3 ms·

I don't think it's correct to imply that the city refusing to build more units is why SF is expensive. There's only so much space in SF, regardless of how high,

I don't think it's correct to imply that the city refusing to build more units is why SF is expensive. There's only so much space in SF, regardless of how high, fast, or dense you want to build.

rayiner 14y ago
SF isn't particularly dense. It's twice as big as Manhattan,[1] but has only half as many people. It's the second-densest major city on paper, but it seems to me that this is because the city itself doesn't have the "long tail" of less-dense urban area merging into the suburbs that other cities have. If you look at the downtown areas of Manhattan, places like Midtown are over 100,000 people per square mile. Neighborhoods like Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia top out over 60,000 per square mile, and neighborhoods like Gold Coast in Chicago are around 50,000. The only neighborhoods that dense in San Francisco are Chinatown (75,000/square mile) and Nob Hill (50,000 per square mile). There are a lot of neighborhoods in San Francisco like the Mission District that are in the 20,000-30,000 range. The near north side in Chicago is about 30,000, and there are vast swaths of low-rise areas there that could be built up (the whole west side of the near north side is semi-industrial). If built with high-rises with generous street set-backs, 50,000 people per square mile is very easy to achieve without feeling cramped.[2] [1] And frankly, even Manhattan as room to grow. If upper manhattan were as densely built as lower manhattan, you could probably fit another half a San Francisco onto the island easily. [2] When people think of 50,000+/square mile density, they think of Manhattan, but that's a bit misleading. Manhattan's paper density is understated because it has an absolutely enormous daytime population (almost 4 million people, or 180,000 per square mile). This is the result of everyone commuting in from NJ, CT, etc. Manhattan also has relatively poor set back and air and light requirements, no alleys (so people share street space with trash bags), tons of tourists, etc, which all make the place feel more cramped than it would otherwise be. My neighborhood in Chicago is 50,000 residential per square mile, and it can feel pretty empty if you stay away from the tourist areas. That's because land area is saved by having residential high-rises, which allows very generous set-backs for air and light and broad sidewalks.
- subsystem 14y ago
  While I admit I don't know a lot about SF, I have a hard time seeing that large scale redevelopment would make sense once an area is already gentrified, not least from an infrastructure perspective. I also think gentrification works best when it "moves around" to new places, something that seems to have happened successfully in NY.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It's not a matter of "gentrifying." It's a matter of tearing down all the stupid low-rise buildings and putting up skyscrapers. You know, civilization. What I find deeply ironic about the Bay Area is the conflict between the whole "high tech" thing and the pathologically suburban upbringings of most of the people who work in the sector. It's people who talk about 21st century technology who aren't comfortable with solidly 20th century technology.
    - subsystem 14y ago
      What I'm saying is that once something becomes gentrified (higher real estate prices, condo conversions, changes in demographics etc.) it gets a lot harder to just tear down buildings. Both from a economic, political and practical perspective. I do agree with the sentiment in you second paragraph though.
- cynicalkane 14y ago
  The Gold Coast in Chicago is a particularly good example. It's Chicago's most prime real estate, preferred by celebrities and high powered executives. Yet it's cheap enough that most people here could live there in a studio or 1br on a code monkey salary and have plenty to spend left over. This is because Chicago allows supply to meet demand, and has the Manhattan-like neighborhood of the Gold Coast in a city without nearly as much as housing demand as the real Manhattan. (Also, the Gold Coast is way nicer for reasons the parent post talks about.)
  - rayiner 14y ago
zobzu 14y ago
I think that what they mean is that the height of buildings in SF is limited in most places (except the financial district). So while the land is mostly occupied, the buildings could be 10x bigger (each of them). So yes.. there is some "artificial" scarcity. Yes but. If the city was a manhattan with only big buildings, nobody would want to live there, anyway. The reason why people like SF is that it does NOT feel too much like a big city IMO
- dennisgorelik 14y ago
  The main reason why people are ready to pay such high rent in San Francisco is because it's much easier to get high paying job there. "Does not feel too much like a big city" is a "nice to have", but is not the main reason.
  - zobzu 14y ago
    hard to say which is the main, i find it as easy to find a tech job in the bay area
jseliger 14y ago
Amazing, 21st-century technologies like "elevators" and "steel" can be used to make very high buildings: per this: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/facebook_george_lucas_and_nimbyism_the_idiotic_rules_preventing_silicon_valley_from_building_the_houses_and_offices_we_need_to_power_american_innovation_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... , which I posted elsewhere in this thread, it would be very easy for developers in SF to deploy these technologies in order to provide more living space.
- henrikschroder 14y ago
  Good, I'm not the only one that is dumbfounded by the abysmal quality of apartments in SF and the Bay area. If you start checking out reviews for apartments, 99% are complaints about noise. Well, yes, that's because 99% of the apartments are shoddy two-story wood constructions, built decades ago. There's some modern apartment buildings up in the city, and precious few on the peninsula, but the overall level is ridiculous. And the worst part is that not even if you have lots of money can you easily get a modern apartment, there just isn't any supply. It drives me nuts.

I don't think it's correct to imply that the city refusing to build more units is why SF is expensive. There's only so much space in SF, regardless of how high, fast, or dense you want to build.

rayiner 14y ago

SF isn't particularly dense. It's twice as big as Manhattan,[1] but has only half as many people. It's the second-densest major city on paper, but it seems to me that this is because the city itself doesn't have the "long tail" of less-dense urban area merging into the suburbs that other cities have. If you look at the downtown areas of Manhattan, places like Midtown are over 100,000 people per square mile. Neighborhoods like Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia top out over 60,000 per square mile, and neighborhoods like Gold Coast in Chicago are around 50,000. The only neighborhoods that dense in San Francisco are Chinatown (75,000/square mile) and Nob Hill (50,000 per square mile). There are a lot of neighborhoods in San Francisco like the Mission District that are in the 20,000-30,000 range. The near north side in Chicago is about 30,000, and there are vast swaths of low-rise areas there that could be built up (the whole west side of the near north side is semi-industrial). If built with high-rises with generous street set-backs, 50,000 people per square mile is very easy to achieve without feeling cramped.[2] [1] And frankly, even Manhattan as room to grow. If upper manhattan were as densely built as lower manhattan, you could probably fit another half a San Francisco onto the island easily. [2] When people think of 50,000+/square mile density, they think of Manhattan, but that's a bit misleading. Manhattan's paper density is understated because it has an absolutely enormous daytime population (almost 4 million people, or 180,000 per square mile). This is the result of everyone commuting in from NJ, CT, etc. Manhattan also has relatively poor set back and air and light requirements, no alleys (so people share street space with trash bags), tons of tourists, etc, which all make the place feel more cramped than it would otherwise be. My neighborhood in Chicago is 50,000 residential per square mile, and it can feel pretty empty if you stay away from the tourist areas. That's because land area is saved by having residential high-rises, which allows very generous set-backs for air and light and broad sidewalks.

subsystem 14y ago
While I admit I don't know a lot about SF, I have a hard time seeing that large scale redevelopment would make sense once an area is already gentrified, not least from an infrastructure perspective. I also think gentrification works best when it "moves around" to new places, something that seems to have happened successfully in NY.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It's not a matter of "gentrifying." It's a matter of tearing down all the stupid low-rise buildings and putting up skyscrapers. You know, civilization. What I find deeply ironic about the Bay Area is the conflict between the whole "high tech" thing and the pathologically suburban upbringings of most of the people who work in the sector. It's people who talk about 21st century technology who aren't comfortable with solidly 20th century technology.
  - subsystem 14y ago
    What I'm saying is that once something becomes gentrified (higher real estate prices, condo conversions, changes in demographics etc.) it gets a lot harder to just tear down buildings. Both from a economic, political and practical perspective. I do agree with the sentiment in you second paragraph though.
cynicalkane 14y ago
The Gold Coast in Chicago is a particularly good example. It's Chicago's most prime real estate, preferred by celebrities and high powered executives. Yet it's cheap enough that most people here could live there in a studio or 1br on a code monkey salary and have plenty to spend left over. This is because Chicago allows supply to meet demand, and has the Manhattan-like neighborhood of the Gold Coast in a city without nearly as much as housing demand as the real Manhattan. (Also, the Gold Coast is way nicer for reasons the parent post talks about.)
- rayiner 14y ago

zobzu 14y ago

I think that what they mean is that the height of buildings in SF is limited in most places (except the financial district). So while the land is mostly occupied, the buildings could be 10x bigger (each of them). So yes.. there is some "artificial" scarcity. Yes but. If the city was a manhattan with only big buildings, nobody would want to live there, anyway. The reason why people like SF is that it does NOT feel too much like a big city IMO

dennisgorelik 14y ago
The main reason why people are ready to pay such high rent in San Francisco is because it's much easier to get high paying job there. "Does not feel too much like a big city" is a "nice to have", but is not the main reason.
- zobzu 14y ago
  hard to say which is the main, i find it as easy to find a tech job in the bay area

jseliger 14y ago

Amazing, 21st-century technologies like "elevators" and "steel" can be used to make very high buildings: per this: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/facebook_george_lucas_and_nimbyism_the_idiotic_rules_preventing_silicon_valley_from_building_the_houses_and_offices_we_need_to_power_american_innovation_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... , which I posted elsewhere in this thread, it would be very easy for developers in SF to deploy these technologies in order to provide more living space.

henrikschroder 14y ago
Good, I'm not the only one that is dumbfounded by the abysmal quality of apartments in SF and the Bay area. If you start checking out reviews for apartments, 99% are complaints about noise. Well, yes, that's because 99% of the apartments are shoddy two-story wood constructions, built decades ago. There's some modern apartment buildings up in the city, and precious few on the peninsula, but the overall level is ridiculous. And the worst part is that not even if you have lots of money can you easily get a modern apartment, there just isn't any supply. It drives me nuts.