3 ms·

Yet another article about high housing prices in SF that makes no mention whatsoever of the region's massively antidensity policies. How many updates in this m

by raldi 13y ago

Yet another article about high housing prices in SF that makes no mention whatsoever of the region's massively antidensity policies. How many updates in this multi-part series is it going to take before NPR reports on that aspect of the story?

electic 13y ago
Agreed. There is no need for this to be happening. San Francisco has a very anti-build attitude and there isn't a lot of new construction going up to account for growth. You are adding 3000-3500 dwellings per year, that is not going to cut it. We need denser, taller, construction, so that everyone can live here and everyone can enjoy SF.
WildUtah 13y ago
Yeah, my comment from the thread on this series that disappeared: Whenever I see these articles, I think about what makes the Bay Area expensive. The key factor is housing prices. There's a limited amount of land available near the centers of SV because of mountains and natural areas. Supply is strictly constrained and demand is very strong because of industry growth. The result is spiraling prices far above what would seem reasonable elsewhere. Supply constraint isn't really a natural limit, though. Bay Area housing is spread out, low density, even sprawling. Even San Francisco is only half the density of Brooklyn. San Jose and San Mateo county mostly look like a suburb of Omaha. Market demand would indicate big profit opportunities for anyone who can buy up a subdivision and build a neighborhood of three story flats on wide sidewalks and two lane streets. That would be over double the density of San Francisco and ten times the density of a typical San Mateo subdivision. You could easily afford to buy up property, knock down current buildings and carry away a huge profit. But you can't get permission from planning boards. Or you could build like Tokyo, which is a little less dense than Brooklyn. You'd make free standing two or three story single family homes with very little yard on 15' single lane streets and small blocks. That's the same density as Brooklyn, 2.5 times San Francisco. Or you could even build like San Francisco, but in San Jose. That's efficient enough in land per housing unit to make big money. But it's all prohibited. The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public officials. Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living affordable. The result of bad public officials is an unhappy public.
disbelief 13y ago
Amen. This really does seem like a problem of SF's own making. You have a booming population of wealthy (or at least upper middle class) workers — this is typically a good problem to have! If there was ample housing, and/or the ability to develop and increase density in areas to accommodate, then rents wouldn't be rising so drastically, and the entire community could benefit. I wonder how many of these protestors blocking the Google bus also protest any increase in density/development?
w1ntermute 13y ago
Yeah, until SF looks like this, newcomers crowding out the existing residents shouldn't be considered a real issue: http://photomichaelwolf.com/#architecture-of-densitiy/ http://photomichaelwolf.com/#architecture-of-densitiy/
- WildUtah 13y ago
  Or we could double the density of San Francisco by making it look like these hideous dystopias: http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2011/021311.html http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2011/021311.html That would be ten times the density of the peninsula cities today. Pretty nice isn't it?

by raldi 13y ago

electic 13y ago

Agreed. There is no need for this to be happening. San Francisco has a very anti-build attitude and there isn't a lot of new construction going up to account for growth. You are adding 3000-3500 dwellings per year, that is not going to cut it. We need denser, taller, construction, so that everyone can live here and everyone can enjoy SF.

WildUtah 13y ago

Yeah, my comment from the thread on this series that disappeared: Whenever I see these articles, I think about what makes the Bay Area expensive. The key factor is housing prices. There's a limited amount of land available near the centers of SV because of mountains and natural areas. Supply is strictly constrained and demand is very strong because of industry growth. The result is spiraling prices far above what would seem reasonable elsewhere. Supply constraint isn't really a natural limit, though. Bay Area housing is spread out, low density, even sprawling. Even San Francisco is only half the density of Brooklyn. San Jose and San Mateo county mostly look like a suburb of Omaha. Market demand would indicate big profit opportunities for anyone who can buy up a subdivision and build a neighborhood of three story flats on wide sidewalks and two lane streets. That would be over double the density of San Francisco and ten times the density of a typical San Mateo subdivision. You could easily afford to buy up property, knock down current buildings and carry away a huge profit. But you can't get permission from planning boards. Or you could build like Tokyo, which is a little less dense than Brooklyn. You'd make free standing two or three story single family homes with very little yard on 15' single lane streets and small blocks. That's the same density as Brooklyn, 2.5 times San Francisco. Or you could even build like San Francisco, but in San Jose. That's efficient enough in land per housing unit to make big money. But it's all prohibited. The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public officials. Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living affordable. The result of bad public officials is an unhappy public.

disbelief 13y ago

Amen. This really does seem like a problem of SF's own making. You have a booming population of wealthy (or at least upper middle class) workers — this is typically a good problem to have! If there was ample housing, and/or the ability to develop and increase density in areas to accommodate, then rents wouldn't be rising so drastically, and the entire community could benefit. I wonder how many of these protestors blocking the Google bus also protest any increase in density/development?

w1ntermute 13y ago

Yeah, until SF looks like this, newcomers crowding out the existing residents shouldn't be considered a real issue: http://photomichaelwolf.com/#architecture-of-densitiy/ http://photomichaelwolf.com/#architecture-of-densitiy/

WildUtah 13y ago
Or we could double the density of San Francisco by making it look like these hideous dystopias: http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2011/021311.html http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2011/021311.html That would be ten times the density of the peninsula cities today. Pretty nice isn't it?