11 ms·

I really hope L Breed and her leadership approve more residential conversions of office spaces in downtown. A few developers are interested but there seems to b

I really hope L Breed and her leadership approve more residential conversions of office spaces in downtown. A few developers are interested but there seems to be a holdup for whatever reason. SF has already had some successful conversions like 100 Van Ness. While I don't think that is a surefire way of fixing dtsf but it is a start. The superdense neighborhood of chinatown and somewhat dense neighborhood of little italy are pretty lively still, probably because everyone lives above the commercial and retail spaces that exist there. (There's not much commercial offices in those neighborhoods but there's a few, especially between california and bush)

kqr2 4y ago
S.F. has nearly 16 million square feet of vacant office space. Why can't it become housing? https://archive.ph/znGkU https://archive.ph/znGkU
- acchow 4y ago
  16M square feet is last year’s estimate. Wonder what the figure is today
  - littlexsparkee 4y ago
    18.7 as of April https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/04/visualizing-all-the-vacant-office-space-in-san-francisco-3.html https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/04/visualizing-all-the-...
    - epistasis 4y ago
      These numbers seem tiny. Even if it all converts into 1000 sq ft residential homes, 18,000 new homes will not be enough to solve the housing shortage. Definitely would help a ton though, and I probably shouldn't be hopeful of a single solution here.
      - acchow 4y ago
        San Francisco has dropped back to 2013 population levels.
      - sofixa 4y ago
        1000 sq ft (92 sq m) is a quite decent family apartment. For young singles or couples without kids, half of that is pretty decent. 20-25-30k new homes is nothing to sniff at, even if it won't solve the full problem.
mc32 4y ago
Why would people want to live in relative expensive housing if there are no jobs in the city for them? Converted apartments are not going to be "affordable" (by say the likes of students, and people just out of college not in finance or tech. Once the white collar workers leave, there is less demand for service workers to live there. Sure maybe some salaried workers like in emergency services and policing might choose to live there. If I were a service worker, living in SF proper would not be the thing I'm looking to do.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  The housing won't be as expensive if there is mass office to residential conversion, and a large percentage of jobs go remote
  - mc32 4y ago
    I agree it will come down from $4000. But if I were a service worker, I'd balk at $2500 (let's say it even went as low as that) if I could get it cheaper elsewhere. Hayward, Oakland would be cheaper. Downtown SF and SJC were quite ugly during downturns before tech came to the rescue. Market street until recently was still suffering from blight brought on 40 years ago.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      I don't understand what your contention is here, but my best understanding is that you think that there's nobody who could afford these apartments with jobs in SF, and that they would sit empty. Is that correct? If I got that correct, then I would first say that there are massive numbers of people who want to live in SF who have been kept out by the $4000 prices, and lowering it to $3500 or $3000 would bring in far more people. Further, thinking only in terms of service workers and tech workers misses a lot of what goes on in the city, there's a ton of people in between. But even if I'm wrong, then having a huge number of vacant apartments is really good news for all renters in the city. It puts pressure on all other landlords to power prices. It changes the market segmentation, and drives improvements in prices or apartment quality for all market segments adjacent to whatever price the conversions initially target. There is no downside to a bunch of vacant office space converting to vacant apartments. One problem with mass conversions, and in general the way that SF has done planning—zero change allowed for decades then dumping a bunch of new stuff in a small area—is that it takes a long time for the new neighborhood to gain all the character of a neighborhood, for example the little shops, the community groups, etc.
BurningFrog 4y ago
I think the supervisors decide that, not the mayor? Probably because the supes are elected by neighborhood, they are very NIMBY.
ajmurmann 4y ago
It's absolutely insane that the government has any say in what a building gets used for. I can see some arguments why the government has a say in constructing a building in the first place, but controlling what it's used for is just planned economy, communist hubris!
- jen20 4y ago
  Ironically the most conservative areas are the ones who fall the hardest for the communist hubris, which is why you can’t get a beer without driving in so much of the USA.
  - hindsightbias 4y ago
    They think govt is bad, wait til they paint their house blue in their gated HOA communitiy.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Zoning, in general, is a compromise to a set of mutually-exclusive philosophies: individualism (e.g., private property ownership) and collectivism. Society can't function with only one or the other; there needs to be some mediation. Local governments are theoretically responsible to represent the wills of their voters, so this is probably the best way to do that. We can always argue, however, about where specifically particular zoning rules fall on that spectrum.
- viraptor 4y ago
  That's an extreme view. Of course you want some zoning restrictions. Unless you're saying you're ok with (whatever loudest industry with lots of lorry traffic you can think of) being created nextdoors to you. Full anarchy is bad, super restrictive planning is bad too.
  - rcpt 4y ago
    Here in Long Beach we have honest to God oil derricks right in the middle of neighborhoods yet our zoning when it comes to new housing is as strict as it gets.
alexpotato 4y ago
This is what happened in the NYC financial district post 9/11. Companies didn't want to move back into some of the office buildings so they were converted into residential housing. I remember dating someone who lived down there and looking up at the ceiling and mentioning "Why do you have such weird drop ceilings here?" This is where I found out her apartment used to be an office building.
littlexsparkee 4y ago
2 reasons 100 Van Ness was easier: compact floor plate (ensures access to light) and didn't need a seismic retrofit as it was built in 1974. That's not the case for a lot of office buildings. Also mentioned: nearly all buildings are partially leased right now - it's impossible to do the work with anyone still in there. Source: https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101889483/what-would-it-take-to-revive-san-franciscos-deserted-downtown https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101889483/what-would-it-take-...

kqr2 4y ago

S.F. has nearly 16 million square feet of vacant office space. Why can't it become housing? https://archive.ph/znGkU https://archive.ph/znGkU

acchow 4y ago
16M square feet is last year’s estimate. Wonder what the figure is today
- littlexsparkee 4y ago
  18.7 as of April https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/04/visualizing-all-the-vacant-office-space-in-san-francisco-3.html https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/04/visualizing-all-the-...
  - epistasis 4y ago
    These numbers seem tiny. Even if it all converts into 1000 sq ft residential homes, 18,000 new homes will not be enough to solve the housing shortage. Definitely would help a ton though, and I probably shouldn't be hopeful of a single solution here.
    - acchow 4y ago
      San Francisco has dropped back to 2013 population levels.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      1000 sq ft (92 sq m) is a quite decent family apartment. For young singles or couples without kids, half of that is pretty decent. 20-25-30k new homes is nothing to sniff at, even if it won't solve the full problem.

mc32 4y ago

Why would people want to live in relative expensive housing if there are no jobs in the city for them? Converted apartments are not going to be "affordable" (by say the likes of students, and people just out of college not in finance or tech. Once the white collar workers leave, there is less demand for service workers to live there. Sure maybe some salaried workers like in emergency services and policing might choose to live there. If I were a service worker, living in SF proper would not be the thing I'm looking to do.

adam_arthur 4y ago
The housing won't be as expensive if there is mass office to residential conversion, and a large percentage of jobs go remote
- mc32 4y ago
  I agree it will come down from $4000. But if I were a service worker, I'd balk at $2500 (let's say it even went as low as that) if I could get it cheaper elsewhere. Hayward, Oakland would be cheaper. Downtown SF and SJC were quite ugly during downturns before tech came to the rescue. Market street until recently was still suffering from blight brought on 40 years ago.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    I don't understand what your contention is here, but my best understanding is that you think that there's nobody who could afford these apartments with jobs in SF, and that they would sit empty. Is that correct? If I got that correct, then I would first say that there are massive numbers of people who want to live in SF who have been kept out by the $4000 prices, and lowering it to $3500 or $3000 would bring in far more people. Further, thinking only in terms of service workers and tech workers misses a lot of what goes on in the city, there's a ton of people in between. But even if I'm wrong, then having a huge number of vacant apartments is really good news for all renters in the city. It puts pressure on all other landlords to power prices. It changes the market segmentation, and drives improvements in prices or apartment quality for all market segments adjacent to whatever price the conversions initially target. There is no downside to a bunch of vacant office space converting to vacant apartments. One problem with mass conversions, and in general the way that SF has done planning—zero change allowed for decades then dumping a bunch of new stuff in a small area—is that it takes a long time for the new neighborhood to gain all the character of a neighborhood, for example the little shops, the community groups, etc.

BurningFrog 4y ago

I think the supervisors decide that, not the mayor? Probably because the supes are elected by neighborhood, they are very NIMBY.

ajmurmann 4y ago

It's absolutely insane that the government has any say in what a building gets used for. I can see some arguments why the government has a say in constructing a building in the first place, but controlling what it's used for is just planned economy, communist hubris!

jen20 4y ago
Ironically the most conservative areas are the ones who fall the hardest for the communist hubris, which is why you can’t get a beer without driving in so much of the USA.
- hindsightbias 4y ago
  They think govt is bad, wait til they paint their house blue in their gated HOA communitiy.
nathanaldensr 4y ago
Zoning, in general, is a compromise to a set of mutually-exclusive philosophies: individualism (e.g., private property ownership) and collectivism. Society can't function with only one or the other; there needs to be some mediation. Local governments are theoretically responsible to represent the wills of their voters, so this is probably the best way to do that. We can always argue, however, about where specifically particular zoning rules fall on that spectrum.
viraptor 4y ago
That's an extreme view. Of course you want some zoning restrictions. Unless you're saying you're ok with (whatever loudest industry with lots of lorry traffic you can think of) being created nextdoors to you. Full anarchy is bad, super restrictive planning is bad too.
- rcpt 4y ago
  Here in Long Beach we have honest to God oil derricks right in the middle of neighborhoods yet our zoning when it comes to new housing is as strict as it gets.

alexpotato 4y ago

This is what happened in the NYC financial district post 9/11. Companies didn't want to move back into some of the office buildings so they were converted into residential housing. I remember dating someone who lived down there and looking up at the ceiling and mentioning "Why do you have such weird drop ceilings here?" This is where I found out her apartment used to be an office building.

littlexsparkee 4y ago

2 reasons 100 Van Ness was easier: compact floor plate (ensures access to light) and didn't need a seismic retrofit as it was built in 1974. That's not the case for a lot of office buildings. Also mentioned: nearly all buildings are partially leased right now - it's impossible to do the work with anyone still in there. Source: https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101889483/what-would-it-take-to-revive-san-franciscos-deserted-downtown https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101889483/what-would-it-take-...