4 ms·

>Honestly, I think it's more ridiculous to look at San Francisco and claim that the problem is that we aren't building enough, when you can walk up to just abou

by desdiv 12y ago

>Honestly, I think it's more ridiculous to look at San Francisco and claim that the problem is that we aren't building enough, when you can walk up to just about any live/work space in SOMA, and see the tenant list is mostly startups. That's what happens when you let developers build whatever they want -- they build for the most lucrative allowed use of the land. And that usually isn't residential construction. So why aren't the developers building taller commercial buildings? Startups are lucrative, right? So why don't the developers just build twice as high and sell twice as much floorspace for twice the revenue? They're free to build whatever they want, right?

ktothemc 12y ago
Can't do that. Proposition M, passed in the mid-1980s, caps the amount of office space that can be built in a given time period. We're right up against the cap at the moment.
- timr 12y ago
  Prop M doesn't impact the stuff I'm talking about, which is (nominally) residential construction being used exclusively for business use. The prevalence of this kind of "live/work" space in SOMA is an artifact of the "building up" that happened the last time there was a technology bubble. We can see how well that worked out: a lot of people were evicted from older construction, only to have it replaced with more expensive new construction that is mostly being used for business purposes, because no actual human beings can afford it.
  - spikels 12y ago
    You got your history wrong. Few if any people were evicted to build live/work units in SF. Live/work units were build exclusively in areas zoned industrial (i.e. old factories and warehouses) - not apartments[1]. In fact it is illegal NOT to run always be running a business in a live/work unit[2]. Most live/work building's rules will require that you maintain a business license. Although most live/works are used primarily if not exclusively for housing the city does not seem to care as long as they get their license fees. Did you just make up you "facts" to support you ideology? Give the reverse a try someday. ;) [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/How-S-F-s-live-work-development-boom-began-3272818.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/How-S-F-s-live-work-de... [2] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fees-considered-for-S-F-live-work-lofts-3199974.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fees-considered-for-S-...
    - timr 12y ago
      Well...here's a fact: I live in the neighborhood, in one of those residential units that you're saying didn't exist before the 1990s. It was built in the early 1900s. There's always been residential space in SOMA, and yes, a lot of it got knocked down to build these lofts. The live/work zoning changes were to allow rezoning of industrial spaces, but that doesn't mean that SOMA was exclusively industrial. I don't know if "most" live/work units require a "business license", but I know that they weren't intended to be office buildings -- which is what you seem to be asserting. They were the "solution" to artists being pushed out of the city during the last major boom. And it backfired.
      - spikels 12y ago
        Nobody said SOMA didn't have residential property. It is a patchwork of different uses and zonings. But you are simply* wrong that housing was destroyed or people were evicted to build live/work. As you now admit it was only built on industrial property. It is against the law to live in industrial properties - it simply not safe. However it is possible that people living illegally in industial space were evicted. You stated that "a lot of people were evicted" to build live/work. Can you document even one example. C'mon timr! You are letting you opinions corrupt your understanding of the facts. The world is just not so simple that everything will conform to preconceived beliefs. You need to actually check the facts not just make them up. Just admit you were wrong, move on and try not to do it again. *-typo: simple->simply Thanks timr!
        timr 12y ago
        I didn't say that live/work lofts were created from industrial space. I said I live in an older, non-industrial property in SOMA, and that there are/were many examples of same. And while the live/work legislation was a compromise to allow rezoning of industrial space, that is not the same thing as saying that live/work lofts replaced only industrial spaces. That's not true. Two seconds of google: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PAGE-ONE-Loft-War-Raging-in-SoMa-Live-work-3010397.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PAGE-ONE-Loft-War-Raging-... "At Shift Media Inc., a small but prosperous firm on Bryant Street in the Mission, half a dozen employees work in a high-tech bunker developing Web sites for some of the nation's biggest companies. Another 20 businesses with 50 more workers share the building....Late last year, a new owner bought all the buildings on the block. The tenants in one were evicted so that it could be converted to lofts." My point is -- and always was -- that the "build up" mantra was heeded in the late 90s, and developers used the new leniency not to build housing for artists and low-income people, but to build offices and luxury housing. This will happen again.

by desdiv 12y ago

ktothemc 12y ago

Can't do that. Proposition M, passed in the mid-1980s, caps the amount of office space that can be built in a given time period. We're right up against the cap at the moment.

timr 12y ago
Prop M doesn't impact the stuff I'm talking about, which is (nominally) residential construction being used exclusively for business use. The prevalence of this kind of "live/work" space in SOMA is an artifact of the "building up" that happened the last time there was a technology bubble. We can see how well that worked out: a lot of people were evicted from older construction, only to have it replaced with more expensive new construction that is mostly being used for business purposes, because no actual human beings can afford it.
- spikels 12y ago
  You got your history wrong. Few if any people were evicted to build live/work units in SF. Live/work units were build exclusively in areas zoned industrial (i.e. old factories and warehouses) - not apartments[1]. In fact it is illegal NOT to run always be running a business in a live/work unit[2]. Most live/work building's rules will require that you maintain a business license. Although most live/works are used primarily if not exclusively for housing the city does not seem to care as long as they get their license fees. Did you just make up you "facts" to support you ideology? Give the reverse a try someday. ;) [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/How-S-F-s-live-work-development-boom-began-3272818.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/How-S-F-s-live-work-de... [2] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fees-considered-for-S-F-live-work-lofts-3199974.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fees-considered-for-S-...
  - timr 12y ago
    Well...here's a fact: I live in the neighborhood, in one of those residential units that you're saying didn't exist before the 1990s. It was built in the early 1900s. There's always been residential space in SOMA, and yes, a lot of it got knocked down to build these lofts. The live/work zoning changes were to allow rezoning of industrial spaces, but that doesn't mean that SOMA was exclusively industrial. I don't know if "most" live/work units require a "business license", but I know that they weren't intended to be office buildings -- which is what you seem to be asserting. They were the "solution" to artists being pushed out of the city during the last major boom. And it backfired.
    - spikels 12y ago
      Nobody said SOMA didn't have residential property. It is a patchwork of different uses and zonings. But you are simply* wrong that housing was destroyed or people were evicted to build live/work. As you now admit it was only built on industrial property. It is against the law to live in industrial properties - it simply not safe. However it is possible that people living illegally in industial space were evicted. You stated that "a lot of people were evicted" to build live/work. Can you document even one example. C'mon timr! You are letting you opinions corrupt your understanding of the facts. The world is just not so simple that everything will conform to preconceived beliefs. You need to actually check the facts not just make them up. Just admit you were wrong, move on and try not to do it again. *-typo: simple->simply Thanks timr!
      - timr 12y ago
        I didn't say that live/work lofts were created from industrial space. I said I live in an older, non-industrial property in SOMA, and that there are/were many examples of same. And while the live/work legislation was a compromise to allow rezoning of industrial space, that is not the same thing as saying that live/work lofts replaced only industrial spaces. That's not true. Two seconds of google: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PAGE-ONE-Loft-War-Raging-in-SoMa-Live-work-3010397.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PAGE-ONE-Loft-War-Raging-... "At Shift Media Inc., a small but prosperous firm on Bryant Street in the Mission, half a dozen employees work in a high-tech bunker developing Web sites for some of the nation's biggest companies. Another 20 businesses with 50 more workers share the building....Late last year, a new owner bought all the buildings on the block. The tenants in one were evicted so that it could be converted to lofts." My point is -- and always was -- that the "build up" mantra was heeded in the late 90s, and developers used the new leniency not to build housing for artists and low-income people, but to build offices and luxury housing. This will happen again.