3 ms·

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 A

by 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.
  - dismantlethesun 10y ago
    Austin's downtown isn't that big. If you drive 15 minutes away from the city center, you're basically in ranch-lands. There's no one to object to building houses there.
- kbob 10y ago
  San Francisco is a little different from Austin in that it's surrounded by water on three sides. There are bridges to Marin (north) and Oakland (east), but they're congested. Apparently BART is also full, though it wasn't when I lived there. Compounding the problem, a good fraction of the peninsula is parks and nature preserves, and the whole area has more mountains than buildable land. SF has severe restrictions on growing outward. And jobs are not migrating to the edge; they're being created in the city. It's more like Hong Kong than Austin. The Bay Area as a whole is growing outward. The edge is currently around Discovery Bay in the east (66 miles, 2 hours) and Morgan Hill in the south (74 miles, 1:45). (I don't know about the north.) But those areas are not viable commuting distance to SF.

by ng12 10y ago

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.
- dismantlethesun 10y ago
  Austin's downtown isn't that big. If you drive 15 minutes away from the city center, you're basically in ranch-lands. There's no one to object to building houses there.
kbob 10y ago
San Francisco is a little different from Austin in that it's surrounded by water on three sides. There are bridges to Marin (north) and Oakland (east), but they're congested. Apparently BART is also full, though it wasn't when I lived there. Compounding the problem, a good fraction of the peninsula is parks and nature preserves, and the whole area has more mountains than buildable land. SF has severe restrictions on growing outward. And jobs are not migrating to the edge; they're being created in the city. It's more like Hong Kong than Austin. The Bay Area as a whole is growing outward. The edge is currently around Discovery Bay in the east (66 miles, 2 hours) and Morgan Hill in the south (74 miles, 1:45). (I don't know about the north.) But those areas are not viable commuting distance to SF.