4 ms·

San Francisco is has extremely low population density across vast swaths of its territory for a city with such a high demand for housing. And, unlike other worl

San Francisco is has extremely low population density across vast swaths of its territory for a city with such a high demand for housing. And, unlike other world cities, most of the buildings are not architectural masterpieces with historic value. They're cheaply built, ugly little boxes. The only things that will reduce this tension would be limiting the number of people allowed to move into the city (obviously not legal) or increasing the supply of housing. There isn't a lot of new land, but it would be easy to increase the density by a factor of 2-3x by giving developers incentive to raze lower density housing and replace it with larger buildings. The could be compelled to pay impact fees and fund neighborhood improvements to ensure that transit capacity, parking, public amenities, and street life are actually improved rather than degraded. Unfortunately, the current regulatory climate in SF is 180 degrees opposed to this solution, with NIMBYism run rampant and any improvement or expansion of existing housing stock subject to a thicket of roadblocks and regulations.

idlewords 12y ago
This holds even more strongly for Silicon Valley, where housing density is even lower, and zoning way more restrictive. A lot of people would like to live in San Francisco, but I bet a lot of people would be happy to live in Palo Alto or Mountain View if it stopped pretending to be a suburb and became halfway affordable.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  Agreed. The entire Bay Area needs a lot more apartment buildings and far fewer suburbs. I'm surprised, sometimes, with all the perks that Google offers, they don't own an apartment building near the Googleplex. They're already 90% of the way to "company town" status; might as well embrace it.
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    Googled tried. The lack of apartments around those parts is not the fault of Google, but entirely the fault if NIMBy residents.
  - kjksf 12y ago
    http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housing-axed-in-citys-general-plan http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housin...
  - patmcguire 12y ago
    Google tried, Mountain View nixed it. http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housing-axed-in-citys-general-plan http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housin...
  - justizin 12y ago
    Do you really want to live in a building owned by your employer? I lived in corporate housing when I went to a corporate school and when your relationship with that entity ends, you become homeless fucking _real_ fast. It should be tenable to increase density with the right community support in MV, Palo Alto, etc.. - a regional agreement which is perhaps not as binding as it should be requires those cities to approve housing equal to the population increase of all the office developments they approve. When Mountain View and Palo Alto approve office developments which welcome 100k new workers and apartments for 20k, they shuck the responsibility for residential civic planning onto SF and surrounding areas and collect the corporate taxes. And fuck them for that.
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      >> "Do you really want to live in a building owned by your employer? I lived in corporate housing when I went to a corporate school and when your relationship with that entity ends, you become homeless fucking _real_ fast." Just make sure the lease includes some clause that requires around 3 months notice if being evicted due to losing your job. If enough employees refuse to use the housing unless they are given those kinds of assurances the employer would have to cave.
- crassus2 12y ago
  I don't understand how this happens. The tech industry is pretty much the only economic game in town. How does it fail so hard at politics, losing out to a relatively small amount of middle-aged homeowners?
  - idlewords 12y ago
    A lot of those homeowners are tech millionnaires
  - ternaryoperator 12y ago
    It's not "pretty much the only economic game in town." It's big, but by no means anything like 'only.' SF is the banking capital of the west coast (Wells Fargo and Charles Schwab are HQ'd in SF. BofA was founded and still has a large presence there. And there used to be the Pacific Stock Exchange. So, fin svs/banking had and still has a huge presence), and tourism is another very big industry. Secondly, the analysis that it's a few rich homeowners is not accurate. Since the early 1960s, Silicon Valley has been associated with low-density housing and low-slung office buildings. Which is why the space between SF and San Jose looks the way it does. It's an entire cultural perspective this issue is up against, not just a few homeowners.
  - akgerber 12y ago
    The homeowners have votes and corporations don't. And the homeowners are either rich enough to have bought a Silicon Valley home recently, or have owned a home so long that they pay disproportionately low property taxes due to Prop. 13, and thus in either case have no incentive to let the city change from when they liked it.
- pjlegato 12y ago
  Compounding the problem, many Silicon Valley cities routinely authorize the construction of huge office parks for tech giants, while explicitly prohibiting the construction of any new housing. The people who work in those offices have to live somewhere, and it often winds up being San Francisco. Adding insult to injury, they have then made every effort to stall, delay, or cancel the high speed rail segment that was planned between San Francisco and San Jose, leaving only the strained diesel CalTrain and the clogged freeways. You can't have it all, Silicon Valley; you have to choose. If you want to be a world-class economic engine, you have to accept housing density. Otherwise, we can dig it all up and go back to apple orchards.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
This looks especially stupid to those of us living abroad, where a car-centered, spread-out city might still have twice the population density of San Francisco.

idlewords 12y ago

This holds even more strongly for Silicon Valley, where housing density is even lower, and zoning way more restrictive. A lot of people would like to live in San Francisco, but I bet a lot of people would be happy to live in Palo Alto or Mountain View if it stopped pretending to be a suburb and became halfway affordable.

JoshTriplett 12y ago
Agreed. The entire Bay Area needs a lot more apartment buildings and far fewer suburbs. I'm surprised, sometimes, with all the perks that Google offers, they don't own an apartment building near the Googleplex. They're already 90% of the way to "company town" status; might as well embrace it.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  Googled tried. The lack of apartments around those parts is not the fault of Google, but entirely the fault if NIMBy residents.
- kjksf 12y ago
  http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housing-axed-in-citys-general-plan http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housin...
- patmcguire 12y ago
  Google tried, Mountain View nixed it. http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housing-axed-in-citys-general-plan http://www.mv-voice.com/print/story/2012/07/13/google-housin...
- justizin 12y ago
  Do you really want to live in a building owned by your employer? I lived in corporate housing when I went to a corporate school and when your relationship with that entity ends, you become homeless fucking _real_ fast. It should be tenable to increase density with the right community support in MV, Palo Alto, etc.. - a regional agreement which is perhaps not as binding as it should be requires those cities to approve housing equal to the population increase of all the office developments they approve. When Mountain View and Palo Alto approve office developments which welcome 100k new workers and apartments for 20k, they shuck the responsibility for residential civic planning onto SF and surrounding areas and collect the corporate taxes. And fuck them for that.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    >> "Do you really want to live in a building owned by your employer? I lived in corporate housing when I went to a corporate school and when your relationship with that entity ends, you become homeless fucking _real_ fast." Just make sure the lease includes some clause that requires around 3 months notice if being evicted due to losing your job. If enough employees refuse to use the housing unless they are given those kinds of assurances the employer would have to cave.
crassus2 12y ago
I don't understand how this happens. The tech industry is pretty much the only economic game in town. How does it fail so hard at politics, losing out to a relatively small amount of middle-aged homeowners?
- idlewords 12y ago
  A lot of those homeowners are tech millionnaires
- ternaryoperator 12y ago
  It's not "pretty much the only economic game in town." It's big, but by no means anything like 'only.' SF is the banking capital of the west coast (Wells Fargo and Charles Schwab are HQ'd in SF. BofA was founded and still has a large presence there. And there used to be the Pacific Stock Exchange. So, fin svs/banking had and still has a huge presence), and tourism is another very big industry. Secondly, the analysis that it's a few rich homeowners is not accurate. Since the early 1960s, Silicon Valley has been associated with low-density housing and low-slung office buildings. Which is why the space between SF and San Jose looks the way it does. It's an entire cultural perspective this issue is up against, not just a few homeowners.
- akgerber 12y ago
  The homeowners have votes and corporations don't. And the homeowners are either rich enough to have bought a Silicon Valley home recently, or have owned a home so long that they pay disproportionately low property taxes due to Prop. 13, and thus in either case have no incentive to let the city change from when they liked it.
pjlegato 12y ago
Compounding the problem, many Silicon Valley cities routinely authorize the construction of huge office parks for tech giants, while explicitly prohibiting the construction of any new housing. The people who work in those offices have to live somewhere, and it often winds up being San Francisco. Adding insult to injury, they have then made every effort to stall, delay, or cancel the high speed rail segment that was planned between San Francisco and San Jose, leaving only the strained diesel CalTrain and the clogged freeways. You can't have it all, Silicon Valley; you have to choose. If you want to be a world-class economic engine, you have to accept housing density. Otherwise, we can dig it all up and go back to apple orchards.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

This looks especially stupid to those of us living abroad, where a car-centered, spread-out city might still have twice the population density of San Francisco.