of removing that removing certain kinds of trees (for example, trees of significant age, size, and/or foliage) -- particularly if they're close to the street -- can have on the neighborhood well beyond the tiny confines of your own property. If you want to live in a city that couldn't begin to give a flying F* about trees, or anything else green, for most of its history -- and has the corresponding development footprint and visual character to show for it -- try moving to San Jose.

Camillo 10y ago
The west side of the city (the Sunset and the Richmond) has little to recommend in terms of "visual character". It's also poorly connected to the rest of the city and has very poor walkability, save for the N corridor. They could just tear it all up and build mid-rises, if only they had better connections to stimulate demand.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Every city has its underbellies and backsides -- most of them for more unappealing and unsalvageable than SF's. Meanwhile, very few large cities in North America (and I've been to basically all of them) have much to compare with in terms of architecture, character (up until the current boom, anyway) and charm. And in terms of the stunning beauty of its geographic surroundings -- precisely none of them. On balance there's basically no contest.
- eru 10y ago
  They have enough demand. Zoning (and Nimbys) are bad.
xfour 10y ago
So true, San Jose, and the greater Silicon Valley have a huge problem with this. The ongoing fight over Coyote Valley is the flashpoint of the moment but mostly because it's the only open space left.

forrestthewoods 10y ago

It is worth mentioning that building into the sky is expensive. Easy sure. But expensive. Each floor is more expensive than the one below it. I'm not sure what the premium is though. Anyone know? What's the added cost for an apartment building as you go up? Seattle has a lot of 2+4 construction. Where it's 2 floor concrete and 4 floors wood. I believe the limit used to be 2+2 but they raised it. Cheaper construction costs but also cheaper quality. These plastic and cardboard buildings won't be standing in 100 years that's for sure. Or so I'm told.

steffan 10y ago
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. This article talks about housing in Japan depreciating rapidly: http://www.archdaily.com/450212/why-japan-is-crazy-about-housing http://www.archdaily.com/450212/why-japan-is-crazy-about-hou..., a contrast to the U.S., where to some extent, properties gain in value. (Mostly the land value, but to a certain extent the structures as well). I think it's reasonable that a 2+4 building built today last 20-30 years, is depreciated, and then torn down for an even more dense structure at that time. Over 30 years, building heights and technologies should be such that a more productive use of the space can be made. In light of that, it doesn't make sense to spend extra for a “100-year-building.” Not everything needs to be a historic structure. We should recognize that some buildings should be [relatively] transient.
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  It's a plausible strategy as long as it's part of the plan. If you're in an environment that that makes construction difficult then cheap may not be the best choice. Seattle still has too many taxes and fees for my liking. I appreciate the desire for below market rate units and and low income housing fees. But it's completely ass backwards. Taxes are disincentives. Don't disincentivize the thing you want more of! Developers are slapped with extra fees if they want to build above a certain height. Complete opposite of what's correct. There should be a fee for not building high enough! Le sigh.
  - OrwellianChild 10y ago

DrScump 10y ago

Boosting housing by building vertically is virtually unlimited. The trickier part is supplying the added people with water, electricity, gas, food, and other supplies without augmenting infrastructure (which is failing left and right as it is) and convincing them to never travel out of or into the city using its already-at-capacity freeways and rail.

Retric 10y ago
Impact fees can help solve this @ 40+k per apartment it adds up fast. However, rent controls + property tax limits are the real issue.
bpchaps 10y ago
Would available living spaces in downtown areas reduce congestion in some way? I could see it going both ways.
rtpg 10y ago
For the last part, having mixed-zone development is essential. Put housing above supermarkets! Offices inside apartment complexes! Make it easy for people to walk around. I think that people don't need convincing not to use their cars... it's more that the space needs to be built in a way to where cars are not necessary.
- Aeolun 10y ago
  Like Tokyo?
  - bluejellybean 10y ago
    Or for a more American example. Denver has been doing a good job with their new construction over the last few years. While I haven't looked into actual codes, the majority of new buildings I've seen have work/live offices or full-on commercial zoning on floor 1 and dense luxury apartments on 2~20; Denver is also investing quite heavily into public transit, specifically they've been working on a fairly impressive light-rail system. [1] At the end of the day, it's simple density that allows me to live inside the city and bike 15 minutes to work. City life isn't perfect for everyone but it does offer some great benefits if we go dense. [1] http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/se_68 http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/se_68