4 ms·

Disclaimer, I’m European and have only been in SFBA for 5months in my life. Maybe the solution is not to build more residential to keep growing, but instead to

Disclaimer, I’m European and have only been in SFBA for 5months in my life. Maybe the solution is not to build more residential to keep growing, but instead to limit implantation of new jobs/companies to limit the growth to a sustainable decent value? The result would be to limit real estate price, but without making the Bay Area a hellscape of concrete towers. I understand it is controversial, but do we really want to transform the Bay Area (which still has some really fine natural beauty and neighborhoods) into the hellscape that are some Chinese (or European) concrete tower based suburbs? Do we still want to keep centralizing more? Sadly free market + democracy means either the homeowners side are in charge and keep the status quo so their property prices go up. Or the renters side might one day win, and start sacrificing this nice place to make concrete prisons for everyone. The current system ensures that the optimal thing to do will never happen.

etrautmann 5y ago
This seems likely to create a host of unintended consequences and exacerbates the issues caused by a lack of socioeconomic diversity and people working in service jobs. The incentives will push municipalities to only take the “best” jobs, putting further pressure on restaurants etc to find workers. Ultimately the “character” of a neighborhood is a function of the vibrant culture and people more than yhe architecture and density.
- crubier 5y ago
  In a different system where limiting implantation of new companies would be a thing, I don’t see why you couldn’t place incentives to keep the job balance and avoid these consequence. It’s not that complicated in comparison. But of course this « different system » is science fiction at this point, especially in the US.
jabl 5y ago
Surely there are other ways of increasing density than some concrete tower dystopia? I mean, there's this entire movement, 'new urbanism' or whatever you want to call it, which is specifically about creating nice AND decently high density towns and cities. IMHO, the Bay Area is its own kind of dystopia, with low-density 'burbia spreading like a mat over the (previously beautiful, I presume) landscape. Even things like central Santa Clara are quite low density, with wide (very wide!) streets, low houses (typically 1-2 stories) set back far from the streets with ginormous parking lots.
- vidarh 5y ago
  The mid-point I like to argue for is to default to quite tall, dense buildings allowed in a circle around public transit stations, and tapering off from there. Maybe with some exceptions in areas where it'd really impact the character of the local areas. But e.g. having taken Caltrain from Palo Alto to SF a few times, there is plenty of room for much higher density around several of the stations without losing much of value, and in doing so you'd take a lot of pressure off both the nearby city centres and the less developed land. I live in London and wish for the same here - instead of increasing density in areas that are already high density, pull development out of the centres, surround well connected stations, and use that to justify more services on more suburban stretches of existing rail etc. My favourite example is that highrises going up surrounding my local train station will house as many people on ca. 2,000m^2 of land as my road of 660 houses has space for on ca. 40,000m^2 of land. And the environmental effects of less travel etc. as more of those people can rely on public transit will be enormous. Increasing density around the stations like that will reduce the need for smaller density increases across the board, or eating into greenfield sites.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Prior to the pandemic, Caltrain was already at maximum capacity during commute hours. If people are going to return to offices in large numbers then Caltrain needs a major upgrade before we build a lot of housing near stations. On the other hand if remote working continues then there's less reason to locate new housing near transit hubs.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      Caltrain capacity when I used to visit was on the level of a low traffic suburban train line elsewhere. It felt comical from someone used to e.g commuting on London trains. It may well be it needs upgrades to be able to handle more, but even just having the land is a major part of the cost. It's certainly better than depending on trying to dump higher density housing in the middle of neighbourhoods where transport upgrades will require starting from scratch. And if remote working continues, that'd allow far more housing near transport hubs. People will still travel on occasion, for all kinds of reasons. And the second advantage of construction near transport hubs is that it usually means fewer neighbours likely to object. E.g. last time I was at Palo Alto at least, there was no low density housing immediately surrounding the station, and even where there is, there's typically little enough to make buying up the required properties to resolve the issues a lot easier.

etrautmann 5y ago

This seems likely to create a host of unintended consequences and exacerbates the issues caused by a lack of socioeconomic diversity and people working in service jobs. The incentives will push municipalities to only take the “best” jobs, putting further pressure on restaurants etc to find workers. Ultimately the “character” of a neighborhood is a function of the vibrant culture and people more than yhe architecture and density.

crubier 5y ago
In a different system where limiting implantation of new companies would be a thing, I don’t see why you couldn’t place incentives to keep the job balance and avoid these consequence. It’s not that complicated in comparison. But of course this « different system » is science fiction at this point, especially in the US.

jabl 5y ago

Surely there are other ways of increasing density than some concrete tower dystopia? I mean, there's this entire movement, 'new urbanism' or whatever you want to call it, which is specifically about creating nice AND decently high density towns and cities. IMHO, the Bay Area is its own kind of dystopia, with low-density 'burbia spreading like a mat over the (previously beautiful, I presume) landscape. Even things like central Santa Clara are quite low density, with wide (very wide!) streets, low houses (typically 1-2 stories) set back far from the streets with ginormous parking lots.

vidarh 5y ago
The mid-point I like to argue for is to default to quite tall, dense buildings allowed in a circle around public transit stations, and tapering off from there. Maybe with some exceptions in areas where it'd really impact the character of the local areas. But e.g. having taken Caltrain from Palo Alto to SF a few times, there is plenty of room for much higher density around several of the stations without losing much of value, and in doing so you'd take a lot of pressure off both the nearby city centres and the less developed land. I live in London and wish for the same here - instead of increasing density in areas that are already high density, pull development out of the centres, surround well connected stations, and use that to justify more services on more suburban stretches of existing rail etc. My favourite example is that highrises going up surrounding my local train station will house as many people on ca. 2,000m^2 of land as my road of 660 houses has space for on ca. 40,000m^2 of land. And the environmental effects of less travel etc. as more of those people can rely on public transit will be enormous. Increasing density around the stations like that will reduce the need for smaller density increases across the board, or eating into greenfield sites.
- nradov 5y ago
  Prior to the pandemic, Caltrain was already at maximum capacity during commute hours. If people are going to return to offices in large numbers then Caltrain needs a major upgrade before we build a lot of housing near stations. On the other hand if remote working continues then there's less reason to locate new housing near transit hubs.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    Caltrain capacity when I used to visit was on the level of a low traffic suburban train line elsewhere. It felt comical from someone used to e.g commuting on London trains. It may well be it needs upgrades to be able to handle more, but even just having the land is a major part of the cost. It's certainly better than depending on trying to dump higher density housing in the middle of neighbourhoods where transport upgrades will require starting from scratch. And if remote working continues, that'd allow far more housing near transport hubs. People will still travel on occasion, for all kinds of reasons. And the second advantage of construction near transport hubs is that it usually means fewer neighbours likely to object. E.g. last time I was at Palo Alto at least, there was no low density housing immediately surrounding the station, and even where there is, there's typically little enough to make buying up the required properties to resolve the issues a lot easier.