9 ms·

Over the last 100 years, the Bay Area has created a regulatory environment which essentially has made increasing housing supply 100x more difficult than the ave

Over the last 100 years, the Bay Area has created a regulatory environment which essentially has made increasing housing supply 100x more difficult than the average American city. This would be "fine" if the population of the area was constant. "Unfortunately" the area has been a source of economic growth for the last century as well. So you need two things for high housing price growth: 1) factors that restrict housing supply from responding to the market 2) economic growth or some other factor to make people want to move to the city. For the NIMBYs, they are ok with #1. They desire that their city stays the same, it has the same architecture, unblocked vistas, the density they are used to, the natives they know. So the NIMBYs argue to those affected by high housing costs that #2 is the real factor, i.e. "if rich people stopped moving here we would be ok". #2 is the easier argument to make, as it casts the narrative as outsiders vs natives. #1 appeals to the existing natives since they don't want change. We have to figure out a way to change the message to awareness of #1. The average Bay Area resident has no idea how many of our state and local laws are in place to make sure that market rents / housing prices can be as high as possible.

narrator 10y ago
Maybe the restrictions on building created the growth? The Bay Area is an awfully nice place to live if you have money. Every other American city, except for maybe New York City, is endless chain store filled sprawl which requires a car to do anything in. Even New York requires a minimum two hour drive to get to some decent natural scenery while with San Francisco you don't have to go very far to get to be in a great natural environment.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Every other American city, except for maybe New York City, is endless chain store filled sprawl which requires a car to do anything in. Ever been to Chicago, New Orleans, Austin, San Diego, Denver, Santa Fe, Boston, Providence, Miami etc?
  - ch4s3 10y ago
    I agree about Chicago and Boston, and I've never been to New Orleans. However, you can't walk anywhere in Austin.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      Those are probably the only two cities on that list which would be (relatively) doable without cars. Pretty good public transit and significant areas that are fairly dense. Not New Orleans. Like any city, you can identify areas where you might live and work without a car but you're going to have pretty limited mobility. Public transit is somewhat better than it used to be but it's still fairly limited--now a variety of streetcars but no subway for obvious reasons.
    - dfinninger 10y ago
      I mean, if you live and work downtown it's pretty alright. But then you don't really have easy walkable access to Burnet, East Side, SoCo, etc. I mean, you get 6th. Maybe Rainey depending on where you live downtown. But yeah, I lived halfway to Bee Cave and worked on 360. That made me much happier than being directly downtown.
    - dionidium 10y ago
      I went to a CocoaConf in Austin two years ago. I snapped a lot of desire path photos, because my daily walk from my hotel to the conference was mostly devoid of pedestrian facilities, including even sidewalks. http://m.imgur.com/a/NhaYH http://m.imgur.com/a/NhaYH Clearly, people are walking there, but the city doesn't seem to give a shit.
      - jacobush 10y ago
        TIL desire path
    - wybiral 10y ago
      I live in Austin (central, Hyde Park area) and walk, bike, or bus everywhere.
  - 10y ago
- throwthisawayt 10y ago
  the restrictions aren't on the green areas. The city can keep all of our parks and nature and be fine. The restriction are on the building heights and number of units on vast areas of the city that are already developed. For example, the west portala Sherwood Forest area is essentially a suburb within the city. There are huge lots that are 5000 sq ft when next door neighborhoods you have 1600sq ft lots with 2-3 units. Essentially you have suburb neighborhoods right next to others that have 10x the density. A developer would love to buy units in those areas and convert to duplexes but is literally impossible to do this. So again, it's not a question of preserving our parks but a question of preserving our suburbs within the city so rich people get to live in a suburb within the city and watch their property prices skyrocket instead of allowing the city to expand and accommodate the middle class.
  - DMac87 10y ago
    Also, the city allows buyers to take what used to be a family home (e.g. 4-5 bedrooms), tear it down and put up a 1-2 bedroom house (more modern, more amenities, e.g. garage, sauna, etc). Why policymakers allow this if they believe there's a supply problem is beyond me - on my block the number of bedrooms has gone down by about a quarter in the last few years as a result...
    - throwthisawayt 10y ago
      What's the regulation that allows you to do that ? From what I understood, you aren't legally allowed to reduce the number of units that a property is zoned for.
      - scythe 10y ago
        Units =/= bedrooms. People are replacing units with 3-4 bedrooms with 2-bedroom units that have larger rooms.
- fourthark 10y ago
  Never understand why everyone on HN is all "build baby build" all the time. They pulled out all the stops in Brooklyn (or most of them) and let me tell you it is not pleasant. Unless you like "modern" looking condos that fall apart in five years. But I guess people don't move to SF for the sturdy quaint old houses. Apparently there's not much love for an urban-looking Brooklyn either. Generic rules.
  - who_is_firing 10y ago
    I guess I would sacrifice the look of my city so that normal middle class people like teachers, policemen, firemen, artists, and minorities could live beside myself and fellow engineers and doctors. The whole "we need to preserve the architecture of my city" is a first world problem. What comes before that is the ability for the middle and lower class to survive in the city. Cities are living dynamic entities and should be capable of change.
    - fourthark 10y ago
      It's also unclear that building more luxury housing (because that is what will be built, there as here) stabilizes rental prices for everyone else. I can see why it's tempting to think about it as a supply and demand problem. But be realistic about the motivations of developers, too. And it's not like "affordable housing" requirements work, either, when those are defined relative to average income.
      - CydeWeys 10y ago
        Luxury housing becomes more affordable with time. There are plenty of buildings in New York that were targeted upscale at the time they were built, but are no longer upscale and thus rent to people lower down the income spectrum now versus then.
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    Fellow New Yorker here. Thanks to all of that construction, rents here have actually decreased over the past year: https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-new-york-rent-trends/ https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-new-york-rent-tre... That's why we're all "build baby build": Increase supply enough to meet demand and you can get prices to drop. It's worth it in order to help maintain the existence of affordable housing.
- kabes 10y ago
  I'm living in the bay area right now and I find it one of the most ugly and boring places I've ever seen. Can't wait till I'm out of here. San Fransisco is less boring and ugly, but at night it's crawling with homeless junks and the weather sucks. Silicon Valley is also this endless chain store thing you describe and there's almost no nightlife.
  - tonydiv 10y ago
    I stopped reading at "The weather sucks"
    - kabes 10y ago
      I stopped reading at "I stopped reading"
    - acchow 10y ago
      It's pretty divisive. Some people dream of living a place where they can wear a light jacket all the time. Other people love intense heat. But it's hard to argue against an average of 1 day of precipitation per month in June, July, August and September...And if you live in the right neighborhood, it's also sunny from 10-4 every day in that period as well...
      - majormajor 10y ago
        > But it's hard to argue against an average of 1 day of precipitation per month in June, July, August and September...And if you live in the right neighborhood, it's also sunny from 10-4 every day in that period as well... Nah, it's easy to argue against that, you just have to had lived in SoCal where it's sunnier and a nice comfortable bit warmer :p
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  Seattle is an extremely walkable/bikeable city and has plenty of nature right outside. It also has a very sizable tech population with excellent salaries, especially considering the lack of income tax sucking 10% out of every paycheck.
  - conanbatt 10y ago
    Maybe if you live downtown, but i visited and couldnt go anywhere without a car. Theres basically no public transport.
    - timothycrosley 10y ago
      Yes, exactly, don't come here! No public transit. No massive collection of rapid rides[0], no growing light rail system[1], and no bus usage just below San Fran and growing [2]. And certainly no huge and growing collection of bike trails [3]. Really there's just rain and coffee here. At least it's some good coffee. [0] http://metro.kingcounty.gov/travel-options/bus/rapidride/ http://metro.kingcounty.gov/travel-options/bus/rapidride/ [1] http://soundtransit3.org/map#map http://soundtransit3.org/map#map [2] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-sees-biggest-jump-in-bus-riders-of-any-us-city/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-sees-b... [3] http://stb-wp.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/09173123/Regional-Bike-Trail-Subway-Map-V2-01.png http://stb-wp.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/09...
      - adjkant 10y ago
        Can you please cite your source for the good coffee? I hate when people don't give evidence in their posts here. Seriously, this community is going to hell.
        timothycrosley 10y ago
        Well I didn't cite because we don't have any. I mean really we have basically no Coffee [1]. I mean, TBH, we are a boring bland place with only big box shops - no record stores or anything unique [2]. You should really just drive through and pay no attention. [1] - https://www.bustle.com/articles/155686-which-us-city-has-the-most-coffee-shops-these-are-the-best-places-for-coffee-lovers https://www.bustle.com/articles/155686-which-us-city-has-the... [2] - http://www.infogroup.com/defining-the-hippest-us-cities http://www.infogroup.com/defining-the-hippest-us-cities
- jaaron 10y ago
  I agree with coldtea that this view doesn't match reality. I live in Santa Monica and while there is sprawl in Los Angeles county, I can walk or bike to everything I need, including my work or the beach. The trails of the Santa Monica mountains are close, let alone a couple hour drive to San Gabriel mountains or the Joshua Tree desert.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- skewart 10y ago
  The building regulations in SF have done more to encourage suburban sprawl than to discourage it. Of course if density weren't outlawed SF would look different, but it would still be a very appealing place to live. You could triple the number of housing units in SF and it would be a city of low apartment buildings and townhouses with great views. You could increase the housing supply 10-fold and it would be a city of midrise apartment buildings with a fantastic climate and beautiful parks just outside the city.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Yep, replacing the rowhouses in Richmond & Sunset with 5-story walkups would probably triple the housing supply by itself.
    - hexane360 10y ago
      I don't really know much about SF or local utilities. I know agriculture takes up most of California's water supply. But even though a relatively small amount is consumed directly, would there be enough water to substantially house 2x-3x the current population? How much would price spike?
      - skewart 10y ago
        Well, a lot of the people who can't afford to live in SF, but would like to, still live in California, consuming California water. They just live farther out in the north, east, or south bays. Of course, if SF actually had 3, 5, or 10 times the population it does today then there would probably have to be a lot of infrastructure changes too. But the limit probably wouldn't be available water for residents.
      - CydeWeys 10y ago
        Household water usage, especially for dense housing like apartments that lack yards, is such a small percentage of overall water usage that it's a rounding error. Agriculture and then industry are the main users of water.
- dcposch 10y ago
  I made a zoning map of SF yesterday. A lot of our city is sprawl, too: one house, one driveway, one garage per lot. https://dcpos.ch/yimby/zoning https://dcpos.ch/yimby/zoning We can get two birds with a stone by building housing: make our city more walkable and beautiful, and also alleviate the housing shortage . Want to support infill, upzoning, and want to beat the NIMBYs? Consider joining SF Yimby. It's a small group of ppl who care a lot about this, they're smart and effective, and many of these local issues are right on the bubble around 50% support in low turnout elections. This means, with a bit of activism, you can swing the outcome.
  - who_is_firing 10y ago
    This is awesome. I'd like to support yimby efforts. Do you have a link where I can see how I can contribute as developer?
    - cwsmith17 10y ago
      Their website is SFYIMBY.org. I work for another organization that does similar work called the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition. There are plenty of pro-housing organizers in San Francisco if you're willing to get plugged in and volunteer.
      - schrodinger 10y ago
        Clickable: https://sfyimby.org https://sfyimby.org
    - dcposch 10y ago
      @who_is_firing what's your Github?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - foggyeyes69 10y ago
    How do you join?
- hx87 10y ago
  It might just be me, but a neighborhood of 5-story apartment buildings isn't less nice to live in than one of 2-story rowhouses.
- rhino369 10y ago
  Restrictions on building probably makes SF more sprawling, not less. Imagine if you allowed people to buy up a block in Sunset District and build 40 story apartment buildings. People wouldn't have to live in Livermoore anymore.
throwaway91111 10y ago
As someone forced to move to the Bay Area, it'd also be nice if "rich people" had an alternative to moving here for employment.
- who_is_firing 10y ago
  Yes we need to petition the large tech companies to be more supportive of remote work and invest more in their satellite offices.
whyileft 10y ago
Prop 13
zanny 10y ago
Most cities in the US have huge barriers to housing expansion, particularly of the affordable kind. It is not a problem unique to SF, it just shows its worst there because its the highest growth.
gutnor 10y ago
It is strange that even on HN the only solution to housing crisis is "find a way to build more". That's not the 90's anymore, a lot jobs can be done remotely now, a lot of jobs are if you consider how many times you work with people that are in other offices. You have small cities dying all over the country side because it becomes difficult to justify paying for general amenities like hospital, schools, ... and cities where you quickly hit the limit of high density too. You can replace a suburban sprawl by high density block of flat, but you need to upgrade the infrastructure to support it massively and the cost does not scale linearly past a point. Seems to me there is a sweet spot there in the middle where the cost of public infrastructure is effective, a variety of living style at various price points, and there is still enough people for modern service to be cost effective. A bit like Europe if you get rid of the top 3-4 largest cities in each country. If there is something that is prime for disruption, here you have it: this is a problem everywhere in the world, this is a problem that is solved the old non technological way, but with an already proven way to solve the problem using technology. The only bit that is missing is the proper incentive and a well balanced set of already existing technologies thrown in to make up for the major incentive of moving in a large city: the jobs are all packed in there too.
- ocb 10y ago
  Do you have a source for your claim about the there being a point in density where infrastructure costs stop scaling linearly? Intuitively, economies of scale imply the opposite of what you're saying--that infrastructure becomes less expensive per capita as density increases.
foggyeyes69 10y ago
In addition to building more housing, there need to be a high tax on private cars entering and being parked in cities. The money from this tax should go towards funding public transport, which itself would benefit from the increased density.
rsync 10y ago
"For the NIMBYs, they are ok with #1. They desire that their city stays the same, it has the same architecture, unblocked vistas, the density they are used to, the natives they know." ... which is a totally reasonable, perfectly rational position. Further, it is a policy regime that has been achieved democratically. Personally, I am very much in favor of infill. There is a lot of crappy two story housing stock in san francisco that has no charm and no aesthetic value and would lend itself perfectly to at least doubling of density. But let's not talk about the opponents of this as if they are flat-earthers or white supremacists or something - their stance is just as reasonable as any other socio-economic-political view.
- santaclaus 10y ago
  > But let's not talk about the opponents of this as if they are flat-earthers or white supremacists or something Sure, but NIMBYism is in direct opposition to a more socially equitable and environmentally sustainable future. To claim to be progressive while espousing gated-community like values (which is quite common in the Bay Area) is, well, a bit troublesome.
  - rsync 10y ago
    "Sure, but NIMBYism is in direct opposition to a more socially equitable and environmentally sustainable future." I hate to nitpick, but ... NIMBY is a general term that refers to preserving a particular, entrenched environment. So yes, San Francisco NIMBYism in early 21st century does seem to be in opposition to increasing environmental sustainability. I'm sure there are plenty of NIMBY environments around the world that don't fit that mold, though. The socially equitable part is more of a reach, however. Nobody has a gun to their head forcing them to live in San Francisco and likewise, nobody[1] is starving in San Francisco. John Smith who bought a home in SF in the early 80s and is retired on his post office pension and social security shouldn't be redistributing his wealth to anyone. [1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality.
    - Inconel 10y ago
      I'm not sure how we go from John Smith opposing high density development to John Smith being asked to redistribute his wealth to anyone? While we're on the topic of wealth redistribution though, perhaps John Smith shouldn't demand that younger people redistribute their wealth to him so that he can keep paying taxes on his property that are well below the current levels. All the while railing against any effort to make housing and transit more affordable. >[1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality. I too hate to nitpick, but...unless we're taking a very literal view of starving, as opposed to a constant struggle to feeding yourself, you should check out the percentage of SF schoolchildren on subsidized lunches or perhaps spend some time among the homeless, particularly homeless youth. I can assure you there are plenty of people going hungry in SF. I suppose you are correct in that no one is holding a gun to their head though, just a case of bad luck I guess.

narrator 10y ago

Maybe the restrictions on building created the growth? The Bay Area is an awfully nice place to live if you have money. Every other American city, except for maybe New York City, is endless chain store filled sprawl which requires a car to do anything in. Even New York requires a minimum two hour drive to get to some decent natural scenery while with San Francisco you don't have to go very far to get to be in a great natural environment.

coldtea 10y ago
>Every other American city, except for maybe New York City, is endless chain store filled sprawl which requires a car to do anything in. Ever been to Chicago, New Orleans, Austin, San Diego, Denver, Santa Fe, Boston, Providence, Miami etc?
- ch4s3 10y ago
  I agree about Chicago and Boston, and I've never been to New Orleans. However, you can't walk anywhere in Austin.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Those are probably the only two cities on that list which would be (relatively) doable without cars. Pretty good public transit and significant areas that are fairly dense. Not New Orleans. Like any city, you can identify areas where you might live and work without a car but you're going to have pretty limited mobility. Public transit is somewhat better than it used to be but it's still fairly limited--now a variety of streetcars but no subway for obvious reasons.
  - dfinninger 10y ago
    I mean, if you live and work downtown it's pretty alright. But then you don't really have easy walkable access to Burnet, East Side, SoCo, etc. I mean, you get 6th. Maybe Rainey depending on where you live downtown. But yeah, I lived halfway to Bee Cave and worked on 360. That made me much happier than being directly downtown.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    I went to a CocoaConf in Austin two years ago. I snapped a lot of desire path photos, because my daily walk from my hotel to the conference was mostly devoid of pedestrian facilities, including even sidewalks. http://m.imgur.com/a/NhaYH http://m.imgur.com/a/NhaYH Clearly, people are walking there, but the city doesn't seem to give a shit.
    - jacobush 10y ago
      TIL desire path
  - wybiral 10y ago
    I live in Austin (central, Hyde Park area) and walk, bike, or bus everywhere.
- 10y ago
throwthisawayt 10y ago
the restrictions aren't on the green areas. The city can keep all of our parks and nature and be fine. The restriction are on the building heights and number of units on vast areas of the city that are already developed. For example, the west portala Sherwood Forest area is essentially a suburb within the city. There are huge lots that are 5000 sq ft when next door neighborhoods you have 1600sq ft lots with 2-3 units. Essentially you have suburb neighborhoods right next to others that have 10x the density. A developer would love to buy units in those areas and convert to duplexes but is literally impossible to do this. So again, it's not a question of preserving our parks but a question of preserving our suburbs within the city so rich people get to live in a suburb within the city and watch their property prices skyrocket instead of allowing the city to expand and accommodate the middle class.
- DMac87 10y ago
  Also, the city allows buyers to take what used to be a family home (e.g. 4-5 bedrooms), tear it down and put up a 1-2 bedroom house (more modern, more amenities, e.g. garage, sauna, etc). Why policymakers allow this if they believe there's a supply problem is beyond me - on my block the number of bedrooms has gone down by about a quarter in the last few years as a result...
  - throwthisawayt 10y ago
    What's the regulation that allows you to do that ? From what I understood, you aren't legally allowed to reduce the number of units that a property is zoned for.
    - scythe 10y ago
      Units =/= bedrooms. People are replacing units with 3-4 bedrooms with 2-bedroom units that have larger rooms.
fourthark 10y ago
Never understand why everyone on HN is all "build baby build" all the time. They pulled out all the stops in Brooklyn (or most of them) and let me tell you it is not pleasant. Unless you like "modern" looking condos that fall apart in five years. But I guess people don't move to SF for the sturdy quaint old houses. Apparently there's not much love for an urban-looking Brooklyn either. Generic rules.
- who_is_firing 10y ago
  I guess I would sacrifice the look of my city so that normal middle class people like teachers, policemen, firemen, artists, and minorities could live beside myself and fellow engineers and doctors. The whole "we need to preserve the architecture of my city" is a first world problem. What comes before that is the ability for the middle and lower class to survive in the city. Cities are living dynamic entities and should be capable of change.
  - fourthark 10y ago
    It's also unclear that building more luxury housing (because that is what will be built, there as here) stabilizes rental prices for everyone else. I can see why it's tempting to think about it as a supply and demand problem. But be realistic about the motivations of developers, too. And it's not like "affordable housing" requirements work, either, when those are defined relative to average income.
    - CydeWeys 10y ago
      Luxury housing becomes more affordable with time. There are plenty of buildings in New York that were targeted upscale at the time they were built, but are no longer upscale and thus rent to people lower down the income spectrum now versus then.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  Fellow New Yorker here. Thanks to all of that construction, rents here have actually decreased over the past year: https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-new-york-rent-trends/ https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-new-york-rent-tre... That's why we're all "build baby build": Increase supply enough to meet demand and you can get prices to drop. It's worth it in order to help maintain the existence of affordable housing.
kabes 10y ago
I'm living in the bay area right now and I find it one of the most ugly and boring places I've ever seen. Can't wait till I'm out of here. San Fransisco is less boring and ugly, but at night it's crawling with homeless junks and the weather sucks. Silicon Valley is also this endless chain store thing you describe and there's almost no nightlife.
- tonydiv 10y ago
  I stopped reading at "The weather sucks"
  - kabes 10y ago
    I stopped reading at "I stopped reading"
  - acchow 10y ago
    It's pretty divisive. Some people dream of living a place where they can wear a light jacket all the time. Other people love intense heat. But it's hard to argue against an average of 1 day of precipitation per month in June, July, August and September...And if you live in the right neighborhood, it's also sunny from 10-4 every day in that period as well...
    - majormajor 10y ago
      > But it's hard to argue against an average of 1 day of precipitation per month in June, July, August and September...And if you live in the right neighborhood, it's also sunny from 10-4 every day in that period as well... Nah, it's easy to argue against that, you just have to had lived in SoCal where it's sunnier and a nice comfortable bit warmer :p
alasdair_ 10y ago
Seattle is an extremely walkable/bikeable city and has plenty of nature right outside. It also has a very sizable tech population with excellent salaries, especially considering the lack of income tax sucking 10% out of every paycheck.
- conanbatt 10y ago
  Maybe if you live downtown, but i visited and couldnt go anywhere without a car. Theres basically no public transport.
  - timothycrosley 10y ago
    Yes, exactly, don't come here! No public transit. No massive collection of rapid rides[0], no growing light rail system[1], and no bus usage just below San Fran and growing [2]. And certainly no huge and growing collection of bike trails [3]. Really there's just rain and coffee here. At least it's some good coffee. [0] http://metro.kingcounty.gov/travel-options/bus/rapidride/ http://metro.kingcounty.gov/travel-options/bus/rapidride/ [1] http://soundtransit3.org/map#map http://soundtransit3.org/map#map [2] http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-sees-biggest-jump-in-bus-riders-of-any-us-city/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-sees-b... [3] http://stb-wp.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/09173123/Regional-Bike-Trail-Subway-Map-V2-01.png http://stb-wp.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/09...
    - adjkant 10y ago
      Can you please cite your source for the good coffee? I hate when people don't give evidence in their posts here. Seriously, this community is going to hell.
      - timothycrosley 10y ago
        Well I didn't cite because we don't have any. I mean really we have basically no Coffee [1]. I mean, TBH, we are a boring bland place with only big box shops - no record stores or anything unique [2]. You should really just drive through and pay no attention. [1] - https://www.bustle.com/articles/155686-which-us-city-has-the-most-coffee-shops-these-are-the-best-places-for-coffee-lovers https://www.bustle.com/articles/155686-which-us-city-has-the... [2] - http://www.infogroup.com/defining-the-hippest-us-cities http://www.infogroup.com/defining-the-hippest-us-cities
jaaron 10y ago
I agree with coldtea that this view doesn't match reality. I live in Santa Monica and while there is sprawl in Los Angeles county, I can walk or bike to everything I need, including my work or the beach. The trails of the Santa Monica mountains are close, let alone a couple hour drive to San Gabriel mountains or the Joshua Tree desert.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
skewart 10y ago
The building regulations in SF have done more to encourage suburban sprawl than to discourage it. Of course if density weren't outlawed SF would look different, but it would still be a very appealing place to live. You could triple the number of housing units in SF and it would be a city of low apartment buildings and townhouses with great views. You could increase the housing supply 10-fold and it would be a city of midrise apartment buildings with a fantastic climate and beautiful parks just outside the city.
- hx87 10y ago
  Yep, replacing the rowhouses in Richmond & Sunset with 5-story walkups would probably triple the housing supply by itself.
  - hexane360 10y ago
    I don't really know much about SF or local utilities. I know agriculture takes up most of California's water supply. But even though a relatively small amount is consumed directly, would there be enough water to substantially house 2x-3x the current population? How much would price spike?
    - skewart 10y ago
      Well, a lot of the people who can't afford to live in SF, but would like to, still live in California, consuming California water. They just live farther out in the north, east, or south bays. Of course, if SF actually had 3, 5, or 10 times the population it does today then there would probably have to be a lot of infrastructure changes too. But the limit probably wouldn't be available water for residents.
    - CydeWeys 10y ago
      Household water usage, especially for dense housing like apartments that lack yards, is such a small percentage of overall water usage that it's a rounding error. Agriculture and then industry are the main users of water.
dcposch 10y ago
I made a zoning map of SF yesterday. A lot of our city is sprawl, too: one house, one driveway, one garage per lot. https://dcpos.ch/yimby/zoning https://dcpos.ch/yimby/zoning We can get two birds with a stone by building housing: make our city more walkable and beautiful, and also alleviate the housing shortage . Want to support infill, upzoning, and want to beat the NIMBYs? Consider joining SF Yimby. It's a small group of ppl who care a lot about this, they're smart and effective, and many of these local issues are right on the bubble around 50% support in low turnout elections. This means, with a bit of activism, you can swing the outcome.
- who_is_firing 10y ago
  This is awesome. I'd like to support yimby efforts. Do you have a link where I can see how I can contribute as developer?
  - cwsmith17 10y ago
    Their website is SFYIMBY.org. I work for another organization that does similar work called the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition. There are plenty of pro-housing organizers in San Francisco if you're willing to get plugged in and volunteer.
    - schrodinger 10y ago
      Clickable: https://sfyimby.org https://sfyimby.org
  - dcposch 10y ago
    @who_is_firing what's your Github?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- foggyeyes69 10y ago
  How do you join?
hx87 10y ago
It might just be me, but a neighborhood of 5-story apartment buildings isn't less nice to live in than one of 2-story rowhouses.
rhino369 10y ago
Restrictions on building probably makes SF more sprawling, not less. Imagine if you allowed people to buy up a block in Sunset District and build 40 story apartment buildings. People wouldn't have to live in Livermoore anymore.

throwaway91111 10y ago

As someone forced to move to the Bay Area, it'd also be nice if "rich people" had an alternative to moving here for employment.

who_is_firing 10y ago
Yes we need to petition the large tech companies to be more supportive of remote work and invest more in their satellite offices.

whyileft 10y ago

Prop 13

zanny 10y ago

Most cities in the US have huge barriers to housing expansion, particularly of the affordable kind. It is not a problem unique to SF, it just shows its worst there because its the highest growth.

gutnor 10y ago

It is strange that even on HN the only solution to housing crisis is "find a way to build more". That's not the 90's anymore, a lot jobs can be done remotely now, a lot of jobs are if you consider how many times you work with people that are in other offices. You have small cities dying all over the country side because it becomes difficult to justify paying for general amenities like hospital, schools, ... and cities where you quickly hit the limit of high density too. You can replace a suburban sprawl by high density block of flat, but you need to upgrade the infrastructure to support it massively and the cost does not scale linearly past a point. Seems to me there is a sweet spot there in the middle where the cost of public infrastructure is effective, a variety of living style at various price points, and there is still enough people for modern service to be cost effective. A bit like Europe if you get rid of the top 3-4 largest cities in each country. If there is something that is prime for disruption, here you have it: this is a problem everywhere in the world, this is a problem that is solved the old non technological way, but with an already proven way to solve the problem using technology. The only bit that is missing is the proper incentive and a well balanced set of already existing technologies thrown in to make up for the major incentive of moving in a large city: the jobs are all packed in there too.

ocb 10y ago
Do you have a source for your claim about the there being a point in density where infrastructure costs stop scaling linearly? Intuitively, economies of scale imply the opposite of what you're saying--that infrastructure becomes less expensive per capita as density increases.

foggyeyes69 10y ago

In addition to building more housing, there need to be a high tax on private cars entering and being parked in cities. The money from this tax should go towards funding public transport, which itself would benefit from the increased density.

rsync 10y ago

"For the NIMBYs, they are ok with #1. They desire that their city stays the same, it has the same architecture, unblocked vistas, the density they are used to, the natives they know." ... which is a totally reasonable, perfectly rational position. Further, it is a policy regime that has been achieved democratically. Personally, I am very much in favor of infill. There is a lot of crappy two story housing stock in san francisco that has no charm and no aesthetic value and would lend itself perfectly to at least doubling of density. But let's not talk about the opponents of this as if they are flat-earthers or white supremacists or something - their stance is just as reasonable as any other socio-economic-political view.

santaclaus 10y ago
> But let's not talk about the opponents of this as if they are flat-earthers or white supremacists or something Sure, but NIMBYism is in direct opposition to a more socially equitable and environmentally sustainable future. To claim to be progressive while espousing gated-community like values (which is quite common in the Bay Area) is, well, a bit troublesome.
- rsync 10y ago
  "Sure, but NIMBYism is in direct opposition to a more socially equitable and environmentally sustainable future." I hate to nitpick, but ... NIMBY is a general term that refers to preserving a particular, entrenched environment. So yes, San Francisco NIMBYism in early 21st century does seem to be in opposition to increasing environmental sustainability. I'm sure there are plenty of NIMBY environments around the world that don't fit that mold, though. The socially equitable part is more of a reach, however. Nobody has a gun to their head forcing them to live in San Francisco and likewise, nobody[1] is starving in San Francisco. John Smith who bought a home in SF in the early 80s and is retired on his post office pension and social security shouldn't be redistributing his wealth to anyone. [1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality.
  - Inconel 10y ago
    I'm not sure how we go from John Smith opposing high density development to John Smith being asked to redistribute his wealth to anyone? While we're on the topic of wealth redistribution though, perhaps John Smith shouldn't demand that younger people redistribute their wealth to him so that he can keep paying taxes on his property that are well below the current levels. All the while railing against any effort to make housing and transit more affordable. >[1] That is to say, nobody that isn't mentally ill or detached from reality. I too hate to nitpick, but...unless we're taking a very literal view of starving, as opposed to a constant struggle to feeding yourself, you should check out the percentage of SF schoolchildren on subsidized lunches or perhaps spend some time among the homeless, particularly homeless youth. I can assure you there are plenty of people going hungry in SF. I suppose you are correct in that no one is holding a gun to their head though, just a case of bad luck I guess.