3 ms·

San Francisco also has 26 skyscrapers to Chicago's 130. 80% of the Bay Area is zoned exclusive for single family, to Chicago's 41.1%. It's not landscape and it

San Francisco also has 26 skyscrapers to Chicago's 130. 80% of the Bay Area is zoned exclusive for single family, to Chicago's 41.1%. It's not landscape and it's not rocket science: it's zoning. San Francisco could build up, letting people live closer to their work & be much better for the environment than encouraging sprawl, but chooses not to. Y'all decided to make housing expensive, so it is.

gnicholas 6y ago
Zoning is absolutely a big part of this. Though I would expect SF to have fewer skyscrapers than Chicago even if it weren't for zoning differences, given the earthquake risk. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/03/us/earthquake-preparedness-usa-japan.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/03/us/earthquake...
- asdff 6y ago
  There's no reason why the bay area couldn't look like Tokyo today. Earthquake risks in both places.
- coryrc 6y ago
  That's why there are so few skyscrapers in Tokyo, Taipei, etc
ek750 6y ago
doesn't it largely stem from Prop 13 which incentivizes all current land-owners to block any possibility of increasing density, at the expense of the rest of society? It's interesting to me that such a universally easy sell as, "no new taxes" can result in such a distorted and, IMO, grotesque unintended consequence.
- everybodyknows 6y ago
  >block any possibility It's even simpler than that. Had a conversation with a man who owns some tiny 60's vintage apartments on an ocean-view lot. He turns down market-rate offers from developers looking to put in family-size units because with his Prop. 13 tax tailwind, he makes out well enough despite the lower rents.
  - refurb 6y ago
    It doesn’t sound like Prop 13 is that influential for him. He’s turning down like millions for some reoccurring cash flow?
- egberts 6y ago
  California Proposition 13 is about how limited the state government can charge on property tax (one percent)?and how much the appraisal can go up year after year. Nothing to do with density, although there are numerous county and local laws on density zoning (which is not Prop 13) Of course, it has been 1973 when this happened and I think only twice has the state government tried to changed it by “stealthily titled” proposition and failed.

gnicholas 6y ago

Zoning is absolutely a big part of this. Though I would expect SF to have fewer skyscrapers than Chicago even if it weren't for zoning differences, given the earthquake risk. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/03/us/earthquake-preparedness-usa-japan.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/03/us/earthquake...

asdff 6y ago
There's no reason why the bay area couldn't look like Tokyo today. Earthquake risks in both places.
coryrc 6y ago
That's why there are so few skyscrapers in Tokyo, Taipei, etc

ek750 6y ago

doesn't it largely stem from Prop 13 which incentivizes all current land-owners to block any possibility of increasing density, at the expense of the rest of society? It's interesting to me that such a universally easy sell as, "no new taxes" can result in such a distorted and, IMO, grotesque unintended consequence.

everybodyknows 6y ago
>block any possibility It's even simpler than that. Had a conversation with a man who owns some tiny 60's vintage apartments on an ocean-view lot. He turns down market-rate offers from developers looking to put in family-size units because with his Prop. 13 tax tailwind, he makes out well enough despite the lower rents.
- refurb 6y ago
  It doesn’t sound like Prop 13 is that influential for him. He’s turning down like millions for some reoccurring cash flow?
egberts 6y ago
California Proposition 13 is about how limited the state government can charge on property tax (one percent)?and how much the appraisal can go up year after year. Nothing to do with density, although there are numerous county and local laws on density zoning (which is not Prop 13) Of course, it has been 1973 when this happened and I think only twice has the state government tried to changed it by “stealthily titled” proposition and failed.