5 ms·

Housing in San Francisco, the Penninsula and Silicon Valley is constrained by the fact that it's rich, already built out and there isn't anywhere else to expand

Housing in San Francisco, the Penninsula and Silicon Valley is constrained by the fact that it's rich, already built out and there isn't anywhere else to expand to at the edge of town because of water or hills. People commute from outlying areas such as Tracy and Modesto where there's been massive construction of housing over the last 30 years.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> there isn't anywhere else to expand to at the edge of town because of water or hills San Francisco has massive infill potential [1]. Its limited, expensive housing is a policy choice. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jake-Wegmann/publication/254397240_Yes_in_My_Backyard_Mobilizing_the_Market_for_Secondary_Units/links/5c4cd457a6fdccd6b5cc2362/Yes-in-My-Backyard-Mobilizing-the-Market-for-Secondary-Units.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jake-Wegmann/publicatio...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bobthepanda 3y ago
New York is rich and yet can still build up. Bay Area NIMBYs are just next level.
photonbeam 3y ago
That’s because of the giant amounts of land to the east of 280 that you’re not allow to build on Convenient for existing land owners..
kccqzy 3y ago
Already built out land should be made denser. I don't want the area to be expanded; that will make the area worse for walkability and bikeability; I don't want to see super commuters commuting from Tracy or Modesto because that's so much pollution, congestion, and misery; I also don't want to see the area's abundance of large open space disappear. We should instead make the current built land denser by strongly encouraging existing single-family homes to have ADUs or be converted into duplexes and fourplexes. We should require all new residential construction to be multi-family units meeting density standards. We should set minimum height rules for new residential buildings to encourage vertical use of space.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> there isn't anywhere else to expand to at the edge of town because of water or hills San Francisco has massive infill potential [1]. Its limited, expensive housing is a policy choice. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jake-Wegmann/publication/254397240_Yes_in_My_Backyard_Mobilizing_the_Market_for_Secondary_Units/links/5c4cd457a6fdccd6b5cc2362/Yes-in-My-Backyard-Mobilizing-the-Market-for-Secondary-Units.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jake-Wegmann/publicatio...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bobthepanda 3y ago

New York is rich and yet can still build up. Bay Area NIMBYs are just next level.

photonbeam 3y ago

That’s because of the giant amounts of land to the east of 280 that you’re not allow to build on Convenient for existing land owners..

kccqzy 3y ago

Already built out land should be made denser. I don't want the area to be expanded; that will make the area worse for walkability and bikeability; I don't want to see super commuters commuting from Tracy or Modesto because that's so much pollution, congestion, and misery; I also don't want to see the area's abundance of large open space disappear. We should instead make the current built land denser by strongly encouraging existing single-family homes to have ADUs or be converted into duplexes and fourplexes. We should require all new residential construction to be multi-family units meeting density standards. We should set minimum height rules for new residential buildings to encourage vertical use of space.