9 ms·

Rethinking Residential Zoning

73 points by apsec112 9y ago

Scaevolus 9y ago
> One would expect San Francisco, with its progressive and environmental values, to be in the forefront of reforming exclusionary practices. Talk is cheap, but voters consistently prefer increasing property values.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  It looks from the outside that the whole of the Bay Area has realized it can cover its awful behavior by _claiming_ to be progressive. You don't need to care about privacy, just claim to; you don't need to care about poor people when you can claim it's the right wing (who don't exist in SF)'s fault; you can claim to care about diversity and continue to hire only white men from Stanford etc. Weird world.
  - jjtheblunt 9y ago
    That's very accurate, having lived there for 6.5 years most recently.
- jstalin 9y ago
  I've learned through lots of experience that political ideals that are held for national issues go out the window when it comes to local issues. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum.
- pessimizer 9y ago
  Removing zoning restrictions massively increases property values, which is why YIMBY group funding is always mysterious.
- bproven 9y ago
  I'm not a fan (at all) of the NIMBYism but I do understand it. What would you do if you had millions of dollars tied up in your home? If your home was your only asset of value? Especially if you bought a home in the last few years at top market value? You would fight against new housing which would deprecate your value(and rents) too. I think it is selfish - especially to our children and grandchildren that will never be able to live in SF and/or the bay area, but CA (or more accurately the bay area) asked for this and it will be hard to turn back :( Judging by reports such as this ( http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265?platform=hootsuite http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265?platform=hoo... ) it will just mean the middle class will be gone soon and this will be the land of the rich only... This is not wholly unique to the bay - almost every city does this. They champion rising home prices as great and then complain when they are too high b/c they didn't build to keep up with demand. Oh and also blame the techies b/c that is the cool thing to do.
reillyse 9y ago
This is exclusively about San Francisco, can you update the title to reflect that?
- kgwgk 9y ago
  If it was NOT about SF, then it would be worth mentioning :-)
- organsnyder 9y ago
  These details might be localized, but similar discussions are happening elsewhere. My city (Grand Rapids, MI) is having similar discussions regarding ADUs and other ways to increase housing supply: https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/Government/Programs-and-Initiatives/Housing-Now https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/Government/Programs-and-Initia...
Romanulus 9y ago
Good God almighty that's a giant claptrap of words... "Maybe if we just create/change a few more rules everything will be better" type mentality probably won't fix things. I see there are ideas to relax rules, which is good, but ultimately that might actually remove the 'money' aspect of the situation. My mentality is that if the costs are too high then don't pay them (hint: move away).
- pcwalton 9y ago
  You can rationalize almost any injustice with "if you don't like it, move away". And telling an entire generation that they shouldn't be allowed to live, or raise families, in the Bay Area is an injustice.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    We live in a market economy. The fact is, the SF Bay area is a housing shitshow, mostly because of a boom economy, which will end. Nobody was talking about this crisis in 2002 when the economy hit the skids, and all of the wacky California policy issues with property taxes and development challenges were all there. I don't live in California. I live in an urban environment in a neighborhood a mixed 1-4 family freestanding units. A major component of my property's valuation is that neighborhood cohesion. When you hear people characterizing turning potting sheds into shitty rental units as some sort of victory for social justice, you're hearing a movement that is poised to be upsurped by well capitalized real estate developers. I grew up in Queens, NYC, which has pretty loose zoning controls. My neighborhood, which in the 80s was a mix a 1-2 family detached and attached homes, changed dramatically, starting with the 80s real estate boom and continuing in waves in the 90s boom and the 2000's boom. The end result is a mix of cut-up single family homes and a bunch of teardown situations where nasty condo units eliminated open space, made parking a nightmare and killed the community. The only happy stakeholders are the real estate people who walked away with millions and left a mess for the residents and the city to deal with.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      If we lived in a market economy, the market would find the most efficient use for each parcel. We don't. We live in a centrally planned economy with respect to real estate, and the central planners have got their priorities backwards. Your framing of the residents of high-density housing as not "stakeholders" or "the community" is a common NIMBY talking point, but the condo/apartment dwellers whose humanity you choose to deny are not less deserving of space than you. If the "well-capitalized developers" want to help people like me (who were born too late to own city land) fight for the right to occupy space, I'll take it.
jpao79 9y ago
I think the current strategy of guiding ultra-high density residential developers towards the Central Waterfront (i.e. the Dogpatch and the flat but underutilized industrial parts north of the Bayview) makes more sense than trying to up zone existing Victorian neighborhoods. There aren't many NIMBYs there to block development and it will also give the entrance from the Peninsula up to SF a much better feel. http://sf-planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/4877-CW_DPR_chapter2.pdf http://sf-planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Docume... The challenge is that construction in general (not to mention the once in a millenium transformation of a former industrial zone to a people friendly multi-story residential zone along with supporting light rail/subway transportation) takes time and the media doesn't have the patience. There will definitely be a lag time between a project as significant as Salesforce Tower being completed and the supporting residential tower being completed. Residential developers aren't going to start building until there is a sufficient guarantee that the office buildings are going to get completed and corresponding demand will be there. Unfortunately that lag does mean some interim pain with respect to apartment rental rates. Here's a fun historical time-lapse of Downtown SF. A lot of the office buildings are actually relatively recent (post 90's-20's). https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BAY-DSJ-Salesforce-Tower-Now-the-Tallest-Building-in-San-Francisco-474747303.html https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BAY-DSJ-Salesforce-Tow...
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  > I think the current strategy of guiding ultra-high density residential developers towards the Central Waterfront (i.e. the Dogpatch and the flat but underutilized industrial parts north of the Bayview) makes more sense than trying to up zone existing Victorian neighborhoods. Mandatory low-density neighborhoods are de facto gated communities. There's no reason for government to enforce such by rule of law. If anything, the government should be encouraging mixed-income communities, not fighting them.
  - jpao79 9y ago
    Definitely not saying up zoning is bad, but the issue with that is the previous 'rules' for the neighborhood did not allow such density. I think what needs to be addressed is the speed at which the rule change/re-zoning occurs. If I were a homeowner in such a zone and I had just bought into a neighborhood that was zoned single family residential or just sunk 250K into a remodel in the same zone, and then all of sudden a bunch of developers not even from the neighborhood try to lobby to change the zoning, I'd feel shortchanged. If however, I was given fair notice about 8-10 years before the rule/zoning change that the city had such intent, then I would make financial decisions appropriately (i.e. not buy in that neighborhood, wait to build a duplex/triplex instead of an expensive single family that will be sandwiched in between two four story buildings, etc.). It's like when you buy an iPhone and the next day Steve Job announces the new iPhone. That said, my main point is that the change that can happen in the Dogpatch/Central Waterfront is orders of magnitude greater than up-zoning tweaks to the Victorian neighborhoods of SF with less loss of character.
baybal2 9y ago
I am all for Americans changing their zoning laws. America must adopt the "build whatever you want on your own land" regime that progressive nations have.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. In the US, we're not going to view as "progressive" anything that lets my next-door-neighbor decide to build an oil refinery in my subdivision. That will take significant value from my house and land, with no recourse available to me. That's... not going to fly here. What we need is something between what we have now (too rigid) and "build whatever you want on your own land".
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - baybal2 9y ago
    To begin with, that should not be a matter of zoning, but of a sanitary code. Want to build one? Also buy the land to have a minimum distance in between it and the nearest residential. In contrast to that, a system fully reliant on "expert" opinion to do zoning, can allow for that if that expert thinks that this is a smart thing to do so.
- jernfrost 9y ago
  Never heard of a progressive nation that has that. I’ve lived in different countries with different approaches to zoning including the US. US zoning rules are terrible IMHO with the possible exception of being nice for cars. I was able to live in the most expensive area of all of Oslo while being just regular middle class. That is because there was some mix of housing not just huge villas. It meant I get to know people far outside my social class and they got to know more refular people. I think that keeps people grounded. Outside the US what I really like is being able to walk to a local store, gym or whatever. In the Netherlands you’d find cozy cafe’s on the corner you could walk to. So many residential areas in the US are like a dessert. Nothing is going on there. Having a bit more mix of housing, a couple of convenient local stores etc isn’t exactly like building a refinery or high rise in bel air
mjevans 9y ago
I'm with them all the way until the /parking/ thing. Cars aren't going away. At /best/ we'll get self driving cars, but we aren't there yet, and even when we get there it'll probably be a bit before they fully kill the dedicated car. It is reasonable to assume 1 car for EVERY ADULT that MIGHT live someplace, and to then add an additional 0.2 cars for any adult that might thus visit someplace. THAT is how much parking should be accommodated, not on the street or in front, but probably in a shared community parking garage (with some slots assigned by unit, and others for guests). The community garage should also have a loading dock and staging area for deliveries and movers; with egress paths that make sense given use for both that and light/mid level construction activities. - In a separate point, the building codes should be such that when I shut my windows and doors, I don't hear or smell anyone near by me in any way. Even if they're doing something noisy but normal. (Watching a film, the laundry, a shower, etc.) They should also require /specific/ areas for smoking, and anyone smoking outside of those areas (particularly in rented units) should see //HEAVY// fines. I am so sick of opening a window or door and being unable to breath.
- jvm 9y ago
  Why would we not just let the market for parking determine how much parking to build? My wife and I live in San Francisco, don't have a car, don't have a garage. Are you saying I should be forced to pay for not just one, but actually two spots? Square footage in San Francisco is extremely precious. If people aren't willing to pay for parking I don't see why it should exist, or why people without cars should be forced to pay for it. To be clear, I'm against parking maximums as well. If people are willing to pay for a spot, let them do so!
  - mjevans 9y ago
    I guess having it zoned would allow for alternate uses like putting up isolation walls and using it as additional storage; or just parking a movable storage container in the spot. The loading dock is a very useful part of the concept, as is the necessity of a /community/ garage encouraging all moving vehicles to operate on a distinct layer from pedestrian areas. It would not be uncommon to have lawns, pathways, even a park or garden above such a garage. In a denser area the streets could actually be moved entirely underground, aside from some access roads that /normally/ wouldn't be used as such. (Special permits to bring in LARGE cranes/etc.) Also, it would be required of the area /building/; if you don't need that particular piece of property then I can easily imagine it being leased to nearby businesses as part of their parking allocation.

73 points by apsec112 9y ago

> One would expect San Francisco, with its progressive and environmental values, to be in the forefront of reforming exclusionary practices. Talk is cheap, but voters consistently prefer increasing property values.

JBReefer 9y ago
It looks from the outside that the whole of the Bay Area has realized it can cover its awful behavior by _claiming_ to be progressive. You don't need to care about privacy, just claim to; you don't need to care about poor people when you can claim it's the right wing (who don't exist in SF)'s fault; you can claim to care about diversity and continue to hire only white men from Stanford etc. Weird world.
- jjtheblunt 9y ago
  That's very accurate, having lived there for 6.5 years most recently.
jstalin 9y ago
I've learned through lots of experience that political ideals that are held for national issues go out the window when it comes to local issues. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum.
pessimizer 9y ago
Removing zoning restrictions massively increases property values, which is why YIMBY group funding is always mysterious.
bproven 9y ago
I'm not a fan (at all) of the NIMBYism but I do understand it. What would you do if you had millions of dollars tied up in your home? If your home was your only asset of value? Especially if you bought a home in the last few years at top market value? You would fight against new housing which would deprecate your value(and rents) too. I think it is selfish - especially to our children and grandchildren that will never be able to live in SF and/or the bay area, but CA (or more accurately the bay area) asked for this and it will be hard to turn back :( Judging by reports such as this ( http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265?platform=hootsuite http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265?platform=hoo... ) it will just mean the middle class will be gone soon and this will be the land of the rich only... This is not wholly unique to the bay - almost every city does this. They champion rising home prices as great and then complain when they are too high b/c they didn't build to keep up with demand. Oh and also blame the techies b/c that is the cool thing to do.

reillyse 9y ago

This is exclusively about San Francisco, can you update the title to reflect that?

kgwgk 9y ago
If it was NOT about SF, then it would be worth mentioning :-)
organsnyder 9y ago
These details might be localized, but similar discussions are happening elsewhere. My city (Grand Rapids, MI) is having similar discussions regarding ADUs and other ways to increase housing supply: https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/Government/Programs-and-Initiatives/Housing-Now https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/Government/Programs-and-Initia...

Romanulus 9y ago

Good God almighty that's a giant claptrap of words... "Maybe if we just create/change a few more rules everything will be better" type mentality probably won't fix things. I see there are ideas to relax rules, which is good, but ultimately that might actually remove the 'money' aspect of the situation. My mentality is that if the costs are too high then don't pay them (hint: move away).

pcwalton 9y ago
You can rationalize almost any injustice with "if you don't like it, move away". And telling an entire generation that they shouldn't be allowed to live, or raise families, in the Bay Area is an injustice.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  We live in a market economy. The fact is, the SF Bay area is a housing shitshow, mostly because of a boom economy, which will end. Nobody was talking about this crisis in 2002 when the economy hit the skids, and all of the wacky California policy issues with property taxes and development challenges were all there. I don't live in California. I live in an urban environment in a neighborhood a mixed 1-4 family freestanding units. A major component of my property's valuation is that neighborhood cohesion. When you hear people characterizing turning potting sheds into shitty rental units as some sort of victory for social justice, you're hearing a movement that is poised to be upsurped by well capitalized real estate developers. I grew up in Queens, NYC, which has pretty loose zoning controls. My neighborhood, which in the 80s was a mix a 1-2 family detached and attached homes, changed dramatically, starting with the 80s real estate boom and continuing in waves in the 90s boom and the 2000's boom. The end result is a mix of cut-up single family homes and a bunch of teardown situations where nasty condo units eliminated open space, made parking a nightmare and killed the community. The only happy stakeholders are the real estate people who walked away with millions and left a mess for the residents and the city to deal with.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    If we lived in a market economy, the market would find the most efficient use for each parcel. We don't. We live in a centrally planned economy with respect to real estate, and the central planners have got their priorities backwards. Your framing of the residents of high-density housing as not "stakeholders" or "the community" is a common NIMBY talking point, but the condo/apartment dwellers whose humanity you choose to deny are not less deserving of space than you. If the "well-capitalized developers" want to help people like me (who were born too late to own city land) fight for the right to occupy space, I'll take it.

jpao79 9y ago

I think the current strategy of guiding ultra-high density residential developers towards the Central Waterfront (i.e. the Dogpatch and the flat but underutilized industrial parts north of the Bayview) makes more sense than trying to up zone existing Victorian neighborhoods. There aren't many NIMBYs there to block development and it will also give the entrance from the Peninsula up to SF a much better feel. http://sf-planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/4877-CW_DPR_chapter2.pdf http://sf-planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Docume... The challenge is that construction in general (not to mention the once in a millenium transformation of a former industrial zone to a people friendly multi-story residential zone along with supporting light rail/subway transportation) takes time and the media doesn't have the patience. There will definitely be a lag time between a project as significant as Salesforce Tower being completed and the supporting residential tower being completed. Residential developers aren't going to start building until there is a sufficient guarantee that the office buildings are going to get completed and corresponding demand will be there. Unfortunately that lag does mean some interim pain with respect to apartment rental rates. Here's a fun historical time-lapse of Downtown SF. A lot of the office buildings are actually relatively recent (post 90's-20's). https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BAY-DSJ-Salesforce-Tower-Now-the-Tallest-Building-in-San-Francisco-474747303.html https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BAY-DSJ-Salesforce-Tow...

TulliusCicero 9y ago
> I think the current strategy of guiding ultra-high density residential developers towards the Central Waterfront (i.e. the Dogpatch and the flat but underutilized industrial parts north of the Bayview) makes more sense than trying to up zone existing Victorian neighborhoods. Mandatory low-density neighborhoods are de facto gated communities. There's no reason for government to enforce such by rule of law. If anything, the government should be encouraging mixed-income communities, not fighting them.
- jpao79 9y ago
  Definitely not saying up zoning is bad, but the issue with that is the previous 'rules' for the neighborhood did not allow such density. I think what needs to be addressed is the speed at which the rule change/re-zoning occurs. If I were a homeowner in such a zone and I had just bought into a neighborhood that was zoned single family residential or just sunk 250K into a remodel in the same zone, and then all of sudden a bunch of developers not even from the neighborhood try to lobby to change the zoning, I'd feel shortchanged. If however, I was given fair notice about 8-10 years before the rule/zoning change that the city had such intent, then I would make financial decisions appropriately (i.e. not buy in that neighborhood, wait to build a duplex/triplex instead of an expensive single family that will be sandwiched in between two four story buildings, etc.). It's like when you buy an iPhone and the next day Steve Job announces the new iPhone. That said, my main point is that the change that can happen in the Dogpatch/Central Waterfront is orders of magnitude greater than up-zoning tweaks to the Victorian neighborhoods of SF with less loss of character.

baybal2 9y ago

I am all for Americans changing their zoning laws. America must adopt the "build whatever you want on your own land" regime that progressive nations have.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. In the US, we're not going to view as "progressive" anything that lets my next-door-neighbor decide to build an oil refinery in my subdivision. That will take significant value from my house and land, with no recourse available to me. That's... not going to fly here. What we need is something between what we have now (too rigid) and "build whatever you want on your own land".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- baybal2 9y ago
  To begin with, that should not be a matter of zoning, but of a sanitary code. Want to build one? Also buy the land to have a minimum distance in between it and the nearest residential. In contrast to that, a system fully reliant on "expert" opinion to do zoning, can allow for that if that expert thinks that this is a smart thing to do so.
jernfrost 9y ago
Never heard of a progressive nation that has that. I’ve lived in different countries with different approaches to zoning including the US. US zoning rules are terrible IMHO with the possible exception of being nice for cars. I was able to live in the most expensive area of all of Oslo while being just regular middle class. That is because there was some mix of housing not just huge villas. It meant I get to know people far outside my social class and they got to know more refular people. I think that keeps people grounded. Outside the US what I really like is being able to walk to a local store, gym or whatever. In the Netherlands you’d find cozy cafe’s on the corner you could walk to. So many residential areas in the US are like a dessert. Nothing is going on there. Having a bit more mix of housing, a couple of convenient local stores etc isn’t exactly like building a refinery or high rise in bel air

mjevans 9y ago

I'm with them all the way until the /parking/ thing. Cars aren't going away. At /best/ we'll get self driving cars, but we aren't there yet, and even when we get there it'll probably be a bit before they fully kill the dedicated car. It is reasonable to assume 1 car for EVERY ADULT that MIGHT live someplace, and to then add an additional 0.2 cars for any adult that might thus visit someplace. THAT is how much parking should be accommodated, not on the street or in front, but probably in a shared community parking garage (with some slots assigned by unit, and others for guests). The community garage should also have a loading dock and staging area for deliveries and movers; with egress paths that make sense given use for both that and light/mid level construction activities. - In a separate point, the building codes should be such that when I shut my windows and doors, I don't hear or smell anyone near by me in any way. Even if they're doing something noisy but normal. (Watching a film, the laundry, a shower, etc.) They should also require /specific/ areas for smoking, and anyone smoking outside of those areas (particularly in rented units) should see //HEAVY// fines. I am so sick of opening a window or door and being unable to breath.

jvm 9y ago
Why would we not just let the market for parking determine how much parking to build? My wife and I live in San Francisco, don't have a car, don't have a garage. Are you saying I should be forced to pay for not just one, but actually two spots? Square footage in San Francisco is extremely precious. If people aren't willing to pay for parking I don't see why it should exist, or why people without cars should be forced to pay for it. To be clear, I'm against parking maximums as well. If people are willing to pay for a spot, let them do so!
- mjevans 9y ago
  I guess having it zoned would allow for alternate uses like putting up isolation walls and using it as additional storage; or just parking a movable storage container in the spot. The loading dock is a very useful part of the concept, as is the necessity of a /community/ garage encouraging all moving vehicles to operate on a distinct layer from pedestrian areas. It would not be uncommon to have lawns, pathways, even a park or garden above such a garage. In a denser area the streets could actually be moved entirely underground, aside from some access roads that /normally/ wouldn't be used as such. (Special permits to bring in LARGE cranes/etc.) Also, it would be required of the area /building/; if you don't need that particular piece of property then I can easily imagine it being leased to nearby businesses as part of their parking allocation.