6 ms·

> which is 99% developed. Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco. Just because there's already, say, a parking lot or a Burge

> which is 99% developed. Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco. Just because there's already, say, a parking lot or a Burger King with a drive-through on a block in the city doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to build apartments there instead. Geography and existing land use do not prevent building more housing in SF. Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason why the housing supply is so restricted.

ianamartin 9y ago
That sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting that people who have already acquired the rights to a piece of property shouldn't be allowed to keep them if a housing developer wants to put a high rise where your Burger King is. Also, I wonder if you would make the same argument for places that are also generally though of as real-estate constrained. Like Manhattan, or Tokyo. Or the part of Brooklyn where I live.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- koolba 9y ago
  That makes no sense. GP is saying that the owner of the land, whether it's a parking lot or a Burger King, can decide to do something else with it like build a high rise. It's their land after all. It's not like a random housing developer can come and kick you out just because they want to build condos.
- Sukotto 9y ago
  Here in Japan your neighbour can build pretty much anything they want (within zoning constraints) and there is little you can do about it. The zoning here is pretty different than in the US though. The government created a national, unified zoning standard consisting of 12 zones. Local governments can split their land into more-or-less arbitrary regions, and choose which zone type they want each region to have. They also have some control over how large the resulting buildings can be in each region by mandating the maximum ratio of floor space to land area for each region. The main difference between Japanese and American zoning rules is that in the US, the zones are exclusive where-as in Japan they are (mostly) inclusive. There's a fascinating writeup about it here: https://urbankchoze.blogspot.jp/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html https://urbankchoze.blogspot.jp/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
  - Zach_the_Lizard 9y ago
    We not only have zones, but we layer on historic districts, parking minimums, setbacks, etc., going further than just not mixing commercial and residential. We mandate certain lifestyles in a pretty big way. A big shock vs. living in Japan where one can choose very different lifestyles. I also miss the freedom Japanese architects seemed to have, where a building shaped like a treehouse would be just one of several interesting buildings.
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    It would be interesting to see if this is related to Japan's slightly bizarre real estate market. As I understand it, Japan has a culture that heavily emphasizes purchasing a newly built residence to live in for life. As such, the resale market for homes is limited. Lots of NIMBYism is inspired by some level of home value protectionism. It's possible that if you don't expect to resell your home, you don't have to worry so much about protecting its value.
- sidlls 9y ago
  If the problem is severe enough I see no reason in theory to not apply Eminent Domain in such cases. In practice what would likely happen is a local councilman's friend gets the lucrative development plot in an act of corrupt capitalism.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  The problem is not property owners being unwilling to sell out to developers, it's almost always nearby NIMBYs opposing new development. IIRC a large percentage of buildings in Manhattan would be illegal to build today in terms of design/zoning.
timr 9y ago
"Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco." "Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason why the housing supply is so restricted." Prove your claim. The GP is right that there is essentially no undeveloped land in SF; a huge part of the housing moratorium debate centered on the fact that there are only a half-dozen or so vacant parcels in the Mission. This is true across the city. You're arguing about underutilized land, which is a subject that cannot be addressed with simple assertions. In most cases, that "parking lot or burger king" is a contrived example that doesn't really exist: either the lot really is being developed (and you just don't know about it), or the owner of the land doesn't want to redevelop it (i.e. they're making more money with the current use than they would otherwise), or the land is in a place where a developer can't make a building work (pollution, neighborhood, etc.), or any number of other practical reasons. I used to believe, like you, that "regulations" were the reason that SF has a housing problem. Then I started looking into it. Regulations make a difference on the margins, but the root cause of SF's housing crisis is simple economics: too much money chasing too little land. No matter what you do, it's going to be expensive.
- erispoe 9y ago
  SF city occupies approximatively the same area as Paris, with only a third of the population. Most of Paris is developed with a 37m ceiling, hardly skyscrapers. Cost of land goes up with density, but that's the point. You build more and spread that cost among more units. Up to a point, it is economical to build higher in that situation (then for skyscrapers you start to see cost per unit going up again). Look at all the 3 or 4 stories apartment buildings sprouting in the city right now. Most of them could be double the height without increasing construction costs per unit. If your artificially reduce the number of units that can be built on a plot of land, you're forcing to spread the price of land among fewer units and you increase their cost.
  - rplst8 9y ago
    > Look at all the 3 or 4 stories apartment buildings sprouting in the city right now. Most of them could be double the height without increasing construction costs per unit. I'm not sure that's correct. I think the reason that you see a lot at that height is because building codes change quite a bit as you go past a certain height and the costs go up as well.
oftenwrong 9y ago
It goes beyond the lots and what is built on them - just look at the streets. A random residential street in SF: https://goo.gl/maps/GtKscWh1ko52 https://goo.gl/maps/GtKscWh1ko52 A random residential street in Tokyo: https://goo.gl/maps/QqtERUnBzXD2 https://goo.gl/maps/QqtERUnBzXD2 According to my google maps eyeballing, the SF street is about 6 times wider building-to-building.
- JulianMorrison 9y ago
  It's American cars. Y'all drive barges. Contrast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    It's not just that... we like to ensure that folks can drive them fast! https://www.citylab.com/design/2014/10/why-12-foot-traffic-lanes-are-disastrous-for-safety-and-must-be-replaced-now/381117/ https://www.citylab.com/design/2014/10/why-12-foot-traffic-l...
  - namdnay 9y ago
    Actually, I was quite surprised during a recent visit to Japan. There aren't many cars, but most of them are big saloons (lots of Crowns). Then again maybe if you can afford a car in Tokyo or Osaka, you can afford a big one.
    - ocschwar 9y ago
      The car's not the hard part. The hard part is securing ownership of a parking spot for the night. You have to prove this before you can retitle a car.
thrownblown 9y ago
With the McD's on Van Ness gone, the BK has grown in popularity and utilization. It's the Round Table Pizza next-door that's gotta go
almost_usual 9y ago
There are tons of vacant houses in San Francisco. Most of these homes are bought in cash from outside investors who have way more wealth than your average Bay Area citizen or tech employee. These homes aren't rented because there are too many tenant rights and it's more trouble than it's worth to the owner.

ianamartin 9y ago

That sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting that people who have already acquired the rights to a piece of property shouldn't be allowed to keep them if a housing developer wants to put a high rise where your Burger King is. Also, I wonder if you would make the same argument for places that are also generally though of as real-estate constrained. Like Manhattan, or Tokyo. Or the part of Brooklyn where I live.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
koolba 9y ago
That makes no sense. GP is saying that the owner of the land, whether it's a parking lot or a Burger King, can decide to do something else with it like build a high rise. It's their land after all. It's not like a random housing developer can come and kick you out just because they want to build condos.
Sukotto 9y ago
Here in Japan your neighbour can build pretty much anything they want (within zoning constraints) and there is little you can do about it. The zoning here is pretty different than in the US though. The government created a national, unified zoning standard consisting of 12 zones. Local governments can split their land into more-or-less arbitrary regions, and choose which zone type they want each region to have. They also have some control over how large the resulting buildings can be in each region by mandating the maximum ratio of floor space to land area for each region. The main difference between Japanese and American zoning rules is that in the US, the zones are exclusive where-as in Japan they are (mostly) inclusive. There's a fascinating writeup about it here: https://urbankchoze.blogspot.jp/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html https://urbankchoze.blogspot.jp/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
- Zach_the_Lizard 9y ago
  We not only have zones, but we layer on historic districts, parking minimums, setbacks, etc., going further than just not mixing commercial and residential. We mandate certain lifestyles in a pretty big way. A big shock vs. living in Japan where one can choose very different lifestyles. I also miss the freedom Japanese architects seemed to have, where a building shaped like a treehouse would be just one of several interesting buildings.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  It would be interesting to see if this is related to Japan's slightly bizarre real estate market. As I understand it, Japan has a culture that heavily emphasizes purchasing a newly built residence to live in for life. As such, the resale market for homes is limited. Lots of NIMBYism is inspired by some level of home value protectionism. It's possible that if you don't expect to resell your home, you don't have to worry so much about protecting its value.
sidlls 9y ago
If the problem is severe enough I see no reason in theory to not apply Eminent Domain in such cases. In practice what would likely happen is a local councilman's friend gets the lucrative development plot in an act of corrupt capitalism.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
The problem is not property owners being unwilling to sell out to developers, it's almost always nearby NIMBYs opposing new development. IIRC a large percentage of buildings in Manhattan would be illegal to build today in terms of design/zoning.

timr 9y ago

"Not really. There's plenty of room to build a ton more in San Francisco." "Anti-building regulations are the only meaningful reason why the housing supply is so restricted." Prove your claim. The GP is right that there is essentially no undeveloped land in SF; a huge part of the housing moratorium debate centered on the fact that there are only a half-dozen or so vacant parcels in the Mission. This is true across the city. You're arguing about underutilized land, which is a subject that cannot be addressed with simple assertions. In most cases, that "parking lot or burger king" is a contrived example that doesn't really exist: either the lot really is being developed (and you just don't know about it), or the owner of the land doesn't want to redevelop it (i.e. they're making more money with the current use than they would otherwise), or the land is in a place where a developer can't make a building work (pollution, neighborhood, etc.), or any number of other practical reasons. I used to believe, like you, that "regulations" were the reason that SF has a housing problem. Then I started looking into it. Regulations make a difference on the margins, but the root cause of SF's housing crisis is simple economics: too much money chasing too little land. No matter what you do, it's going to be expensive.

erispoe 9y ago
SF city occupies approximatively the same area as Paris, with only a third of the population. Most of Paris is developed with a 37m ceiling, hardly skyscrapers. Cost of land goes up with density, but that's the point. You build more and spread that cost among more units. Up to a point, it is economical to build higher in that situation (then for skyscrapers you start to see cost per unit going up again). Look at all the 3 or 4 stories apartment buildings sprouting in the city right now. Most of them could be double the height without increasing construction costs per unit. If your artificially reduce the number of units that can be built on a plot of land, you're forcing to spread the price of land among fewer units and you increase their cost.
- rplst8 9y ago
  > Look at all the 3 or 4 stories apartment buildings sprouting in the city right now. Most of them could be double the height without increasing construction costs per unit. I'm not sure that's correct. I think the reason that you see a lot at that height is because building codes change quite a bit as you go past a certain height and the costs go up as well.

oftenwrong 9y ago

It goes beyond the lots and what is built on them - just look at the streets. A random residential street in SF: https://goo.gl/maps/GtKscWh1ko52 https://goo.gl/maps/GtKscWh1ko52 A random residential street in Tokyo: https://goo.gl/maps/QqtERUnBzXD2 https://goo.gl/maps/QqtERUnBzXD2 According to my google maps eyeballing, the SF street is about 6 times wider building-to-building.

JulianMorrison 9y ago
It's American cars. Y'all drive barges. Contrast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  It's not just that... we like to ensure that folks can drive them fast! https://www.citylab.com/design/2014/10/why-12-foot-traffic-lanes-are-disastrous-for-safety-and-must-be-replaced-now/381117/ https://www.citylab.com/design/2014/10/why-12-foot-traffic-l...
- namdnay 9y ago
  Actually, I was quite surprised during a recent visit to Japan. There aren't many cars, but most of them are big saloons (lots of Crowns). Then again maybe if you can afford a car in Tokyo or Osaka, you can afford a big one.
  - ocschwar 9y ago
    The car's not the hard part. The hard part is securing ownership of a parking spot for the night. You have to prove this before you can retitle a car.

thrownblown 9y ago

With the McD's on Van Ness gone, the BK has grown in popularity and utilization. It's the Round Table Pizza next-door that's gotta go

almost_usual 9y ago

There are tons of vacant houses in San Francisco. Most of these homes are bought in cash from outside investors who have way more wealth than your average Bay Area citizen or tech employee. These homes aren't rented because there are too many tenant rights and it's more trouble than it's worth to the owner.