7 ms·

"Four floors and corner stores" on every block of the Sunset would make a significant dent in San Francisco's housing crisis.

by romed 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago
> "Four floors and corner stores" on every block of the Sunset would make a significant dent in San Francisco's housing crisis. It would significantly increase the number of fairly well off people currently living in the Bay Area outside of SF could live in SF proper, but it probably wouldn't (without some kind of non-market price controls) do anything about the crisis in SF (and SF is such a small part of the Bay, in terms of total numbers, that the knock-on effects in surrounding communities probably wouldn't do much to affordability in the Bay Area peripheries, either.
- toast0 8y ago
  There's a huge amount of difference between the apparent demand for housing and the availability of housing; there's also a lot of hidden demand -- people living with roommates who would prefer to live alone if it were more affordable. I wouldn't look for new construction to make things affordable, but to reduce the rate of price increases. If well-off people are moving into SF, they're most likely making their old units available too. I would predict that SF would remain unaffordable even if it added 10% more units, but surrounding areas might become affordable. Also, other municipalities will likely take queues from SF, if for no other reason than to avoid being in the news for being 'more restrictive than San Francisco', certain restrictive communities excluded.
  - linkregister 8y ago
    Absolutely right. The main driver of Berkeley house price increases isn't because of the sudden desirability of proximity to Cal. Likely upwards of 40% of the working population leaves every morning to go to San Francisco.
    - romed 8y ago
      It's possible you are right, but the net daytime migration into Berkeley is positive. There are 20k more people during work hours than overnight. Housing prices in Berkeley are high because of regional demand, yes, but mainly because they haven't built any houses while undergoing a sustained longevity boom. Basically the people who live there now have always lived there and their children have to live somewhere else.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > If well-off people are moving into SF, they're most likely making their old units available too. I would predict that SF would remain unaffordable even if it added 10% more units, but surrounding areas might become affordable. Probably not: 10% for SF is a little over 1% for the Bay Area. > Also, other municipalities will likely take queues from SF, if for no other reason than to avoid being in the news for being 'more restrictive than San Francisco', Suburban communities are usually more restrictive than the urban center, and that's a huge selling point that they actively market or at least actively market the results of.
- epistasis 8y ago
  I'm not sure if I can agree. For example, an analysis that puts a lower bound on the magnitude of rent decreases is here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap... They perform a simulation where everybody from Monterey to Marin to Stockton is equally happy living anywhere, and only cares about a handful of neighborhood characteristics. They then add a small amount of housing for individual desirable areas, holding everything else constant, and let people move whereever they will; i.e. if a person in Monterey gets to save $5 on rent for a place in the Sunset that's otherwise identical in "desirability" to their Monterey place, they're likely to move. Even in this outlandish situation, rents decrease quite a bit. For a 5% increase in supply, there's a 0.5% decrease in rents. A 20% increase in supply, there's a 1.8% decrease in rents. This study is often cited to make the opposite point: that it's impossible build to decrease rent. However, even small, focused amounts of building result in decreases in rents in this model. Increasing density in the Sunset with lots of apartments where there are single family homes would have a huge impact, that would be potentially a 100% or 200% increase in supply. That would do a ton for the crisis in San Francisco.
  - mjevans 8y ago
    I read the findings you're summarizing differently. Insane prices already indicate that a market is completely defective. Correcting that condition requires, as noted in the figures, ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE difference in either the demand or supply. When rents are that crazy there will be an already displaced mass that isn't seen in the focus area of study; the market needs radical, organized, and planned (at least in the broad strokes) re-classification and re-organization of zones. As a very rough back of the napkin approach, which an actual expert would probably have better initial numbers for, examine the quantity of jobs in the area. To approximate for youth, students, retirees, and the unemployed; double that figure. (Est) NUM_RESIDENTS ~= 2 * JOBS Then assume by the time you actually get things fixed the problem will have gotten even worse. So target the overshoot at an additional 25 to 50 percent. Also, require distribution of housing VERY ROUGHLY according to actual census data of demographics. Just based on the cost of rent I'd say NO PLACE builds enough housing for singles nor enough for 'large families' (not in houses).
pmiller2 8y ago
You would also need to have better public transportation, so all those people don’t have to drive to work. As it is, it can take an hour to get to work from the Sunset to SOMA. And, if the commute is going to be that long anyway, why not just live in the East Bay and pay less in rent?
- romed 8y ago
  Yes of course you'd need to improve transportation, but the existing built environment of the Sunset is self-sabotaging. It's car-dependent and the cars are in the way of the buses and trains.
  - epistasis 8y ago
    Converting some streets, or even lanes, to bus-rapid-transit, could greatly improve things. The BRT on Geary has been slow and horribly managed, but I have a feeling that the current mayor can push things along a lot better if she stays on.
- cbhl 8y ago
  From the fine article: "However, many citizens were rightfully growing frustrated with the department’s actions, particularly decisions to bulldoze thriving neighborhoods to better serve suburban commuters. ... [I]n 1959, citizen activists presented the Board of Supervisors with a petition with more than 30,000 signatures demanding for most of these projects to be halted."
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    What does that have to do with what I posted?
  - hindsightbias 8y ago
    I always prefer to ponder SF's failure to accomodate the current bubble when I'm jogging in the Panhandle. Could that it only have been the 8 lane freeway the suburbs at state wanted. We'd only have to take a bit of GG Park to build a commuter airport for Moffett. http://manhattanairport.org http://manhattanairport.org

"Four floors and corner stores" on every block of the Sunset would make a significant dent in San Francisco's housing crisis.

by romed 8y ago

"Four floors and corner stores" on every block of the Sunset would make a significant dent in San Francisco's housing crisis.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> "Four floors and corner stores" on every block of the Sunset would make a significant dent in San Francisco's housing crisis. It would significantly increase the number of fairly well off people currently living in the Bay Area outside of SF could live in SF proper, but it probably wouldn't (without some kind of non-market price controls) do anything about the crisis in SF (and SF is such a small part of the Bay, in terms of total numbers, that the knock-on effects in surrounding communities probably wouldn't do much to affordability in the Bay Area peripheries, either.

toast0 8y ago
There's a huge amount of difference between the apparent demand for housing and the availability of housing; there's also a lot of hidden demand -- people living with roommates who would prefer to live alone if it were more affordable. I wouldn't look for new construction to make things affordable, but to reduce the rate of price increases. If well-off people are moving into SF, they're most likely making their old units available too. I would predict that SF would remain unaffordable even if it added 10% more units, but surrounding areas might become affordable. Also, other municipalities will likely take queues from SF, if for no other reason than to avoid being in the news for being 'more restrictive than San Francisco', certain restrictive communities excluded.
- linkregister 8y ago
  Absolutely right. The main driver of Berkeley house price increases isn't because of the sudden desirability of proximity to Cal. Likely upwards of 40% of the working population leaves every morning to go to San Francisco.
  - romed 8y ago
    It's possible you are right, but the net daytime migration into Berkeley is positive. There are 20k more people during work hours than overnight. Housing prices in Berkeley are high because of regional demand, yes, but mainly because they haven't built any houses while undergoing a sustained longevity boom. Basically the people who live there now have always lived there and their children have to live somewhere else.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If well-off people are moving into SF, they're most likely making their old units available too. I would predict that SF would remain unaffordable even if it added 10% more units, but surrounding areas might become affordable. Probably not: 10% for SF is a little over 1% for the Bay Area. > Also, other municipalities will likely take queues from SF, if for no other reason than to avoid being in the news for being 'more restrictive than San Francisco', Suburban communities are usually more restrictive than the urban center, and that's a huge selling point that they actively market or at least actively market the results of.
epistasis 8y ago
I'm not sure if I can agree. For example, an analysis that puts a lower bound on the magnitude of rent decreases is here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap... They perform a simulation where everybody from Monterey to Marin to Stockton is equally happy living anywhere, and only cares about a handful of neighborhood characteristics. They then add a small amount of housing for individual desirable areas, holding everything else constant, and let people move whereever they will; i.e. if a person in Monterey gets to save $5 on rent for a place in the Sunset that's otherwise identical in "desirability" to their Monterey place, they're likely to move. Even in this outlandish situation, rents decrease quite a bit. For a 5% increase in supply, there's a 0.5% decrease in rents. A 20% increase in supply, there's a 1.8% decrease in rents. This study is often cited to make the opposite point: that it's impossible build to decrease rent. However, even small, focused amounts of building result in decreases in rents in this model. Increasing density in the Sunset with lots of apartments where there are single family homes would have a huge impact, that would be potentially a 100% or 200% increase in supply. That would do a ton for the crisis in San Francisco.
- mjevans 8y ago
  I read the findings you're summarizing differently. Insane prices already indicate that a market is completely defective. Correcting that condition requires, as noted in the figures, ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE difference in either the demand or supply. When rents are that crazy there will be an already displaced mass that isn't seen in the focus area of study; the market needs radical, organized, and planned (at least in the broad strokes) re-classification and re-organization of zones. As a very rough back of the napkin approach, which an actual expert would probably have better initial numbers for, examine the quantity of jobs in the area. To approximate for youth, students, retirees, and the unemployed; double that figure. (Est) NUM_RESIDENTS ~= 2 * JOBS Then assume by the time you actually get things fixed the problem will have gotten even worse. So target the overshoot at an additional 25 to 50 percent. Also, require distribution of housing VERY ROUGHLY according to actual census data of demographics. Just based on the cost of rent I'd say NO PLACE builds enough housing for singles nor enough for 'large families' (not in houses).

pmiller2 8y ago

You would also need to have better public transportation, so all those people don’t have to drive to work. As it is, it can take an hour to get to work from the Sunset to SOMA. And, if the commute is going to be that long anyway, why not just live in the East Bay and pay less in rent?

romed 8y ago
Yes of course you'd need to improve transportation, but the existing built environment of the Sunset is self-sabotaging. It's car-dependent and the cars are in the way of the buses and trains.
- epistasis 8y ago
  Converting some streets, or even lanes, to bus-rapid-transit, could greatly improve things. The BRT on Geary has been slow and horribly managed, but I have a feeling that the current mayor can push things along a lot better if she stays on.
cbhl 8y ago
From the fine article: "However, many citizens were rightfully growing frustrated with the department’s actions, particularly decisions to bulldoze thriving neighborhoods to better serve suburban commuters. ... [I]n 1959, citizen activists presented the Board of Supervisors with a petition with more than 30,000 signatures demanding for most of these projects to be halted."
- pmiller2 8y ago
  What does that have to do with what I posted?
- hindsightbias 8y ago
  I always prefer to ponder SF's failure to accomodate the current bubble when I'm jogging in the Panhandle. Could that it only have been the 8 lane freeway the suburbs at state wanted. We'd only have to take a bit of GG Park to build a commuter airport for Moffett. http://manhattanairport.org http://manhattanairport.org