4 ms·

The city of SF is half as dense as Brooklyn and there are a lot of empty lots here. There is a lot more room for development. The problem is that the current po

The city of SF is half as dense as Brooklyn and there are a lot of empty lots here. There is a lot more room for development. The problem is that the current political situation makes it easy for people to block new housing. This is quite an oversimplification, on multiple fronts. For one, the reason Brooklyn has higher density has far more to do with historical building patterns than the current political situation, by any calculation for example. In Brooklyn, already by the 1930s, they built multistory housing throughout a much greater portion of available lots than they ever did in SF, for example. And then came the all the massive, federally subsidized housing projects in the 40s-70s (again, at a much greater scale than in SF). The current political situation may not be helping much (from a growth perspective) -- but that's the just the current velocity you're talking about, not the starting point (i.e. the vastly greater stock of historical housing in Brooklyn over SF). I showed up last Thursday and one city resident said we should not build housing [at the Baylands site] because an earthquake may cause the buildings to fall over. Sounds like you're trying to paint this person as some kind of nervous nellie (or just another kneejerk NIMBYist). And yet it's easy to verify[1] that the lot you're referring to lies in a high-susceptibility liquefaction zone. So his concerns don't sound misplaced at all. So again (and again, and again with these debates): Yes, NIMBYists exist, and the political situation isn't very particularly fun and often feels counterproductive, etc. But these aren't the root causes of the problem. Building (at scale) in mature, established cities is just, well, "complicated". And building in cities with a wealth of historic (and never, ever to be rebuilt) historic architecture -- which also just so happen to straddle one of the most dangerous fault lines on the planet -- even more so. This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. [1] http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibili...

kevinburke 10y ago
> Sounds like you're trying to paint this guy as some kind of nervous nellie (or just another kneejerk NIMBYist). And yet it's easy to verify[1] that the lot you're referring to lies in a high-susceptibility liquefaction zone. So his concerns don't sound misplaced at all. The resident in question was a woman. I agree that liquefaction is a potential problem. But the developer is also aware of the problem and has a vested interest in ensuring that the condos they sell don't fall into the ground; I'm pretty sure that they won't sell condos that will fall into the ground. > Building (at scale) in mature, established cities is just, well, "complicated". Buildings on the East Coast are much older than San Francisco and yet they get referred for additional review much more rarely than San Francisco; in general it's much easier to build a new project as long as it fits the zoning guidelines. They also are not subject to CEQA lawsuits.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  The resident in question was a woman. Yeah, meant to correct that but got distracted. But the developer is also aware of the problem and has a vested interest in ensuring that the condos they sell don't fall into the ground; I'm pretty sure that they won't sell condos that will fall into the ground. Like the developer of that tower downtown that's been slowly sinking since the day it was built, you mean? And seriously -- are you really saying we should take the recommendation of the condo developer of that of the USGS on matters like these? BTW "fall into the ground" is hyperbole of course. I think you're aware of the fact that all kinds of nasty things can happen to you if you're in caught in a large building during a liquefaction event, even if the whole building doesn't outright "fall into the ground." Either way, there just wasn't anything out of line with the observation that resident brought up.
  - kevinburke 10y ago
    If anything a building sinking into the ground is more signal that developers need to take this seriously. It's unfortunate, but people in the building have already filed a lawsuit and it's not clear that they are not going to get a good resolution from this. The resident was using that argument to say "we shouldn't build," I think it should be at best a warning to the developer to build carefully. If the developer builds and people want to buy there it's not clear where the market failure is. It also ignores that the city wants to get a deal done and either housing or offices will get built. As far as liquefaction matters it needs to be an argument for offices or for housing. The land isn't going to sit empty.

kevinburke 10y ago

> Sounds like you're trying to paint this guy as some kind of nervous nellie (or just another kneejerk NIMBYist). And yet it's easy to verify[1] that the lot you're referring to lies in a high-susceptibility liquefaction zone. So his concerns don't sound misplaced at all. The resident in question was a woman. I agree that liquefaction is a potential problem. But the developer is also aware of the problem and has a vested interest in ensuring that the condos they sell don't fall into the ground; I'm pretty sure that they won't sell condos that will fall into the ground. > Building (at scale) in mature, established cities is just, well, "complicated". Buildings on the East Coast are much older than San Francisco and yet they get referred for additional review much more rarely than San Francisco; in general it's much easier to build a new project as long as it fits the zoning guidelines. They also are not subject to CEQA lawsuits.

kafkaesq 10y ago
The resident in question was a woman. Yeah, meant to correct that but got distracted. But the developer is also aware of the problem and has a vested interest in ensuring that the condos they sell don't fall into the ground; I'm pretty sure that they won't sell condos that will fall into the ground. Like the developer of that tower downtown that's been slowly sinking since the day it was built, you mean? And seriously -- are you really saying we should take the recommendation of the condo developer of that of the USGS on matters like these? BTW "fall into the ground" is hyperbole of course. I think you're aware of the fact that all kinds of nasty things can happen to you if you're in caught in a large building during a liquefaction event, even if the whole building doesn't outright "fall into the ground." Either way, there just wasn't anything out of line with the observation that resident brought up.
- kevinburke 10y ago
  If anything a building sinking into the ground is more signal that developers need to take this seriously. It's unfortunate, but people in the building have already filed a lawsuit and it's not clear that they are not going to get a good resolution from this. The resident was using that argument to say "we shouldn't build," I think it should be at best a warning to the developer to build carefully. If the developer builds and people want to buy there it's not clear where the market failure is. It also ignores that the city wants to get a deal done and either housing or offices will get built. As far as liquefaction matters it needs to be an argument for offices or for housing. The land isn't going to sit empty.