5 ms·

Isn't a municipal zoning board an example of "people deciding"?

rayiner 14y ago
It's an example of some people deciding, not all the people deciding, specifically the people who got their first and then put up regulatory barriers in an effort to drive up housing prices. If you gave everyone in the Bay Area a vote as to whether they wanted to "keep the SF charm" or put up high density development so they could afford to move into the city proper, I think you'd get a different outcome.
- joejohnson 14y ago
  It would be interesting to put zoning issues like building height and affordable housing policy up to the voters. When the BART was being built, many SF residents organized against it, fearing the "manhattanification" of SF. I see similar attitudes today; I think a lot of SF residents are fine with the small-town "charm" and lack of big-city services, even though they are paying big-city prices. I honestly think a lot of people in SF don't understand how much better big cities can be; there's a reason you don't see many NY transplants in the Bay. In more ways than one, the Bay Area is in a bubble.
  - rafcavallaro 14y ago
    As someone who grew up in NYC I don't think many respondents here understand how depressing and lightless it is to live in an urban environment of 30 story buildings where you almost never see the sun. That which has drawn many people to San Francisco would be nearly completely destroyed if it were developed the way midtown manhattan is.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      When comparing SF and NYC you have to be careful. Manhattan (mostly Midtown and the Financial District) is "sized" to handle an influx of almost 2 million commuters and visitors each day (225% increase). So when you see those skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan, you're looking at places designed to accommodate almost 1 million people per square mile in some of the census tracts. San Francisco doesn't have that commuting pattern. It's daytime population is only about 200,000 larger than its night-time (less than 25% increase). A neighborhood designed to accommodate 50,000-75,000 people per square mile doesn't look like Midtown Manhattan. The near north side of Chicago is in that range, and it's very light and airy. This is what a neighborhood of 60,000 residents per square mile looks like: http://goo.gl/maps/V8IS6 http://goo.gl/maps/V8IS6. That's about 2.5x as dense as the Mission.
jseliger 14y ago
The basic problem is that non-residents who would like to live there can't vote. Until the 1970s, anyone could basically build whatever residential housing they wanted to anywhere. Not coincidentally, prices were low and relatively stable (by modern standards). During the 1970s, the city of Petaluma in CA passed the Petaluma Plan, which drastically restricted development. Courts accepted this and more and more residential restrictions. In the short term they didn't seem to matter much. But in the last 40 years, as the population has grown and as people have realized that cities are pretty awesome in many ways (including economically), supply and demand have gotten way out of whack. One example is Santa Monica, which has the same number of residents it did in 1970 but vastly higher prices: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_santa_monica_coastal_california_is_green_but_without_population.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_s.... Existing property owners, especially of existing single-family houses, like restricting property so the value of their property goes up (although they often disguise this in other rhetoric). Potential new residents can't vote, and courts have empowered existing residents and municipal boards. Hypothetically, if we had some kind of national zoning / municipal board setting policy across the country, people in Texas or Arizona who wanted to move to SF would get equal weight with the people already in SF. As it stands, property owners in SF can exclude Texans through voting. I cite this as a thought experiment, not as a proposal. Further reading: Edward Glaeser, The Triumph of the City.
- jamespitts 14y ago
  Really good info here! City of Quartz is also goot to read and goes into NIMBYism and other related issues for the case of LA.
  - jseliger 14y ago
    Thanks. Ordered it.
  - jseliger 13y ago
    I'm looking for an e-mail address and can't find one in your profile or G+ or Twitter; this is probably too late, but if you see this send me a message at seligerj AT gmail DOT com.

It's an example of some people deciding, not all the people deciding, specifically the people who got their first and then put up regulatory barriers in an effort to drive up housing prices. If you gave everyone in the Bay Area a vote as to whether they wanted to "keep the SF charm" or put up high density development so they could afford to move into the city proper, I think you'd get a different outcome.

joejohnson 14y ago
It would be interesting to put zoning issues like building height and affordable housing policy up to the voters. When the BART was being built, many SF residents organized against it, fearing the "manhattanification" of SF. I see similar attitudes today; I think a lot of SF residents are fine with the small-town "charm" and lack of big-city services, even though they are paying big-city prices. I honestly think a lot of people in SF don't understand how much better big cities can be; there's a reason you don't see many NY transplants in the Bay. In more ways than one, the Bay Area is in a bubble.
- rafcavallaro 14y ago
  As someone who grew up in NYC I don't think many respondents here understand how depressing and lightless it is to live in an urban environment of 30 story buildings where you almost never see the sun. That which has drawn many people to San Francisco would be nearly completely destroyed if it were developed the way midtown manhattan is.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    When comparing SF and NYC you have to be careful. Manhattan (mostly Midtown and the Financial District) is "sized" to handle an influx of almost 2 million commuters and visitors each day (225% increase). So when you see those skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan, you're looking at places designed to accommodate almost 1 million people per square mile in some of the census tracts. San Francisco doesn't have that commuting pattern. It's daytime population is only about 200,000 larger than its night-time (less than 25% increase). A neighborhood designed to accommodate 50,000-75,000 people per square mile doesn't look like Midtown Manhattan. The near north side of Chicago is in that range, and it's very light and airy. This is what a neighborhood of 60,000 residents per square mile looks like: http://goo.gl/maps/V8IS6 http://goo.gl/maps/V8IS6. That's about 2.5x as dense as the Mission.

jseliger 14y ago

The basic problem is that non-residents who would like to live there can't vote. Until the 1970s, anyone could basically build whatever residential housing they wanted to anywhere. Not coincidentally, prices were low and relatively stable (by modern standards). During the 1970s, the city of Petaluma in CA passed the Petaluma Plan, which drastically restricted development. Courts accepted this and more and more residential restrictions. In the short term they didn't seem to matter much. But in the last 40 years, as the population has grown and as people have realized that cities are pretty awesome in many ways (including economically), supply and demand have gotten way out of whack. One example is Santa Monica, which has the same number of residents it did in 1970 but vastly higher prices: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_santa_monica_coastal_california_is_green_but_without_population.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_s.... Existing property owners, especially of existing single-family houses, like restricting property so the value of their property goes up (although they often disguise this in other rhetoric). Potential new residents can't vote, and courts have empowered existing residents and municipal boards. Hypothetically, if we had some kind of national zoning / municipal board setting policy across the country, people in Texas or Arizona who wanted to move to SF would get equal weight with the people already in SF. As it stands, property owners in SF can exclude Texans through voting. I cite this as a thought experiment, not as a proposal. Further reading: Edward Glaeser, The Triumph of the City.

jamespitts 14y ago
Really good info here! City of Quartz is also goot to read and goes into NIMBYism and other related issues for the case of LA.
- jseliger 14y ago
  Thanks. Ordered it.
- jseliger 13y ago
  I'm looking for an e-mail address and can't find one in your profile or G+ or Twitter; this is probably too late, but if you see this send me a message at seligerj AT gmail DOT com.