5 ms·

Ed Lee is developing the City faster than any previous mayor in my 43 years of living here. In the past few years I've seen no less than 30 cranes up in the Cit

by clsec 12y ago

Ed Lee is developing the City faster than any previous mayor in my 43 years of living here. In the past few years I've seen no less than 30 cranes up in the City at any given time.

vasilipupkin 12y ago
right. That's probably true, but I thought it was the case that Bay Area has restrictive development rules relative to the rest of the country. Is that not the case?
- wavefunction 12y ago
  "Relative" is a good description, as one might find the development rules of the rest of the country quite "permissive."
- clsec 12y ago
  I can't speak for the Bay Area, but SF Mayor Lee used to work in the planning department and has eased restrictions quite a bit from previous times. He's also got connections to bring in developers and money to work within the restrictions that currently exist.
  - jseliger 12y ago
    has eased restrictions quite a bit That's great news—SF has been the least affordable city in the country for a couple years: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/7205/ http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/... , and for years I've been reading articles from people who say they a) hate high housing costs but b) also hate any new buildings. Which is amazing, because it's like saying, "I hate that supply and demand function!" The solution to rising prices in the face of rising demand and constant supply is simple: build more, per Yglesias in The Rent is Too Damn High (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO). That Lee is now doing so, on at least some level, is great!
    - clsec 12y ago
      Long time San Franciscans tend to like their space and (historic) views, both of which are lost with more high rises. Ed Lee, as was the case with Willie Brown, doesn't seem to care for those things. Which in turn angers long time residents. As well, this boom and bust cycle (previous dcom era) fueled by outsiders makes it hard to live here for people who wish to make it their long-term or permanent home. The influx, transitions and seeming carelessness for our city & it's people can be very hard on families who have lived here for generations. This is why articles like this are written for multiple generations, as seen by some of the replies to the OP.
  - noisepunk 12y ago
    Developers are also getting around the affordable housing requirement by paying money into the affordable housing fund. That way they are not actually required to make a certain percentage of there housing developments affordable.
  - spikels 12y ago
    I've dealt with SF Planning several times in the last few years. With one exception (existing illegal units) planning restrictions have only gotten worse. For example development along the Embarcadero has been banned by ballot measure. Meanwhile the key rules continue to steadily tightened with things like the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. And it's not just the rules but the slowness of the process that makes it so painful and costly. And that's just SF Planning. Numerous other SF Gov created problems also make development incredibly slow and costly. I'll just quickly list a few examples: SF Bulding Code does not permit plastic drain pipe; anyone can easily demand a hearing on an already issued building permit; SF Water charges $9000 for a new water meter; and rent control laws are strict and constantly changing. All of these are as strict or stricter in SF than almost anywhere in the US. The reason for the jump in building is that office and apartment rents have become so ridiculously high it now makes sense to build in the few remaining sites despite all the costs. Even these projects had to go through tortuous approval process, such as the Transbay Transit District, and unbelievably many projects started back in the last tech boom! The building boom will likely grind to a halt in a few years as builders run out of sites. Rant over. SF is a great place but this is in spite of it's crappy local government that has literally created many of its problems.
- noisepunk 12y ago
  The restrictive development rules you are referring to are height restrictions on buildings.
- ryguytilidie 12y ago
  You probably thought this because it is repeated ad nauseum on HN regardless of if it is correct. Any SF housing thread turns into a mindless echo chamber of "NIMBYS!" and "The planning commission is to blame for the lack of new housing".
rayiner 12y ago
It takes a generation to fix the negative effects of development restrictions. Apartment buildings typically go through a life cycle. They start out targeted at high-end residents, because that justifies the initial construction costs, then as they age get targeted down market. Chicago has a ton of reasonably affordable apartment housing, and most of it was built in the 1970's. It will be decades before the shiny new buildings being put up new in San Francisco are affordable for ordinary people.
- foobarian 12y ago
  Perhaps the new buildings won't be cheap, but supply is supply. The old buildings may cease to be ludicrously expensive as they are now. I heard stories of the real estate agent telling the line of people out the door coming after a Craigslist post to leave if they don't plan on paying more than posted price.

by clsec 12y ago

Ed Lee is developing the City faster than any previous mayor in my 43 years of living here. In the past few years I've seen no less than 30 cranes up in the City at any given time.

vasilipupkin 12y ago

right. That's probably true, but I thought it was the case that Bay Area has restrictive development rules relative to the rest of the country. Is that not the case?

wavefunction 12y ago
"Relative" is a good description, as one might find the development rules of the rest of the country quite "permissive."
clsec 12y ago
I can't speak for the Bay Area, but SF Mayor Lee used to work in the planning department and has eased restrictions quite a bit from previous times. He's also got connections to bring in developers and money to work within the restrictions that currently exist.
- jseliger 12y ago
  has eased restrictions quite a bit That's great news—SF has been the least affordable city in the country for a couple years: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/7205/ http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/... , and for years I've been reading articles from people who say they a) hate high housing costs but b) also hate any new buildings. Which is amazing, because it's like saying, "I hate that supply and demand function!" The solution to rising prices in the face of rising demand and constant supply is simple: build more, per Yglesias in The Rent is Too Damn High (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO). That Lee is now doing so, on at least some level, is great!
  - clsec 12y ago
    Long time San Franciscans tend to like their space and (historic) views, both of which are lost with more high rises. Ed Lee, as was the case with Willie Brown, doesn't seem to care for those things. Which in turn angers long time residents. As well, this boom and bust cycle (previous dcom era) fueled by outsiders makes it hard to live here for people who wish to make it their long-term or permanent home. The influx, transitions and seeming carelessness for our city & it's people can be very hard on families who have lived here for generations. This is why articles like this are written for multiple generations, as seen by some of the replies to the OP.
- noisepunk 12y ago
  Developers are also getting around the affordable housing requirement by paying money into the affordable housing fund. That way they are not actually required to make a certain percentage of there housing developments affordable.
- spikels 12y ago
  I've dealt with SF Planning several times in the last few years. With one exception (existing illegal units) planning restrictions have only gotten worse. For example development along the Embarcadero has been banned by ballot measure. Meanwhile the key rules continue to steadily tightened with things like the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. And it's not just the rules but the slowness of the process that makes it so painful and costly. And that's just SF Planning. Numerous other SF Gov created problems also make development incredibly slow and costly. I'll just quickly list a few examples: SF Bulding Code does not permit plastic drain pipe; anyone can easily demand a hearing on an already issued building permit; SF Water charges $9000 for a new water meter; and rent control laws are strict and constantly changing. All of these are as strict or stricter in SF than almost anywhere in the US. The reason for the jump in building is that office and apartment rents have become so ridiculously high it now makes sense to build in the few remaining sites despite all the costs. Even these projects had to go through tortuous approval process, such as the Transbay Transit District, and unbelievably many projects started back in the last tech boom! The building boom will likely grind to a halt in a few years as builders run out of sites. Rant over. SF is a great place but this is in spite of it's crappy local government that has literally created many of its problems.
noisepunk 12y ago
The restrictive development rules you are referring to are height restrictions on buildings.
ryguytilidie 12y ago
You probably thought this because it is repeated ad nauseum on HN regardless of if it is correct. Any SF housing thread turns into a mindless echo chamber of "NIMBYS!" and "The planning commission is to blame for the lack of new housing".

rayiner 12y ago

It takes a generation to fix the negative effects of development restrictions. Apartment buildings typically go through a life cycle. They start out targeted at high-end residents, because that justifies the initial construction costs, then as they age get targeted down market. Chicago has a ton of reasonably affordable apartment housing, and most of it was built in the 1970's. It will be decades before the shiny new buildings being put up new in San Francisco are affordable for ordinary people.

foobarian 12y ago
Perhaps the new buildings won't be cheap, but supply is supply. The old buildings may cease to be ludicrously expensive as they are now. I heard stories of the real estate agent telling the line of people out the door coming after a Craigslist post to leave if they don't plan on paying more than posted price.