3 ms·

In SF you can't build a house that casts a shadow over a park ever no matter how small. The entire western half of the city is zoned for 4-story housing. This i

In SF you can't build a house that casts a shadow over a park ever no matter how small. The entire western half of the city is zoned for 4-story housing. This is why housing is expensive in SF. SF added less than half as many houses over the last few decades as necessary to keep pace with job growth and there's simply no excuse for it. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_aerial.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_aerial.jpg

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
SF is one of the densest cities in the USA (17k/sqm vs. NYC's 27k/sqm). And...it is not like you HAVE to live in SF, there are plenty of cities nearby. Houses are expensive in SF because people want to live in SF. If SF had 10 times as many housing, then there would simply be 10 times as much economic activity and prices wouldn't budge. If you want cheap housing for your city, make your economy unattractive like Gary Indiana, or, if you like your economy, take the Tokyo approach and make housing speculation unattractive and let units be small.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > SF is one of the densest cities in the USA (17k/sqm vs. NYC's 27k/sqm). This is irrelevant, it's obviously not sufficiently dense to meet demand. If you look at the photo you'll obviously see that it's simply not particularly dense by visual inspection. > Houses are expensive in SF because people want to live in SF. They are expensive because they do not permit sufficient construction to meet the demand, what about that do you disagree with? It's not just that people want to live there - it's because people want to live there and city council would rather keep a derelict parking lot for Nordstrom than put up a 27-story 500 unit condo building in the middle of downtown. [1] > If you want cheap housing for your city, make your economy unattractive like Gary Indiana, or, if you like your economy, take the Tokyo approach and make housing speculation unattractive and let units be small. That has nothing to do with what Tokyo does. Tokyo permits construction via federal zoning rules. [1] https://thefrisc.com/how-to-unpack-one-supervisors-rejection-of-the-project-to-turn-an-sf-parking-lot-into-500-homes-2985ae7137e3 https://thefrisc.com/how-to-unpack-one-supervisors-rejection...
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    > This is irrelevant, it's obviously not sufficiently dense to meet demand. If you look at the photo you'll obviously see that it's simply not particularly dense by visual inspection. Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? > They are expensive because they do not permit sufficient construction to meet the demand, what about that do you disagree with? It's not just that people want to live there - it's because people want to live there and city council would rather keep a derelict parking lot for Nordstrom than put up a 27-story 500 unit condo building in the middle of downtown. [1] > That has nothing to do with what Tokyo does. Tokyo permits construction via federal zoning rules. The former probably wouldn't have been approved in Tokyo either. But yes, I do prefer Tokyo's solution to zoning (residential can go anywhere, businesses can mix as well), and their solution to property speculation (housing depreciates rather than appreciates because it is so easy to rebuild) Still, SF is more dense than Tokyo (6,658 ppl / sqkm vs 6,158 ppl /sqkm), but as mentioned before, SF is tiny while Tokyo is huge.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? The demand is created by that community, located in that area - it is endogenous. These communities of people create self-reenforcing network effects. Logically it follows that the supply should be created where the demand is, not just because, well, that's where the demand is - but because it re-enforces this flywheel. Why would you put the supply somewhere the demand isn't?
    - imtringued 5y ago
      >Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? Because wealthy people who live off capital gains live there. Tell them to spend their money somewhere else. People move there because they want or need the billionaire's money.
- e4e78a06 5y ago
  > And...it is not like you HAVE to live in SF, there are plenty of cities nearby All of which have even more draconian zoning policies that permit only SFH (not even a 5+1). If SF had 10 times as much housing maybe we'd have 10 times as many people being productively employed in industries in the city instead of being forced to locate elsewhere. Maybe some of those people wouldn't HAVE to work in tech/finance to afford the city. Your opposition to increased density benefits only yourself and existing landowners.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    I’m not against density, density does bring benefits that I prefer, just not affordability. Just that if SF was even more dense than it was now, it would still be NYC expensive, hardly affordable. Affordability isn’t a problem you can build your way out of, not in any context I’ve seen (Tokyo being a sole exception, we just have to have a falling birth rate and block off immigration for it to work). If SF had 10x the people, it’s density would be on par with Shanghai. If only Shanghai real estate were as cheap as SF’s, then we could make a valid comparison.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Falling birth rate and immigration are irrelevant - all they do is contribute to the fact supply meets demand there. When supply meets demand prices approach the cost of construction.
    - e4e78a06 5y ago
      Shanghai real estate is expensive because China has no property tax. Coincidentally, California also has a problem with extremely high property valuations due to Prop 13 lowering taxes. > NYC expensive, hardly affordable NYC has record low new supply of housing relative to demand. Not a great example.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

SF is one of the densest cities in the USA (17k/sqm vs. NYC's 27k/sqm). And...it is not like you HAVE to live in SF, there are plenty of cities nearby. Houses are expensive in SF because people want to live in SF. If SF had 10 times as many housing, then there would simply be 10 times as much economic activity and prices wouldn't budge. If you want cheap housing for your city, make your economy unattractive like Gary Indiana, or, if you like your economy, take the Tokyo approach and make housing speculation unattractive and let units be small.

arcticbull 5y ago
> SF is one of the densest cities in the USA (17k/sqm vs. NYC's 27k/sqm). This is irrelevant, it's obviously not sufficiently dense to meet demand. If you look at the photo you'll obviously see that it's simply not particularly dense by visual inspection. > Houses are expensive in SF because people want to live in SF. They are expensive because they do not permit sufficient construction to meet the demand, what about that do you disagree with? It's not just that people want to live there - it's because people want to live there and city council would rather keep a derelict parking lot for Nordstrom than put up a 27-story 500 unit condo building in the middle of downtown. [1] > If you want cheap housing for your city, make your economy unattractive like Gary Indiana, or, if you like your economy, take the Tokyo approach and make housing speculation unattractive and let units be small. That has nothing to do with what Tokyo does. Tokyo permits construction via federal zoning rules. [1] https://thefrisc.com/how-to-unpack-one-supervisors-rejection-of-the-project-to-turn-an-sf-parking-lot-into-500-homes-2985ae7137e3 https://thefrisc.com/how-to-unpack-one-supervisors-rejection...
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > This is irrelevant, it's obviously not sufficiently dense to meet demand. If you look at the photo you'll obviously see that it's simply not particularly dense by visual inspection. Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? > They are expensive because they do not permit sufficient construction to meet the demand, what about that do you disagree with? It's not just that people want to live there - it's because people want to live there and city council would rather keep a derelict parking lot for Nordstrom than put up a 27-story 500 unit condo building in the middle of downtown. [1] > That has nothing to do with what Tokyo does. Tokyo permits construction via federal zoning rules. The former probably wouldn't have been approved in Tokyo either. But yes, I do prefer Tokyo's solution to zoning (residential can go anywhere, businesses can mix as well), and their solution to property speculation (housing depreciates rather than appreciates because it is so easy to rebuild) Still, SF is more dense than Tokyo (6,658 ppl / sqkm vs 6,158 ppl /sqkm), but as mentioned before, SF is tiny while Tokyo is huge.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? The demand is created by that community, located in that area - it is endogenous. These communities of people create self-reenforcing network effects. Logically it follows that the supply should be created where the demand is, not just because, well, that's where the demand is - but because it re-enforces this flywheel. Why would you put the supply somewhere the demand isn't?
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? Because wealthy people who live off capital gains live there. Tell them to spend their money somewhere else. People move there because they want or need the billionaire's money.
e4e78a06 5y ago
> And...it is not like you HAVE to live in SF, there are plenty of cities nearby All of which have even more draconian zoning policies that permit only SFH (not even a 5+1). If SF had 10 times as much housing maybe we'd have 10 times as many people being productively employed in industries in the city instead of being forced to locate elsewhere. Maybe some of those people wouldn't HAVE to work in tech/finance to afford the city. Your opposition to increased density benefits only yourself and existing landowners.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  I’m not against density, density does bring benefits that I prefer, just not affordability. Just that if SF was even more dense than it was now, it would still be NYC expensive, hardly affordable. Affordability isn’t a problem you can build your way out of, not in any context I’ve seen (Tokyo being a sole exception, we just have to have a falling birth rate and block off immigration for it to work). If SF had 10x the people, it’s density would be on par with Shanghai. If only Shanghai real estate were as cheap as SF’s, then we could make a valid comparison.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Falling birth rate and immigration are irrelevant - all they do is contribute to the fact supply meets demand there. When supply meets demand prices approach the cost of construction.
  - e4e78a06 5y ago
    Shanghai real estate is expensive because China has no property tax. Coincidentally, California also has a problem with extremely high property valuations due to Prop 13 lowering taxes. > NYC expensive, hardly affordable NYC has record low new supply of housing relative to demand. Not a great example.