5 ms·

Completely unrelated, but aerial views of San Francisco blow my mind with how under-zoned the city is. One of the most desirable places on earth to live and it

Completely unrelated, but aerial views of San Francisco blow my mind with how under-zoned the city is. One of the most desirable places on earth to live and it's on a small peninsula. Yet it's a sea of single-family homes as far as the eye can see. The distance between Sutro Tower and the "Downtown" SF is less than the distance between the Brooklyn Bridge and Central Park. But could you imagine if that space was filled with 2-3 story townhomes?

cbeach 2y ago
> One of the most desirable places on earth to live and it's on a small peninsula. Yet it's a sea of single-family homes as far as the eye can see. Ever wondered if it’s desirable BECAUSE it’s not a dense urban jungle?
- dangoodmanUT 2y ago
  [flagged]
- kaonwarb 2y ago
  Yes... but the climate and geography alone would make it highly desirable at, say, 10x density.
- gcapu 2y ago
  Maybe you're right, but we'll never know. It would be great if they allowed some sections to develop so we can test it out. To me it is a desirable location because of the companies, not the lifestyle.
- mhh__ 2y ago
  There's a difference between urban jungle and (say) nice 5 story European city buildings. Londons problem for example is that they tried to be clever and cheap at the same time in the 60s and now we're stuck with it.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    This is why incrementalism is always the best method of development. Spread out the pain so everyone only suffers a little. Spread out the development across different architectural eras. Spread out density to the point where you have diminishing returns. The city shouldn't be changed overnight, but the city should be allowed to change an a consistent rate that slowly accelerates. A good example is to allow each building to only double the square footage of the median building within, say, a quarter-mile radius of the property being redeveloped. This means that SFH's can only become duplexes until duplexes are the norm. After that, quad-plexes can be built, and then when that's normal, you start building large, eight-unit, european-style flats. This allows different areas to grow at different rates, while allowing density to remain generally uniform across neighborhoods. This incentivizes people who very much want low density to have a reasonably, predictably low-density neighborhood to invest in, while giving up the ghost when a piece of land is just to valuable to reasonably keep low density. It would work, and would work quickly in areas where lots of development is needed.
    - hex4def6 2y ago
      Unless I'm misunderstanding, this solves for the problem in which someone wants to put a skyscraper in the middle of suburbia. In other words, based on the assumption that developers will always want to build bigger, but the locals don't want that. Interesting to imagine what this city would look like. If it spread out evenly, you'd get a strange "bowl", with the original SFHs in the center, and high-rises on the periphery. I guess in reality you wouldn't have such even growth; high rises would still potentially want to clump together for business districts, etc. As buildings get torn down, you could do the recalculation; each new building can be x% above or below the local building density "slope". So over time, even the SFH areas could grow upwards, just at a slow pace.
      - scoofy 2y ago
        There are various ways to do it, but I genuinely think uniform is better. Low density residential likely prefers, and naturally supports, low density retail.
- xvedejas 2y ago
  Well, I desired and moved to SF exactly because it's the closest thing to a dense urban jungle that I could find in California. I even dream of moving to a denser part of the city one day, once I can reasonably afford it, but those parts are so in demand to be pricier.
  - neom 2y ago
    sidentoe: If you wanna live out a super dense dream/experience on the cheap, go spend 6 months in Seoul, I lived in Manhattan for 10+ years and still found Seoul pretty intense.
- tshaddox 2y ago
  There are lots of places that are not dense urban jungles and are not desirable, so I'm certain your explanation is insufficient.
  - nomel 2y ago
    You're assuming some linear/symmetric relationship, by trying to relate an inverted sign! The more direct question is, are there dense urban jungles that are desirable? A good way to measure that might be comparing where wealthy people live, with the assumption that desire and price are related, locally. Do they live more inner-city, or do they live more in the suburbs at the outskirts?
- skyyler 2y ago
  No. It is the good weather capital of the country. Mild winters, mild summers. Not too much rain. No serious threat from tornadoes or hurricanes. That’s a very big draw and it wouldn’t go away by making more dense housing, even if the rest of the peninsula was developed like Manhattan.
  - twolf910616 2y ago
    Yeah...it's so close to other beautiful nature. not to mention two world class university near by.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    And it should be, given that they built the CBD on landfill which has the specific instructions of “do not shake”, since a seemingly solid foundation turns to liquid during an earthquake The buildings should go somewhere else, on bedrock
  - swayvil 2y ago
    My first thought, sitting by the bay : Beautiful. Perfect. Now they just need to get rid of all these damn people.
  - xipho 2y ago
    And it lives on a series of incredibly active fault lines. During my undergrad I had multiple geology profs adamantly mention that when not if aspect of this, and on time-scales of 100s of years, not 1000s. YRMV.
    - xvedejas 2y ago
      My friends in the geological sciences have told me there will be a big earthquake, but it will be capped at around magnitude 8.0; the faults here are not capable of a 9.0. Buildings in SF have been constructed or retrofit for modern earthquake safety by law.
      - 20after4 2y ago
        An 8.0 would still cause massive devastation. Even if structures mostly survive there is the threat of fire and tsunami. This antenna tower looks like it is likely to survive though.
- legitster 2y ago
  SF is kind of neither though. If you spend any time in the city, it definitely feels overstuffed. The houses may be cute and small but they are stuffed with roommates. The city is stuck in nostalgia and ignoring that it's bursting at the seams. It's like wearing clothes that are too small and pretending you are still skinny.
  - Two4 2y ago
    Kinda makes you wish there was a massive earthquake while everyone was safely tucked away at a Beyonce concert in an earthquake-proof stadium.
- mindwork 2y ago
  Could it be not desirable because of single-family homes, but rather because all lucrative and high paying jobs are located here? And it's proximity to the Valley? Also there is much more events and gatherings happen than in the Valley.
- screye 2y ago
  No? Paris, NYC, Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, London are all dense urban jungles. Doesn't stop them from being desirable.
- rz2k 2y ago
  It is easy to argue that Manhattan is far more livable than San Francisco due to the layout and highly convenient zoning, even before taking the obvious transportation advantages into account. San Francisco's advantage is the climate and beautiful natural setting. Considering the advances in seismic technology made over the past fifty years, it is a shame that much faster upgrades to the real estate have not been encouraged.
- Hammershaft 2y ago
  Bullshit. It's desirable because it's the tech capital of the planet. Is New York undesirable because it's developed density?
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    I would not say that SF is tech capital of the planet; I would give that label to Silicon Valley. There is a big difference in my mind.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Haha, no, it’s desirable because of geography and things to do. This is proven by the fact that large numbers of people are moving into expensive Mission Bay housing which has no single family homes by it.
adamiscool8 2y ago
There would be 3-4X the people, yet still the same amount of roads, services, and public utilities. Why is densifying always seen as some unalloyed good? I constantly see this pitched as a plan for housing problems without the basic consideration of whether human beings thrive in such an unnatural environment. If you're going to force-densify anything, why not actual low-per-capita population areas [0] and develop mass transit, so North America can have the successful China city-tier model [1] with spread-out opportunities instead of cramming everyone together in one place. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_population_map.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_population_map... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_city_tier_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_city_tier_system
- m-ee 2y ago
  Public schools are closing due to lack of enrollment. Transit agencies are cutting back from low ridership and lack of fare revenue. If housing costs were low enough for more people to move in affordably it could be a boon for the city.
  - adamiscool8 2y ago
    Maybe a boon for the city, but is definitively a boon for the people? Or could they be better served by building up another nearby town and connecting it?
    - rangestransform 2y ago
      There are also a lot of nearby towns already connected by somewhat frequent rail service that could also do well to densify
  - what 2y ago
    Public schools are closing because of DILDOs (dual income, little dog owners). If people aren’t having children, there’s no need for the schools.
    - 2y ago
Ericson2314 2y ago
Lol my first thought too, as a native San Franciscan who now lives in New York. It's a real travesty.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bbcc90 2y ago
true. See here for a map: https://sfplanninggis.s3.amazonaws.com/hub/BIGmap.pdf https://sfplanninggis.s3.amazonaws.com/hub/BIGmap.pdf I live in the that space (between tower and the city) and the local neighbourhood group (HANC) is ridiculously NIMBY. rezoning is happening but it's slow going...
parentheses 2y ago
My criticism is aimed at the glacial and mostly mishandled infrastructure projects. That is one of the big reasons for zoning changes taking so long. I hope the US gets its act together and learns from exemplar infrastructure projects around the world.
physhster 2y ago
And horribly outdated and poorly built single-family homes for the most part...

cbeach 2y ago

> One of the most desirable places on earth to live and it's on a small peninsula. Yet it's a sea of single-family homes as far as the eye can see. Ever wondered if it’s desirable BECAUSE it’s not a dense urban jungle?

dangoodmanUT 2y ago
[flagged]
kaonwarb 2y ago
Yes... but the climate and geography alone would make it highly desirable at, say, 10x density.
gcapu 2y ago
Maybe you're right, but we'll never know. It would be great if they allowed some sections to develop so we can test it out. To me it is a desirable location because of the companies, not the lifestyle.
mhh__ 2y ago
There's a difference between urban jungle and (say) nice 5 story European city buildings. Londons problem for example is that they tried to be clever and cheap at the same time in the 60s and now we're stuck with it.
- scoofy 2y ago
  This is why incrementalism is always the best method of development. Spread out the pain so everyone only suffers a little. Spread out the development across different architectural eras. Spread out density to the point where you have diminishing returns. The city shouldn't be changed overnight, but the city should be allowed to change an a consistent rate that slowly accelerates. A good example is to allow each building to only double the square footage of the median building within, say, a quarter-mile radius of the property being redeveloped. This means that SFH's can only become duplexes until duplexes are the norm. After that, quad-plexes can be built, and then when that's normal, you start building large, eight-unit, european-style flats. This allows different areas to grow at different rates, while allowing density to remain generally uniform across neighborhoods. This incentivizes people who very much want low density to have a reasonably, predictably low-density neighborhood to invest in, while giving up the ghost when a piece of land is just to valuable to reasonably keep low density. It would work, and would work quickly in areas where lots of development is needed.
  - hex4def6 2y ago
    Unless I'm misunderstanding, this solves for the problem in which someone wants to put a skyscraper in the middle of suburbia. In other words, based on the assumption that developers will always want to build bigger, but the locals don't want that. Interesting to imagine what this city would look like. If it spread out evenly, you'd get a strange "bowl", with the original SFHs in the center, and high-rises on the periphery. I guess in reality you wouldn't have such even growth; high rises would still potentially want to clump together for business districts, etc. As buildings get torn down, you could do the recalculation; each new building can be x% above or below the local building density "slope". So over time, even the SFH areas could grow upwards, just at a slow pace.
    - scoofy 2y ago
      There are various ways to do it, but I genuinely think uniform is better. Low density residential likely prefers, and naturally supports, low density retail.
xvedejas 2y ago
Well, I desired and moved to SF exactly because it's the closest thing to a dense urban jungle that I could find in California. I even dream of moving to a denser part of the city one day, once I can reasonably afford it, but those parts are so in demand to be pricier.
- neom 2y ago
  sidentoe: If you wanna live out a super dense dream/experience on the cheap, go spend 6 months in Seoul, I lived in Manhattan for 10+ years and still found Seoul pretty intense.
tshaddox 2y ago
There are lots of places that are not dense urban jungles and are not desirable, so I'm certain your explanation is insufficient.
- nomel 2y ago
  You're assuming some linear/symmetric relationship, by trying to relate an inverted sign! The more direct question is, are there dense urban jungles that are desirable? A good way to measure that might be comparing where wealthy people live, with the assumption that desire and price are related, locally. Do they live more inner-city, or do they live more in the suburbs at the outskirts?
skyyler 2y ago
No. It is the good weather capital of the country. Mild winters, mild summers. Not too much rain. No serious threat from tornadoes or hurricanes. That’s a very big draw and it wouldn’t go away by making more dense housing, even if the rest of the peninsula was developed like Manhattan.
- twolf910616 2y ago
  Yeah...it's so close to other beautiful nature. not to mention two world class university near by.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  And it should be, given that they built the CBD on landfill which has the specific instructions of “do not shake”, since a seemingly solid foundation turns to liquid during an earthquake The buildings should go somewhere else, on bedrock
- swayvil 2y ago
  My first thought, sitting by the bay : Beautiful. Perfect. Now they just need to get rid of all these damn people.
- xipho 2y ago
  And it lives on a series of incredibly active fault lines. During my undergrad I had multiple geology profs adamantly mention that when not if aspect of this, and on time-scales of 100s of years, not 1000s. YRMV.
  - xvedejas 2y ago
    My friends in the geological sciences have told me there will be a big earthquake, but it will be capped at around magnitude 8.0; the faults here are not capable of a 9.0. Buildings in SF have been constructed or retrofit for modern earthquake safety by law.
    - 20after4 2y ago
      An 8.0 would still cause massive devastation. Even if structures mostly survive there is the threat of fire and tsunami. This antenna tower looks like it is likely to survive though.
legitster 2y ago
SF is kind of neither though. If you spend any time in the city, it definitely feels overstuffed. The houses may be cute and small but they are stuffed with roommates. The city is stuck in nostalgia and ignoring that it's bursting at the seams. It's like wearing clothes that are too small and pretending you are still skinny.
- Two4 2y ago
  Kinda makes you wish there was a massive earthquake while everyone was safely tucked away at a Beyonce concert in an earthquake-proof stadium.
mindwork 2y ago
Could it be not desirable because of single-family homes, but rather because all lucrative and high paying jobs are located here? And it's proximity to the Valley? Also there is much more events and gatherings happen than in the Valley.
screye 2y ago
No? Paris, NYC, Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, London are all dense urban jungles. Doesn't stop them from being desirable.
rz2k 2y ago
It is easy to argue that Manhattan is far more livable than San Francisco due to the layout and highly convenient zoning, even before taking the obvious transportation advantages into account. San Francisco's advantage is the climate and beautiful natural setting. Considering the advances in seismic technology made over the past fifty years, it is a shame that much faster upgrades to the real estate have not been encouraged.
Hammershaft 2y ago
Bullshit. It's desirable because it's the tech capital of the planet. Is New York undesirable because it's developed density?
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  I would not say that SF is tech capital of the planet; I would give that label to Silicon Valley. There is a big difference in my mind.
renewiltord 2y ago
Haha, no, it’s desirable because of geography and things to do. This is proven by the fact that large numbers of people are moving into expensive Mission Bay housing which has no single family homes by it.

adamiscool8 2y ago

There would be 3-4X the people, yet still the same amount of roads, services, and public utilities. Why is densifying always seen as some unalloyed good? I constantly see this pitched as a plan for housing problems without the basic consideration of whether human beings thrive in such an unnatural environment. If you're going to force-densify anything, why not actual low-per-capita population areas [0] and develop mass transit, so North America can have the successful China city-tier model [1] with spread-out opportunities instead of cramming everyone together in one place. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_population_map.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_population_map... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_city_tier_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_city_tier_system

m-ee 2y ago
Public schools are closing due to lack of enrollment. Transit agencies are cutting back from low ridership and lack of fare revenue. If housing costs were low enough for more people to move in affordably it could be a boon for the city.
- adamiscool8 2y ago
  Maybe a boon for the city, but is definitively a boon for the people? Or could they be better served by building up another nearby town and connecting it?
  - rangestransform 2y ago
    There are also a lot of nearby towns already connected by somewhat frequent rail service that could also do well to densify
- what 2y ago
  Public schools are closing because of DILDOs (dual income, little dog owners). If people aren’t having children, there’s no need for the schools.
  - 2y ago

Ericson2314 2y ago

Lol my first thought too, as a native San Franciscan who now lives in New York. It's a real travesty.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bbcc90 2y ago

true. See here for a map: https://sfplanninggis.s3.amazonaws.com/hub/BIGmap.pdf https://sfplanninggis.s3.amazonaws.com/hub/BIGmap.pdf I live in the that space (between tower and the city) and the local neighbourhood group (HANC) is ridiculously NIMBY. rezoning is happening but it's slow going...

parentheses 2y ago

My criticism is aimed at the glacial and mostly mishandled infrastructure projects. That is one of the big reasons for zoning changes taking so long. I hope the US gets its act together and learns from exemplar infrastructure projects around the world.

physhster 2y ago

And horribly outdated and poorly built single-family homes for the most part...