2 ms·

I read your citation and it does not appear to support that claim with respect to approved projects. In fact it leads by referencing the slow rebound from the r

I read your citation and it does not appear to support that claim with respect to approved projects. In fact it leads by referencing the slow rebound from the recession for skilled labor vs all the demand as the primary driver in labor costs. Where it mentions permit delays it’s only in reference to delayed projects being at a disadvantage, not approved ones. As for your second question I can only refer you what I’ve already cited on construction costs, tightening capital markets and other factors beyond mere permitting or “NIMBY” issues. Intuitively, approved projects would move forward if the math made sense.

shuckles 7y ago
I feel like we’re talking past each other. In the section about labor costs, it cites at least the following: 1. Slow uptake of skills, lower productivity. Related to recession. 2. Hard to get bids due to uncertain approval process. Entirely caused by city policy. Now you say let’s condition on approved projects: however, given that it can take up to half a decade to gain approval (infamous historic laundromat was just under 5 years), controlling for approved projects is misleading. In five years, construction costs doubled and a project that might have penciled out at inception may no longer. The developer would have to propose a more dense, taller, etc. building for the project to make sense, but that would be another half-decade round trip through city planning. 3. City rules about prevailing wage, local sourcing, etc. limiting the available labor pool which directly drives up labor cost. This is entirely a local control problem. Are you saying 2 and 3 are not consequences of local regulation? Additionally, most of what you’ve cited is true across the nation. What you fail to provide is a reason these macroeconomic factors seem to have a disparate impact on SF’s ability to build which is evident in, e.g., the number of new housing units per capita it has delivered vis a vis a comparable city such as Seattle.
- abalone 7y ago
  I hear you on local sourcing but they mentioned it last and didn’t quantify the impact. The stalled project mentioned in the Chronicle article was approved in under two years, not five. So I don’t think these are strong points vs what the source clearly emphasizes as the primary driver of labor cost: “number of workers relative to the number of units being built is still below the historical average.” Which would be exacerbated if workers cannot afford to live in the region. I once saw a map set that visualized where you could transit to in various metros in under an hour from an affordable neighborhood. Even in NYC you could get to most of Manhattan, from the outskirts of Brooklyn or Queens. SF really stood out. You could only reach a few blocks around the BART stops. The whole city is cut off from a labor supply. It’s affecting staffing at restaurants and retail too — Nopa advertises for cooks in its menu because who wants to ride a motorcycle to San Leandro at 3am.

shuckles 7y ago

I feel like we’re talking past each other. In the section about labor costs, it cites at least the following: 1. Slow uptake of skills, lower productivity. Related to recession. 2. Hard to get bids due to uncertain approval process. Entirely caused by city policy. Now you say let’s condition on approved projects: however, given that it can take up to half a decade to gain approval (infamous historic laundromat was just under 5 years), controlling for approved projects is misleading. In five years, construction costs doubled and a project that might have penciled out at inception may no longer. The developer would have to propose a more dense, taller, etc. building for the project to make sense, but that would be another half-decade round trip through city planning. 3. City rules about prevailing wage, local sourcing, etc. limiting the available labor pool which directly drives up labor cost. This is entirely a local control problem. Are you saying 2 and 3 are not consequences of local regulation? Additionally, most of what you’ve cited is true across the nation. What you fail to provide is a reason these macroeconomic factors seem to have a disparate impact on SF’s ability to build which is evident in, e.g., the number of new housing units per capita it has delivered vis a vis a comparable city such as Seattle.

abalone 7y ago
I hear you on local sourcing but they mentioned it last and didn’t quantify the impact. The stalled project mentioned in the Chronicle article was approved in under two years, not five. So I don’t think these are strong points vs what the source clearly emphasizes as the primary driver of labor cost: “number of workers relative to the number of units being built is still below the historical average.” Which would be exacerbated if workers cannot afford to live in the region. I once saw a map set that visualized where you could transit to in various metros in under an hour from an affordable neighborhood. Even in NYC you could get to most of Manhattan, from the outskirts of Brooklyn or Queens. SF really stood out. You could only reach a few blocks around the BART stops. The whole city is cut off from a labor supply. It’s affecting staffing at restaurants and retail too — Nopa advertises for cooks in its menu because who wants to ride a motorcycle to San Leandro at 3am.