4 ms·

Apartments -- of any height! -- are illegal to build in 78.6% of SF: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ Fix that, and you'll f

by raldi 8y ago

Apartments -- of any height! -- are illegal to build in 78.6% of SF: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ Fix that, and you'll fix the city's housing and homelessness problems. It wouldn't take ugly skyscrapers, just 4-to-6 story apartment buildings like they have all over the most beautiful cities in Europe.

jacobolus 8y ago
Yeah, it’s absurd. But good luck fixing it. Whenever I tell people “the fix to SF’s housing problem is to upzone the Sunset to allow 5-story buildings full of studio & 1-bedroom apartments with little shops on the ground floor and improve transit, so that 20-somethings aren’t forced to sleep in bunk-beds 5 people to a rented 2-bedroom house with a back yard they don’t use and ride Ubers to work in heavy traffic”, they look at me like I’m crazy, and insist the solution is stricter low-income housing requirements and stronger protections against eviction. This “world class city” is zoned to be a sleepy beach town. Doesn’t help that the whole rest of the Bay Area is mostly zoned the same way.
- DrScump 8y ago
  with little shops on the ground floor There's tons of vacant ground floor retail spaces already. In the Amazon and on-demand era, viability is tough if you aren't moving primarily liquor and lottery tickets. Even fast food isn't viable in much of SF (something like 9 McDonald's alone have closed in the last few years... including the longstanding one at 3rd and Townsend).
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    Having mixed-use zoning doesn't mean every available space must be used for retail.
sien 8y ago
That's a great map. That could be taken and with the method in this paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 The added cost by zoning in area could be calculated. It'd be absolutely massive. Perhaps someone already has.

by raldi 8y ago

jacobolus 8y ago

Yeah, it’s absurd. But good luck fixing it. Whenever I tell people “the fix to SF’s housing problem is to upzone the Sunset to allow 5-story buildings full of studio & 1-bedroom apartments with little shops on the ground floor and improve transit, so that 20-somethings aren’t forced to sleep in bunk-beds 5 people to a rented 2-bedroom house with a back yard they don’t use and ride Ubers to work in heavy traffic”, they look at me like I’m crazy, and insist the solution is stricter low-income housing requirements and stronger protections against eviction. This “world class city” is zoned to be a sleepy beach town. Doesn’t help that the whole rest of the Bay Area is mostly zoned the same way.

DrScump 8y ago
with little shops on the ground floor There's tons of vacant ground floor retail spaces already. In the Amazon and on-demand era, viability is tough if you aren't moving primarily liquor and lottery tickets. Even fast food isn't viable in much of SF (something like 9 McDonald's alone have closed in the last few years... including the longstanding one at 3rd and Townsend).
- jacobolus 8y ago
  Having mixed-use zoning doesn't mean every available space must be used for retail.

sien 8y ago

That's a great map. That could be taken and with the method in this paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 The added cost by zoning in area could be calculated. It'd be absolutely massive. Perhaps someone already has.