3 ms·

I mean I don’t want to sound too discouraging but this is the problem with “plausible sounding” armchair urbanism. 1% of the surface area of SF is over one hund

I mean I don’t want to sound too discouraging but this is the problem with “plausible sounding” armchair urbanism. 1% of the surface area of SF is over one hundred city blocks of 33 story residential skyscrapers. And as you note, that’s not even enough to house the global workforce of the current tech companies, many of whom would move to HQ if housing became cheap along with crap tons of others. Well, sure, go ahead. The point is market rate construction alone will not solve the service industry housing problem. There needs to be affordable price-controlled housing to support a healthy local economy.

closeparen 8y ago
>1% of the surface area of SF is over one hundred city blocks of 33 story residential skyscrapers. You're writing that like it's ludicrous. Manhattan's ~2500 blocks are much more than 1% covered in high-density residential structures. So it's not even close to touching the examples we already have. > market rate construction alone I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up. Market rate construction alone is not a thing in San Francisco. The requirement is 18% BMR. If we zone for more capacity, it will be 18% BMR.