4 ms·
It's interesting to contrast the evolution of NYC with the (lack of) evolution of SF. This article cites a net increase of 170,000 housing units from 2000 to 2
by tkiley 13y ago
It's interesting to contrast the evolution of NYC with the (lack of) evolution of SF.
This article cites a net increase of 170,000 housing units from 2000 to 2010. I can't find an exact comparison for SF, but it looks like SF has less than 25k net increase from 2000 to 2012.
- aboodman 13y agoWell, given that NYC is ~10x the population of SF, SF is doing pretty well!
- gwern 13y agoSF is 1/10th the population of NYC in part because of those restrictions, so the comparison is more apt than it seems...
- guelo 13y agoNYC is also 10 times bigger land-wise, 470 sq miles compared to 47.
- nerfhammer 13y agoSF is also twice the size of manhattan
- mbesto 13y agoI'm trying to figure out where this discussion is going, haha. Let me simplify it - NYC continues to build up, SF doesn't.
- adviceadam 13y agoSan Francisco is currently in a building boom. Over the next 25 years, there is going to be approximately 92,000 more housing units. The population of San Francisco should reach 1 million by then. Here are some links: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/12/san-franciscos-surprising-building-boom/4213/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/12/sa... http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/san-francisco-boom-back http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/san-francis... http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/07/19/plan-bay-area-passes-in-a-room-full-of-paranoid-conservative-activists/ http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/07/19/plan-bay-area-passes-in...
- blackjack48 13y agoIt's important to point out that 92k units is the amount needed to accommodate future growth. The creation of those units is entirely dependent on local politics, which is even more polarized here than in NYC.
- blackjack48 13y agoJohn Rahaim, SF's Planning Director, recently gave a speech regarding the challenges SF has faced in adding units and offices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZhp-xKxB_A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZhp-xKxB_A (34 min, starts about 1:25 in) Some of the most important points he made: -80% of the city's growth will occur in 20% of the city's area. -Neighborhoods are in opposition to projects which follow community-crafted plans that were designed to encourage growth. He argues that it is not the amount of growth, but the rate of growth that those neighborhoods are opposed to. -Large segments of the city are zoned to protect industrial and production businesses. -Last year, SF reviewed 8,000 permits (for everything from routine window replacements to new construction). Of those, 6,000 were considered "routine" and were issued over the counter while 1,800 became "cases" that require additional review and hearings. For comparison, NYC (a city with 10 times the population of SF) reviewed only 500 equivalent "cases". It issued most permits (including one for a building that purports to be the tallest residential highrise in North America) "as-of-right" without any review by their planning department. TL;DR: SF's planning code is much more strict than that of NYC and gives residents a lot of veto power.