5 ms·

I think the current strategy of guiding ultra-high density residential developers towards the Central Waterfront (i.e. the Dogpatch and the flat but underutiliz

by 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.
  - thwarted 9y ago
    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.). This just means that the people there who own who are trying to sell then think they get screwed by this announcement, even if it's actually going to change for a decade, especially if people like you won't buy because the change is pending. Announcing it a full decade out also provides a chance for, potentially, two other municipal administrations to do political machinations that undo the pending change before it takes effect. If these aren't actually worse situations, an announcement with a decade lead time doesn't necessarily make it better.
    - jpao79 9y ago
      'Announcing it a full decade out also provides a chance for, potentially, two other municipal administrations to do political machinations that undo the pending change before it takes effect.' >> Agreed. I had not thought of that scenario (which is very likely)! Maybe that's even more reason to focus on the strategy of upzoning under-utilized industrial land to ultra high density residential instead of trying to up zone existing residential neighborhoods.
      - nedwin 9y ago
        Sadly upzoning those areas still won't be enough housing. And some areas (like piers along the Embarcadero) the neighbourhoods like Telegraph Hill viciously oppose them too. I don't think the "neighbourhood character" test really holds much muster. Maybe if you bought one of the Painted Ladies, or are on a street that is 90%+ Victorians. Maybe. I live on 18th and there are few Victorians left. There are a lot of ugly 60's and 70's 2/3/4 story buildings. These could all be upzoned to 6-8 stories without having much of an effect on "neighbourhood character". My view is you don't buy a time capsule, you're buying a block of land in an evolving city. Things will change, they need to.
  - TulliusCicero 9y ago
jpao79 9y ago
Here's an article from October 2017: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Dogpatch-SF-s-latest-boomtown-neighborhood-12315940.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Dogpatch-SF-s-la... 'With new restaurants or galleries opening seemingly every week, Dogpatch is the city’s fastest-growing neighborhood, with a population set to jump to about 8,000 by 2025 — up from 2,000 in 2015 — as huge developments at Pier 70 and the old Potrero Power Plant join the area’s shiny housing complexes. In the past three months alone, three developments with a total of 700 housing units have opened in Dogpatch. An additional 1,500 units are set to pop up in the next few years as new buildings rise throughout the flat, sunny, 141-acre rectangle sandwiched between the Central Waterfront and Interstate 280. Tennessee Street alone, which is home to both the San Francisco chapter of the Hells Angels and City Attorney Dennis Herrera, will see seven new developments totaling 663 units along its 11-block length. Two blocks over, Indiana Street will have 493 new apartments in three developments. And four complexes with 400 units will materialize along Third Street, the main commercial drag, where the T-Third Street Muni cars lurch north toward Mission Bay and south toward the Bayview.'
- closeparen 9y ago
  These numbers sound large, but are probably too low by a factor of 10.
  - jpao79 9y ago
    Interesting read - suggesting about 5000 units in the pipeline for the next 3 years: https://www.paragon-re.com/trend/new-housing-construction-in-san-francisco-update https://www.paragon-re.com/trend/new-housing-construction-in...
nosuchthing 9y ago
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 huh? This only took about 2-3 years in Los Angeles. Many of the former industrial buildings and districts were rezoned and it has directly helped invigorate many areas of downtown which were formerly sparsely utilized. The Arts district has had several recent projects add what amounts to entirely new neighborhoods with hundreds of units and live/work spaces. https://recode.la/about https://recode.la/about Unfortunately due to prop 13, there's still a vast amount of empty lots and unused buildings just wasting space without adding any value to the city or residents. Given the rezoning, it seems to have finally inspired use of some of these buildings but many empty units will still exist until there's incentive to not just horde without use.
- jpao79 9y ago
  Agreed, its a long time coming, but it's definitely coming: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2017/11/housing-pipeline-holds-as-construction-activity-jumps-in-san-francisco.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2017/11/housing-pipeline-...
akgerber 9y ago
San Francisco doesn't just need 'ultra-high density' midtown-Manhattan sytle towers, which are inherently expensive due to the necessary concrete & steel & engineering, but also Brooklyn-style midrise density in neighborhoods of 1920s single-inhabitable-story tract homes next to subway stations like Glen Park.

by jpao79 9y ago

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.
- thwarted 9y ago
  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.). This just means that the people there who own who are trying to sell then think they get screwed by this announcement, even if it's actually going to change for a decade, especially if people like you won't buy because the change is pending. Announcing it a full decade out also provides a chance for, potentially, two other municipal administrations to do political machinations that undo the pending change before it takes effect. If these aren't actually worse situations, an announcement with a decade lead time doesn't necessarily make it better.
  - jpao79 9y ago
    'Announcing it a full decade out also provides a chance for, potentially, two other municipal administrations to do political machinations that undo the pending change before it takes effect.' >> Agreed. I had not thought of that scenario (which is very likely)! Maybe that's even more reason to focus on the strategy of upzoning under-utilized industrial land to ultra high density residential instead of trying to up zone existing residential neighborhoods.
    - nedwin 9y ago
      Sadly upzoning those areas still won't be enough housing. And some areas (like piers along the Embarcadero) the neighbourhoods like Telegraph Hill viciously oppose them too. I don't think the "neighbourhood character" test really holds much muster. Maybe if you bought one of the Painted Ladies, or are on a street that is 90%+ Victorians. Maybe. I live on 18th and there are few Victorians left. There are a lot of ugly 60's and 70's 2/3/4 story buildings. These could all be upzoned to 6-8 stories without having much of an effect on "neighbourhood character". My view is you don't buy a time capsule, you're buying a block of land in an evolving city. Things will change, they need to.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago

jpao79 9y ago

Here's an article from October 2017: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Dogpatch-SF-s-latest-boomtown-neighborhood-12315940.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Dogpatch-SF-s-la... 'With new restaurants or galleries opening seemingly every week, Dogpatch is the city’s fastest-growing neighborhood, with a population set to jump to about 8,000 by 2025 — up from 2,000 in 2015 — as huge developments at Pier 70 and the old Potrero Power Plant join the area’s shiny housing complexes. In the past three months alone, three developments with a total of 700 housing units have opened in Dogpatch. An additional 1,500 units are set to pop up in the next few years as new buildings rise throughout the flat, sunny, 141-acre rectangle sandwiched between the Central Waterfront and Interstate 280. Tennessee Street alone, which is home to both the San Francisco chapter of the Hells Angels and City Attorney Dennis Herrera, will see seven new developments totaling 663 units along its 11-block length. Two blocks over, Indiana Street will have 493 new apartments in three developments. And four complexes with 400 units will materialize along Third Street, the main commercial drag, where the T-Third Street Muni cars lurch north toward Mission Bay and south toward the Bayview.'

closeparen 9y ago
These numbers sound large, but are probably too low by a factor of 10.
- jpao79 9y ago
  Interesting read - suggesting about 5000 units in the pipeline for the next 3 years: https://www.paragon-re.com/trend/new-housing-construction-in-san-francisco-update https://www.paragon-re.com/trend/new-housing-construction-in...

nosuchthing 9y ago

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 huh? This only took about 2-3 years in Los Angeles. Many of the former industrial buildings and districts were rezoned and it has directly helped invigorate many areas of downtown which were formerly sparsely utilized. The Arts district has had several recent projects add what amounts to entirely new neighborhoods with hundreds of units and live/work spaces. https://recode.la/about https://recode.la/about Unfortunately due to prop 13, there's still a vast amount of empty lots and unused buildings just wasting space without adding any value to the city or residents. Given the rezoning, it seems to have finally inspired use of some of these buildings but many empty units will still exist until there's incentive to not just horde without use.

jpao79 9y ago
Agreed, its a long time coming, but it's definitely coming: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2017/11/housing-pipeline-holds-as-construction-activity-jumps-in-san-francisco.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2017/11/housing-pipeline-...

akgerber 9y ago

San Francisco doesn't just need 'ultra-high density' midtown-Manhattan sytle towers, which are inherently expensive due to the necessary concrete & steel & engineering, but also Brooklyn-style midrise density in neighborhoods of 1920s single-inhabitable-story tract homes next to subway stations like Glen Park.