5 ms·

Zoning could arguably mitigate the problem, but geography strongly constrains the Bay Area in a way that simply does not apply to major metropolitan areas with

Zoning could arguably mitigate the problem, but geography strongly constrains the Bay Area in a way that simply does not apply to major metropolitan areas with vastly lower property values. Ironically, it really is pretty much supply and demand. It's wishful thinking that the rest of America's real estate market is much more affordable due to wise zoning choices. A lot of the land that seems underutilized is contaminated (SuperFund sites, ex-military, industrial, etc) and requires significant remediation. Even so, Peninsula residents still spend $1M for townhouses and condos built on former SuperFund sites. That's the discount price...

cheriot 6y ago
3/4 of residential land in SF is zoned for single family. We're not to the point where we need to talk about geography or the superfund sites. When we actually use our land wisely, then it will be easy to build more around train stations. The measure of distance that matters is not miles, but minutes. > It's wishful thinking that the rest of America's real estate market is much more affordable due to wise zoning choices. SF jobs are more concentrated in a down town area. Offices in cities that were built post car culture are more sprawled out. It's terrible for the environment, but it postpones the problems that SF is running into. > Ironically, it really is pretty much supply and demand. Well, cheers to agreeing on something. Sucks that this is a debated thing here.
- dougabug 6y ago
  > 3/4 of residential land in SF is zoned for single family. We're not to the point where we need to talk about geography or the superfund sites. But this is hardly a property unique to the Bay Area. Most American metropolitan areas share this lopsided bias towards single family zoning. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities... Also, consider that this zoning problem surely existed long before home prices skyrocketed across the Bay Area and spread to other tech hubs such as Seattle. The fact that the top 5 tech companies alone in those two metropolitan areas (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook) have a combined market cap of $7.5T, is just one manifestation of the vast wealth generated by the tech industry which has warped property values.
  - cheriot 6y ago
    It's a problem that comes with economic success and SF got there first. That doesn't mean other cities aren't on the same trajectory. And the fact that it's a 19th century city not designed for cars makes a big difference.
defnotashton2 6y ago
That supply and demand would change greatly if the 20 miles outside of the city center wasn't restricted to 3 stories.. Artificially tilts supply to nothing. Local owners want to keep it cause their prop value would drop and not in my backyard. Really really simple. If the state would override the locals, and zone it better, sf wouldn't be the most unaffordable city.
rl3 6y ago
>Even so, Peninsula residents still spend $1M for townhouses and condos built on former SuperFund sites. Their gardens must offer a unique taste of computing history.

cheriot 6y ago

3/4 of residential land in SF is zoned for single family. We're not to the point where we need to talk about geography or the superfund sites. When we actually use our land wisely, then it will be easy to build more around train stations. The measure of distance that matters is not miles, but minutes. > It's wishful thinking that the rest of America's real estate market is much more affordable due to wise zoning choices. SF jobs are more concentrated in a down town area. Offices in cities that were built post car culture are more sprawled out. It's terrible for the environment, but it postpones the problems that SF is running into. > Ironically, it really is pretty much supply and demand. Well, cheers to agreeing on something. Sucks that this is a debated thing here.

dougabug 6y ago
> 3/4 of residential land in SF is zoned for single family. We're not to the point where we need to talk about geography or the superfund sites. But this is hardly a property unique to the Bay Area. Most American metropolitan areas share this lopsided bias towards single family zoning. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities... Also, consider that this zoning problem surely existed long before home prices skyrocketed across the Bay Area and spread to other tech hubs such as Seattle. The fact that the top 5 tech companies alone in those two metropolitan areas (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook) have a combined market cap of $7.5T, is just one manifestation of the vast wealth generated by the tech industry which has warped property values.
- cheriot 6y ago
  It's a problem that comes with economic success and SF got there first. That doesn't mean other cities aren't on the same trajectory. And the fact that it's a 19th century city not designed for cars makes a big difference.

defnotashton2 6y ago

That supply and demand would change greatly if the 20 miles outside of the city center wasn't restricted to 3 stories.. Artificially tilts supply to nothing. Local owners want to keep it cause their prop value would drop and not in my backyard. Really really simple. If the state would override the locals, and zone it better, sf wouldn't be the most unaffordable city.

rl3 6y ago

>Even so, Peninsula residents still spend $1M for townhouses and condos built on former SuperFund sites. Their gardens must offer a unique taste of computing history.