3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - khuey 10y ago
    I'm not familiar with Austin, but if it's anything like most other cities, the growth is not happening at the peripheries of the city limits. It's happening in the inner urban core or well outside city limits at the edges of the metro, where there's nobody to object. In SF proper most development is happening in the South of Market Neighborhood, an old industrial/warehouse district walking distance from downtown. The other areas seeing substantial growth are in far eastern Contra Costa County (Antioch, Brentwood, etc) which is a 90 minute commute from downtown SF. In the Bay Area nearly all the land between downtown SF and the exurbs is either protected park/watershed land or is filled with existing low-density suburban communities who object vociferously to any new development. In San Francisco much of the city was downzoned in the 70s and 80s so that even the existing structures would be too dense, tall, or otherwise non-compliant for today's codes. That 3500 homes per year is setting a record since the mid-60s just shows how little development there has been. San Francisco has about 350000 existing homes, so that's a growth rate of 1% a year. That's only slightly above the rate of population growth nationwide, and doesn't account for the neighboring communities that have zero growth (Palo Alto, all of Marin County) or migration that would like to join the enormous economic boom going on here.
rayiner 10y ago
San Francisco hasn't been growing at some unprecedented pace. Just 12% in the last 15 years. DC grew 17% in that time. Austin, 40%.
- geebee 10y ago
  Hi rainier - but what about my comment above? Austin City Region is 271.8 square miles. SF is 47. My question is, how much of that growth in austin occurred in the regions of Austin, TX that were at or above SF's average density of 18,000 per square mile for the last 75 years. Or even half that? If we're going to say SF is uniquely against growth, wouldn't you need to compare it to something comparable? There's a big difference between expanding into "empty" space and tearing down a neighborhood that has had a medium to high stable density for the last 75-100 years.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Austin isn't expanding into "empty space." It's going from low density to medium density, but that poses the same problem of tearing down and densifying existing neighborhoods. DC is maybe a better example. It was already pretty dense (over 10,000 per square mile), and fully developed. Most of the development has been tearing down townhouses and building 10-14 story mid-rise buildings. Indeed, places that were already dense (Chinatown) have seen much of the new development.
    - geebee 10y ago
      I'm still not sure I agree about Austin. Going from low to medium density by Austin outskirts standard may just be too different from going from 15,000 residents mi to 30,000+ to say it poses the same problem within the context of understanding political opposition. If we're going to say that SF residents are uniquely politically opposed to growth, we'd need something at least reasonably comparable. Pointing out that people haven't objected on the outskirts of Austin suggests to me that people have different political reactions to different things. Your DC example is fairly compelling, though. DC (according to wikipedia) has density of about 11,000 on a land area of 68 sq mi. That's close enough for useful analogies. We're looking at 17% growth in the last 15 years within that region (any links for that?) I'll try to find some data for SF, but do you have a comparable link for increase in residential units in SF in that time? Keep in mind also that SF experienced a massive slowdown in construction after the housing bust, that may now be ramping up. So you do need to make sure you aren't measuring and projecting velocity without considering acceleration.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
Vancouver densified in the 1990s by converting near downtown, under used, low density industrial to residential condo towers. Those were easy gains. At this point Vancouver has basically exhausted that easy stuff and has realized that while there is some industrial still around it better well protect it so that there are still places for people to do work. Now Vancouver is in the same place as SF and has to do the much more difficult thing of upzoning existing low density single family housing areas. This has been much more contentious and slow going.

by geebee 10y ago

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.
- khuey 10y ago
  I'm not familiar with Austin, but if it's anything like most other cities, the growth is not happening at the peripheries of the city limits. It's happening in the inner urban core or well outside city limits at the edges of the metro, where there's nobody to object. In SF proper most development is happening in the South of Market Neighborhood, an old industrial/warehouse district walking distance from downtown. The other areas seeing substantial growth are in far eastern Contra Costa County (Antioch, Brentwood, etc) which is a 90 minute commute from downtown SF. In the Bay Area nearly all the land between downtown SF and the exurbs is either protected park/watershed land or is filled with existing low-density suburban communities who object vociferously to any new development. In San Francisco much of the city was downzoned in the 70s and 80s so that even the existing structures would be too dense, tall, or otherwise non-compliant for today's codes. That 3500 homes per year is setting a record since the mid-60s just shows how little development there has been. San Francisco has about 350000 existing homes, so that's a growth rate of 1% a year. That's only slightly above the rate of population growth nationwide, and doesn't account for the neighboring communities that have zero growth (Palo Alto, all of Marin County) or migration that would like to join the enormous economic boom going on here.

rayiner 10y ago

San Francisco hasn't been growing at some unprecedented pace. Just 12% in the last 15 years. DC grew 17% in that time. Austin, 40%.

geebee 10y ago
Hi rainier - but what about my comment above? Austin City Region is 271.8 square miles. SF is 47. My question is, how much of that growth in austin occurred in the regions of Austin, TX that were at or above SF's average density of 18,000 per square mile for the last 75 years. Or even half that? If we're going to say SF is uniquely against growth, wouldn't you need to compare it to something comparable? There's a big difference between expanding into "empty" space and tearing down a neighborhood that has had a medium to high stable density for the last 75-100 years.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Austin isn't expanding into "empty space." It's going from low density to medium density, but that poses the same problem of tearing down and densifying existing neighborhoods. DC is maybe a better example. It was already pretty dense (over 10,000 per square mile), and fully developed. Most of the development has been tearing down townhouses and building 10-14 story mid-rise buildings. Indeed, places that were already dense (Chinatown) have seen much of the new development.
  - geebee 10y ago
    I'm still not sure I agree about Austin. Going from low to medium density by Austin outskirts standard may just be too different from going from 15,000 residents mi to 30,000+ to say it poses the same problem within the context of understanding political opposition. If we're going to say that SF residents are uniquely politically opposed to growth, we'd need something at least reasonably comparable. Pointing out that people haven't objected on the outskirts of Austin suggests to me that people have different political reactions to different things. Your DC example is fairly compelling, though. DC (according to wikipedia) has density of about 11,000 on a land area of 68 sq mi. That's close enough for useful analogies. We're looking at 17% growth in the last 15 years within that region (any links for that?) I'll try to find some data for SF, but do you have a comparable link for increase in residential units in SF in that time? Keep in mind also that SF experienced a massive slowdown in construction after the housing bust, that may now be ramping up. So you do need to make sure you aren't measuring and projecting velocity without considering acceleration.

Tiktaalik 10y ago

Vancouver densified in the 1990s by converting near downtown, under used, low density industrial to residential condo towers. Those were easy gains. At this point Vancouver has basically exhausted that easy stuff and has realized that while there is some industrial still around it better well protect it so that there are still places for people to do work. Now Vancouver is in the same place as SF and has to do the much more difficult thing of upzoning existing low density single family housing areas. This has been much more contentious and slow going.