3 ms·

As an outsider (London, UK based) I keep wondering why SF isn't building skywards? By which, rent prices reflect supply and demand (and some other things, but

by buro9 13y ago

As an outsider (London, UK based) I keep wondering why SF isn't building skywards? By which, rent prices reflect supply and demand (and some other things, but mostly basic supply and demand), there is water on three sides and a park to the South. The only thing to relieve pressure on prices will be more floor space for residential, and the only space for that is above the existing floor space. For a long while there will be a lot of profit in supplying the additional demand, so I don't get why profiteering by developers hasn't led to enormous swathes of existing housing being knocked down and 8+ story buildings being laid in their place. And if this is happening, why it doesn't happen at a far more rapid pace. Is there something preventing developers from doing this? Are there local NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard!) groups who resist the building of additional residential units? Are there city disincentives to doing this? Or is this more a case of waiting for the "big one" and starting over when that happens? To an outsider, can the question be answered: Why not build up?

pavpanchekha 13y ago
I believe (so don't quote me) that city ordinances ban buildings higher than 3 floors. I'm sure it makes the city look nice.
nerfhammer 13y ago
Anti-development attitudes are endemic to the Bay Area.
potatolicious 13y ago
Because San Francisco greatly perceives itself, and desperately wants to remain, as a small friendly hamlet of sorts. It wants to have its cake and eat it too: the prestige and economy of a world city, and the friendliness and pleasantness of a small town. Because also San Francisco perceives itself as radical - this is true both in SF tech and outside of it - and perceives mass urbanization as symptom of all that is stodgy, traditional, and old (see: Chicago, New York City, London, etc). "Manhattanization" is a pejorative with no defense in the city - "being like New York" is anathema to a large number of people, and suggesting that SF should be like other skyward cities is immediately painting a giant bulls-eye on your own head and a guarantee that you'll never be a meaningful participant in civic discourse. In simple words, SF hates skyward-building because its worst fear is becoming New York City. To answer your questions more directly: - The city government, in response to voter demand, opposes most development outside of the downtown core, where there are actually plenty of tall buildings (almost entirely commercial). As a (shitty) compromise they've marked out a section of previously underdeveloped light industry just south of downtown for active development. This is where most of the action is. It's also not connected to mass transit, and there's currently an expensive project underway to build a brand new subway line to connect this area of town. This, despite other parts of SF being underdeveloped and already accessible to transit. - The population of San Francisco, and this includes the techies, loudly opposes dense developments. San Francisco is well known for its picturesque neighborhoods of colorful old Victorian houses. The long-time residents are loathe to see this disappear in favor of mid-rises or high-rises, and the wealthy newcomers are loathe to lose what is an aesthetic gain. Neither side seems willing to admit that the price of their aesthetic preference comes directly out of their pocket book. Proposals to knock these houses down in favor of denser housing are opposed across the board and across the wealth spectrum. All of this is official policy: http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/index.htm http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/index.htm - specifically this one: "That existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods;"
- buro9 13y ago
  But yet there are great examples of cities that allow building, have increased the heights of buildings, and maintain the character of the city. Paris springs to mind, as does Edinburgh. So long as "character" isn't defined as "3 stories", it should be possible to build to 6 stories whilst maintaining façades, retail space, etc and yet doubling available space and improving the standard of housing that exists (oh man, that dodgy wiring in every place in Mission I've ever stayed). Do the residents realise the connection between scarcity and price, and that they are able to do something about it? From the stuff that appears on here, it seems that there is a lot of anger against large companies but little reflection that the root imbalance in supply is caused by policies set by the population (or at least, in their name).
  - timr 13y ago
    "Do the residents realise the connection between scarcity and price, and that they are able to do something about it?" There's some truth to the parent comment (I've said parts of it myself), but it's also misleading. Yes, the city could stand to build up in places, but the people in the tech world are also totally delusional when it comes to choosing where to live and work. Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster neighborhoods, and ignoring all of the cheaper parts of town. Price sensitivity is almost completely absent. Notably, when people here talk about "bungalows" and "three-story buildings", what they're really talking about is the western half of the city (the part west of Mount Sutro). It's true that those neighborhoods are really low density, but it's also true that rents there are already much lower than in SOMA or the Mission. You can move to the Richmond and save hundreds of dollars a month in rent, but nobody wants to do that. There are good reasons for all of this, of course (transit, weather, etc.), but the point is that it isn't just "zoning laws" that are causing prices to spike here. There's good deal of irrationality on the demand side, too. You'd be surprised at the number of tech people who have never even visited neighborhoods like West Portal, even though they're on major transit lines. If it's not hip in San Francisco, it doesn't exist.
    - raldi 13y ago
      > the people in the tech world are also totally delusional when it comes to choosing where to live and work. Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster neighborhoods What's delusional about deciding a particular neighborhood is nice enough to merit its higher rent? Just because you have a different opinion from the people who live there regarding what they should spend their money on doesn't mean they're delusional.
hessenwolf 13y ago
It's possibly the same problem as other places: Zoning laws. The politicians and voting age population typically are in the age bracket where they own property... There was a good article on it in FT alphaville about a year and a half back.
raldi 13y ago
When the American West was growing up, the trendy thing to do was enshrine laws into one's constitution or city charter allowing for direct democracy via ballot proposition: every election day, there's a bizarre slate of proposals to consider, and any that receive 50+% become the law of the land. This even overrides the decisions of the legislature or courts. One result of this system is that in California, the needs of the few, or the one, outweigh the needs of the many. Don't want to pay high property taxes? Pass a proposition locking in all existing homeowners', and let the future generations get screwed. Do you live in a tall building next to a parking lot, and you're afraid someone will build there and block your view? Pass a proposition forbidding it! Worried that lack of tax revenue will keep you from getting a raise at your government job? Pass a proposition mandating a certain level of spending on your special interest. Everything is arranged to prop up the established ones. Seniority is the most important thing you can have -- most statements at public hearings begin with, "I've been living in this city for 34 years, and I think..." For other examples of status-quo-preserving red tape, google [CEQA] and [SF discretionary review].

by buro9 13y ago

pavpanchekha 13y ago

I believe (so don't quote me) that city ordinances ban buildings higher than 3 floors. I'm sure it makes the city look nice.

nerfhammer 13y ago

Anti-development attitudes are endemic to the Bay Area.

potatolicious 13y ago

Because San Francisco greatly perceives itself, and desperately wants to remain, as a small friendly hamlet of sorts. It wants to have its cake and eat it too: the prestige and economy of a world city, and the friendliness and pleasantness of a small town. Because also San Francisco perceives itself as radical - this is true both in SF tech and outside of it - and perceives mass urbanization as symptom of all that is stodgy, traditional, and old (see: Chicago, New York City, London, etc). "Manhattanization" is a pejorative with no defense in the city - "being like New York" is anathema to a large number of people, and suggesting that SF should be like other skyward cities is immediately painting a giant bulls-eye on your own head and a guarantee that you'll never be a meaningful participant in civic discourse. In simple words, SF hates skyward-building because its worst fear is becoming New York City. To answer your questions more directly: - The city government, in response to voter demand, opposes most development outside of the downtown core, where there are actually plenty of tall buildings (almost entirely commercial). As a (shitty) compromise they've marked out a section of previously underdeveloped light industry just south of downtown for active development. This is where most of the action is. It's also not connected to mass transit, and there's currently an expensive project underway to build a brand new subway line to connect this area of town. This, despite other parts of SF being underdeveloped and already accessible to transit. - The population of San Francisco, and this includes the techies, loudly opposes dense developments. San Francisco is well known for its picturesque neighborhoods of colorful old Victorian houses. The long-time residents are loathe to see this disappear in favor of mid-rises or high-rises, and the wealthy newcomers are loathe to lose what is an aesthetic gain. Neither side seems willing to admit that the price of their aesthetic preference comes directly out of their pocket book. Proposals to knock these houses down in favor of denser housing are opposed across the board and across the wealth spectrum. All of this is official policy: http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/index.htm http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/index.htm - specifically this one: "That existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods;"

buro9 13y ago
But yet there are great examples of cities that allow building, have increased the heights of buildings, and maintain the character of the city. Paris springs to mind, as does Edinburgh. So long as "character" isn't defined as "3 stories", it should be possible to build to 6 stories whilst maintaining façades, retail space, etc and yet doubling available space and improving the standard of housing that exists (oh man, that dodgy wiring in every place in Mission I've ever stayed). Do the residents realise the connection between scarcity and price, and that they are able to do something about it? From the stuff that appears on here, it seems that there is a lot of anger against large companies but little reflection that the root imbalance in supply is caused by policies set by the population (or at least, in their name).
- timr 13y ago
  "Do the residents realise the connection between scarcity and price, and that they are able to do something about it?" There's some truth to the parent comment (I've said parts of it myself), but it's also misleading. Yes, the city could stand to build up in places, but the people in the tech world are also totally delusional when it comes to choosing where to live and work. Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster neighborhoods, and ignoring all of the cheaper parts of town. Price sensitivity is almost completely absent. Notably, when people here talk about "bungalows" and "three-story buildings", what they're really talking about is the western half of the city (the part west of Mount Sutro). It's true that those neighborhoods are really low density, but it's also true that rents there are already much lower than in SOMA or the Mission. You can move to the Richmond and save hundreds of dollars a month in rent, but nobody wants to do that. There are good reasons for all of this, of course (transit, weather, etc.), but the point is that it isn't just "zoning laws" that are causing prices to spike here. There's good deal of irrationality on the demand side, too. You'd be surprised at the number of tech people who have never even visited neighborhoods like West Portal, even though they're on major transit lines. If it's not hip in San Francisco, it doesn't exist.
  - raldi 13y ago
    > the people in the tech world are also totally delusional when it comes to choosing where to live and work. Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster neighborhoods What's delusional about deciding a particular neighborhood is nice enough to merit its higher rent? Just because you have a different opinion from the people who live there regarding what they should spend their money on doesn't mean they're delusional.

hessenwolf 13y ago

It's possibly the same problem as other places: Zoning laws. The politicians and voting age population typically are in the age bracket where they own property... There was a good article on it in FT alphaville about a year and a half back.

raldi 13y ago

When the American West was growing up, the trendy thing to do was enshrine laws into one's constitution or city charter allowing for direct democracy via ballot proposition: every election day, there's a bizarre slate of proposals to consider, and any that receive 50+% become the law of the land. This even overrides the decisions of the legislature or courts. One result of this system is that in California, the needs of the few, or the one, outweigh the needs of the many. Don't want to pay high property taxes? Pass a proposition locking in all existing homeowners', and let the future generations get screwed. Do you live in a tall building next to a parking lot, and you're afraid someone will build there and block your view? Pass a proposition forbidding it! Worried that lack of tax revenue will keep you from getting a raise at your government job? Pass a proposition mandating a certain level of spending on your special interest. Everything is arranged to prop up the established ones. Seniority is the most important thing you can have -- most statements at public hearings begin with, "I've been living in this city for 34 years, and I think..." For other examples of status-quo-preserving red tape, google [CEQA] and [SF discretionary review].