5 ms·

I believe this was posted fairly recently: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/facebook_george_lucas_and_nimbyism_the_idiotic_rules_prevent

I believe this was posted fairly recently: 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... "San Francisco—one of the most expensive cities in the United States—added just 418 new housing units in 2011, the fewest since 1993. What’s more, 149 existing units were removed, leading to a nearly nonexistent increase in housing supply."

rayiner 13y ago
Meanwhile, Chicago, a city that is at best barely maintaining population, is seeing the construction of thousands of units in highrises in downtown alone: http://www.domu.com/blog/apartment-projects-under-construction-update http://www.domu.com/blog/apartment-projects-under-constructi.... I think from around my old apartment in Chicago right now, you can see three or four skyscrapers under construction just by looking around from the same spot. There is clearly something massively dysfunctional in San Francisco. High prices should create the incentive for drastically increased supply. San Francisco should look like Toronto does, with dozens of high rises under construction trying to cash in on the high rents. See: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/what-torontos-skyline-will-look-like-in-2020 http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/what-toron....
- kqr2 13y ago
  As indicated in the article cited above: 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... superficial explanation for the outrageously high housing prices in the Bay Area is that that there’s not much developable land, especially on the peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose. In fact, the major reason is the NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) I can attest to this rampant NIMBYism. Not too long ago in my grandparents' neighborhood, a small group of neighbors had the area rezoned so it could not be developed any further. Previously, it was mixed use, but now it could only be residential with small businesses such as nail salons. Also houses were now limited to two stories because they did not want their views blocked. Not surprisingly, the existing people with 3 or more story houses have seen their property values shoot up since those large houses can no longer be built there.
  - subsystem 13y ago
    You can't really be expecting people to go against their own interests without a competing value proposition?
- muzz 13y ago
  Meanwhile, San Francisco is having a construction boom in rental property also: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/05/17/san-francisco-rental-construction-soars.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/0... > There is clearly something massively dysfunctional in San Francisco. High prices should create the incentive for drastically increased supply. They have and do.
- jrockway 13y ago
  Apartment hunting in Chicago is a dream. Each apartment you visit is nicer than the last, and $2000 a month practically buys you a palace. Meanwhile in New York, you pay a broker $10,000 for the privilege of paying $2500 a month to sublet a room a family of cockroaches only uses at night.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    My spacious 28th floor 1BR apartment (~600 square feet) in a highrise in downtown Chicago cost about as much as my studio (~430 square feet) in a satellite city 15 miles away from Manhattan.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  Vertical growth is the logical choice for SF, but it's complicated by two huge factors. The first, as others have pointed out, is NIMBYism. SF has the most stringent zoning laws I've ever seen. Furthermore, lots of the deep-pocketed residents and real estate developers have been successful in fighting off verticalization. The second major factor is instability. SF is famously overdue for "The Big One" and is known to be seismically unstable. But what a lot of people don't realize is precisely why it's so unstable: because a large portion of it was basically built on wet sand and landfill. If you look at topographic or seismic maps of SF, you'll see that much (most?) is built on areas of liquefaction. It can be unsafe to build highrises on shaky ground. The first problem can be solved, albeit not easily. The second problem is a time bomb waiting to go off. Perhaps in our lifetimes, or perhaps in the next generation's.
narrator 13y ago
People want to live in San Francisco, Marin and the Peninsula specifically because they're not overbuilt. The cousin of NIMBYism is everyone moving to the Bay Area and demanding they make it just like the overbuilt sprawl that they came from.
- pcwalton 13y ago
  People want to live in San Francisco, Marin and Peninsula because there are jobs there.
  - dasil003 13y ago
    ... and don't forget California's ace in the hole: the climate.
    - bluedino 13y ago
      It was what, 60 the other day in SF when it's been 90-something everywhere else all week? Most people that visit think it's 'cold', they're expecting the hot weather of SoCal
      - foobarqux 13y ago
        "The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco." -- Mark Twain
      - dasil003 13y ago
        Yeah, in the summer. In the winter most people that visit think it's warm. 90% of the country has either unbearable summers or unbearable winters or both, so SF wins despite the micro-climates (also if you don't like the microclimates just relocate 5 miles in any direction). Personally I like seasons, but there is a huge contingent of people for whom some form of California weather is their idea of perfection whether that be LA, San Jose, or San Francisco.
  - dsl 13y ago
    People want to live in the city because it is nothing short of amazing in terms of bars, restaurants, city beauty, and many other factors. The jobs are all further south.
muzz 13y ago
Sigh. This canard keeps getting repeated on HackerNews. It's not 2011 anymore, when housing construction was at its lowest because of the overhang due to the massive real estate bubble. It's 2013 and a construction boom is under way that is so large that in the next 2 years more housing will be built than in the past 15 years combined. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/05/17/san-francisco-rental-construction-soars.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/0...
- klochner 13y ago
  It's not a canard, it's the ostensible reason for the current (high) state of rental and home prices. That said, it's great news that so many rental units will be made available in the next few years.
  - muzz 13y ago
    Yes it is entirely a canard. How many units were built in 2006, 2007, and 2008?
    - HelloMcFly 13y ago
      wooster has a good comment looking at some numbers (his second comments is interesting): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6066612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6066612
      - muzz 13y ago
        thanks, yes his data is very useful. figure 3 on page 11 illustrates the point I was making: http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/2011_Housing_Inventory_Report.pdf http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/20...
- grbalaffa 13y ago
  Even though it was two years ago, we're still feeling the after effects. There is a considerable lag time between approving new construction and actually getting some built. One bad year (such as 2011) can cause lasting pain for many years afterwards. 2011 still feels very much like the present.

rayiner 13y ago

Meanwhile, Chicago, a city that is at best barely maintaining population, is seeing the construction of thousands of units in highrises in downtown alone: http://www.domu.com/blog/apartment-projects-under-construction-update http://www.domu.com/blog/apartment-projects-under-constructi.... I think from around my old apartment in Chicago right now, you can see three or four skyscrapers under construction just by looking around from the same spot. There is clearly something massively dysfunctional in San Francisco. High prices should create the incentive for drastically increased supply. San Francisco should look like Toronto does, with dozens of high rises under construction trying to cash in on the high rents. See: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/what-torontos-skyline-will-look-like-in-2020 http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/what-toron....

kqr2 13y ago
As indicated in the article cited above: 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... superficial explanation for the outrageously high housing prices in the Bay Area is that that there’s not much developable land, especially on the peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose. In fact, the major reason is the NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) I can attest to this rampant NIMBYism. Not too long ago in my grandparents' neighborhood, a small group of neighbors had the area rezoned so it could not be developed any further. Previously, it was mixed use, but now it could only be residential with small businesses such as nail salons. Also houses were now limited to two stories because they did not want their views blocked. Not surprisingly, the existing people with 3 or more story houses have seen their property values shoot up since those large houses can no longer be built there.
- subsystem 13y ago
  You can't really be expecting people to go against their own interests without a competing value proposition?
muzz 13y ago
Meanwhile, San Francisco is having a construction boom in rental property also: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/05/17/san-francisco-rental-construction-soars.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/0... > There is clearly something massively dysfunctional in San Francisco. High prices should create the incentive for drastically increased supply. They have and do.
jrockway 13y ago
Apartment hunting in Chicago is a dream. Each apartment you visit is nicer than the last, and $2000 a month practically buys you a palace. Meanwhile in New York, you pay a broker $10,000 for the privilege of paying $2500 a month to sublet a room a family of cockroaches only uses at night.
- rayiner 13y ago
  My spacious 28th floor 1BR apartment (~600 square feet) in a highrise in downtown Chicago cost about as much as my studio (~430 square feet) in a satellite city 15 miles away from Manhattan.
jonnathanson 13y ago
Vertical growth is the logical choice for SF, but it's complicated by two huge factors. The first, as others have pointed out, is NIMBYism. SF has the most stringent zoning laws I've ever seen. Furthermore, lots of the deep-pocketed residents and real estate developers have been successful in fighting off verticalization. The second major factor is instability. SF is famously overdue for "The Big One" and is known to be seismically unstable. But what a lot of people don't realize is precisely why it's so unstable: because a large portion of it was basically built on wet sand and landfill. If you look at topographic or seismic maps of SF, you'll see that much (most?) is built on areas of liquefaction. It can be unsafe to build highrises on shaky ground. The first problem can be solved, albeit not easily. The second problem is a time bomb waiting to go off. Perhaps in our lifetimes, or perhaps in the next generation's.

narrator 13y ago

People want to live in San Francisco, Marin and the Peninsula specifically because they're not overbuilt. The cousin of NIMBYism is everyone moving to the Bay Area and demanding they make it just like the overbuilt sprawl that they came from.

pcwalton 13y ago
People want to live in San Francisco, Marin and Peninsula because there are jobs there.
- dasil003 13y ago
  ... and don't forget California's ace in the hole: the climate.
  - bluedino 13y ago
    It was what, 60 the other day in SF when it's been 90-something everywhere else all week? Most people that visit think it's 'cold', they're expecting the hot weather of SoCal
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      "The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco." -- Mark Twain
    - dasil003 13y ago
      Yeah, in the summer. In the winter most people that visit think it's warm. 90% of the country has either unbearable summers or unbearable winters or both, so SF wins despite the micro-climates (also if you don't like the microclimates just relocate 5 miles in any direction). Personally I like seasons, but there is a huge contingent of people for whom some form of California weather is their idea of perfection whether that be LA, San Jose, or San Francisco.
- dsl 13y ago
  People want to live in the city because it is nothing short of amazing in terms of bars, restaurants, city beauty, and many other factors. The jobs are all further south.

muzz 13y ago

Sigh. This canard keeps getting repeated on HackerNews. It's not 2011 anymore, when housing construction was at its lowest because of the overhang due to the massive real estate bubble. It's 2013 and a construction boom is under way that is so large that in the next 2 years more housing will be built than in the past 15 years combined. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/05/17/san-francisco-rental-construction-soars.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/0...

klochner 13y ago
It's not a canard, it's the ostensible reason for the current (high) state of rental and home prices. That said, it's great news that so many rental units will be made available in the next few years.
- muzz 13y ago
  Yes it is entirely a canard. How many units were built in 2006, 2007, and 2008?
  - HelloMcFly 13y ago
    wooster has a good comment looking at some numbers (his second comments is interesting): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6066612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6066612
    - muzz 13y ago
      thanks, yes his data is very useful. figure 3 on page 11 illustrates the point I was making: http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/2011_Housing_Inventory_Report.pdf http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/20...
grbalaffa 13y ago
Even though it was two years ago, we're still feeling the after effects. There is a considerable lag time between approving new construction and actually getting some built. One bad year (such as 2011) can cause lasting pain for many years afterwards. 2011 still feels very much like the present.