3 ms·

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

by 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
> 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. Somewhat understandable, but there's a housing crisis. We need more housing, particularly in economically booming areas. For the government, serving people's needs -- and housing and decent jobs are both needs -- has to come before people's wants. > Victorian neighborhoods of SF with less loss of character. The current "character" of low-density SFH-only areas is "poors keep out", so I'm less than enthused about keeping it. It's disgusting that government regulation unabashedly supports classist bullshit like that. It's barely better than redlining. I think one day we'll look back, and be flabbergasted that we tolerated things being this way for so long, the way we segregate people -- and especially children in their schools -- by income.

by jpao79 9y ago

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

> 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. Somewhat understandable, but there's a housing crisis. We need more housing, particularly in economically booming areas. For the government, serving people's needs -- and housing and decent jobs are both needs -- has to come before people's wants. > Victorian neighborhoods of SF with less loss of character. The current "character" of low-density SFH-only areas is "poors keep out", so I'm less than enthused about keeping it. It's disgusting that government regulation unabashedly supports classist bullshit like that. It's barely better than redlining. I think one day we'll look back, and be flabbergasted that we tolerated things being this way for so long, the way we segregate people -- and especially children in their schools -- by income.