5 ms·

This is the baffling thing to me -- the way people philosophize about rent in SF you'd think it was the only city to ever grow bigger.

by ng12 10y ago

Domenic_S 10y ago
I think a true urban transit system is underground or elevated, and in that sense SF has half a transit system.
geebee 10y ago
I am curious about this, though, and I have posed this question to HN. Is there a lot of precedent for a city that has been at a medium level of density for 75+ years suddenly going to a much higher density model? One example I frequently hear about is Vancouver which is similar to SF in square mileage, which did add a lot of density without tearing a lot of old stuff down. However, people often don't realize that SF is already more densely populated than Vancouver managed to achieve after it's very high profile density initiatives. Not to say we shouldn't try that here, but keep in mind we'd be starting this high-rise density initiative from a higher density point than Vancouver reached after the high rise initiative. Again, we may be in uncharted political waters here. Clearly, SF isn't the first city to grow bigger, but it may be the first city facing pressure to tear down the oldest housing stock west of the Mississippi. Even in the relatively low density and unfashionable SFH neighborhoods like the excelsior or outer mission, many of the houses are nearing their 100th birthday. Out here, that's old. The reason I ask this question is that I'm not really sure this is a "SF" specific phenomenon. It may be an artifact of borders. Many cities do have a relatively old "core", but their borders extend far beyond this core. In other words, growth in concord or walnut creek or antioch would count as growth in "SF". So if they protect their older neighborhoods, they can still build elsewhere and show new construction growth. I'd be interested in seeing what kind of precedent there is for something like this. It's reasonable to ask why SF isn't building more, but it may be in a much more unusual situation than people realize. No, of course it isn't the only city ever to grow bigger, but it may be the first city under pressure to grow bigger by tearing down neighborhoods that have been in a relatively stable, medium density state for close to the last 100 years.
- ng12 10y ago
  That's the problem -- SF isn't going to a much higher density model. The population growth is actually pretty tame, especially compared to cities in Texas and Arizona. Granted, they have more land, but it's not like this kind of growth is unprecedented. San Francisco doesn't want to be low-growth, it wants to be no-growth. I appreciate the desire to protect the housing stock, but there's a reasonable balance. For example many of the neighborhoods between Midtown and Downtown in NYC are protected -- but neighborhoods like Hell's Kitchen, FiDi, Long Island City, and Downtown Brooklyn/Dumbo offset the housing impacts. SF can't even agree to build a couple of high-density buildings in SOMA which was (still is?) a wasteland.
  - geebee 10y ago
    What about growth outside SF in nearby areas, though? For instance, Austin Texas, a city growing rapidly, has a current population density of 3,360 per square mile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_Texas But here's the thing - Austin has a land area of 271.8 sq miles! SF has about 48. Yes, like SF to the Bay Area, Austin city is smaller than Austin metro, but even the city area is so much bigger that there's probably far more space to build without tearing down something old, enough that I'm not sure the comparison is a fair one. My guess is that you could draw a square around 48 square miles of Austin that locals would consider completely off limits to demolishing for high rises. Thing is, Austin continues to grow because growth at the peripheries counts as growth "in Austin". As for SF... well, there certainly is growth going on in SF. http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-franciscos-most-massive-housing-construction-era-since-urban-renewal/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-franciscos-most-massive-housin... My thesis is that if you compare this to the smaller, old and medium to high density areas within the cities where growth is more substantial, you'll see a very similar pattern - in fact, SF may be be showing a greater willingness to grow - but that the supposed resistance is really just an artifact of borders. That's a thesis, not a conclusion - it's something I find intriguing, possible true, enough that I'd be interested in seeing more data on it before concluding that SF is somehow uniquely against growth compared to comparable sub-regions in greater metro areas.
    - 10y ago

This is the baffling thing to me -- the way people philosophize about rent in SF you'd think it was the only city to ever grow bigger.

by ng12 10y ago

This is the baffling thing to me -- the way people philosophize about rent in SF you'd think it was the only city to ever grow bigger.

Domenic_S 10y ago

I think a true urban transit system is underground or elevated, and in that sense SF has half a transit system.

geebee 10y ago

I am curious about this, though, and I have posed this question to HN. Is there a lot of precedent for a city that has been at a medium level of density for 75+ years suddenly going to a much higher density model? One example I frequently hear about is Vancouver which is similar to SF in square mileage, which did add a lot of density without tearing a lot of old stuff down. However, people often don't realize that SF is already more densely populated than Vancouver managed to achieve after it's very high profile density initiatives. Not to say we shouldn't try that here, but keep in mind we'd be starting this high-rise density initiative from a higher density point than Vancouver reached after the high rise initiative. Again, we may be in uncharted political waters here. Clearly, SF isn't the first city to grow bigger, but it may be the first city facing pressure to tear down the oldest housing stock west of the Mississippi. Even in the relatively low density and unfashionable SFH neighborhoods like the excelsior or outer mission, many of the houses are nearing their 100th birthday. Out here, that's old. The reason I ask this question is that I'm not really sure this is a "SF" specific phenomenon. It may be an artifact of borders. Many cities do have a relatively old "core", but their borders extend far beyond this core. In other words, growth in concord or walnut creek or antioch would count as growth in "SF". So if they protect their older neighborhoods, they can still build elsewhere and show new construction growth. I'd be interested in seeing what kind of precedent there is for something like this. It's reasonable to ask why SF isn't building more, but it may be in a much more unusual situation than people realize. No, of course it isn't the only city ever to grow bigger, but it may be the first city under pressure to grow bigger by tearing down neighborhoods that have been in a relatively stable, medium density state for close to the last 100 years.

ng12 10y ago
That's the problem -- SF isn't going to a much higher density model. The population growth is actually pretty tame, especially compared to cities in Texas and Arizona. Granted, they have more land, but it's not like this kind of growth is unprecedented. San Francisco doesn't want to be low-growth, it wants to be no-growth. I appreciate the desire to protect the housing stock, but there's a reasonable balance. For example many of the neighborhoods between Midtown and Downtown in NYC are protected -- but neighborhoods like Hell's Kitchen, FiDi, Long Island City, and Downtown Brooklyn/Dumbo offset the housing impacts. SF can't even agree to build a couple of high-density buildings in SOMA which was (still is?) a wasteland.
- geebee 10y ago
  What about growth outside SF in nearby areas, though? For instance, Austin Texas, a city growing rapidly, has a current population density of 3,360 per square mile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_Texas But here's the thing - Austin has a land area of 271.8 sq miles! SF has about 48. Yes, like SF to the Bay Area, Austin city is smaller than Austin metro, but even the city area is so much bigger that there's probably far more space to build without tearing down something old, enough that I'm not sure the comparison is a fair one. My guess is that you could draw a square around 48 square miles of Austin that locals would consider completely off limits to demolishing for high rises. Thing is, Austin continues to grow because growth at the peripheries counts as growth "in Austin". As for SF... well, there certainly is growth going on in SF. http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-franciscos-most-massive-housing-construction-era-since-urban-renewal/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-franciscos-most-massive-housin... My thesis is that if you compare this to the smaller, old and medium to high density areas within the cities where growth is more substantial, you'll see a very similar pattern - in fact, SF may be be showing a greater willingness to grow - but that the supposed resistance is really just an artifact of borders. That's a thesis, not a conclusion - it's something I find intriguing, possible true, enough that I'd be interested in seeing more data on it before concluding that SF is somehow uniquely against growth compared to comparable sub-regions in greater metro areas.
  - 10y ago