4 ms·
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
by 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 agoYep, replacing the rowhouses in Richmond & Sunset with 5-story walkups would probably triple the housing supply by itself.
- hexane360 10y agoI 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 agoWell, 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 agoHousehold 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.