10 ms·

Build where? You know there's water all around it right?

by bratsche 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago
UP, for crissakes.
- bratsche 12y ago
  Well, you've got to tear a bunch of stuff down first. And I've read before that the city doesn't want to build up too much because they want to retain some of their character or something.
  - pas 12y ago
    Then build a bit further away and link the new high rises with high-speed whatevers. Subways/underground/metro/u-bahn whatever you want to call it. It costs a fuckload of money, sure, but efficient cities are pretty much unimaginable without them (for now at least).
    - tizzdogg 12y ago
      Well the geography and political climate of San francisco and its surrounding towns make this pretty difficult. It's a small city in a major earthquake zone, with tons of hills, surrounded by water and suburban neighbors who consistently vote down any expansion of the existing rapid transit system. Any new transportation infrastructure would take literally decades (see California's coming high speed rail line).
      - pas 12y ago
        Only problem is politics. Japan has all that and pulled it off a bit too well. Similar goes for the crazy sandcastlers like Singapore. I can't blame them (SF-dwellers) they had someting rare in the US for a little time. And general ignorance in, general ignorance out, that's local municipal politics, due to short-term incentives and big "costs" of initiating any kind of change or shift to a longer term horizon, nothing will change fast enough, so a lot of people will get bitten by these problems.
  - maxlybbert 12y ago
    > I've read before that the city doesn't want to build up too much because they want to retain some of their character or something. That's kind of the point. The city has several conflicting goals: make it an affordable place to live, don't allow new growth to change the character of the place, attract high paying jobs, don't widen the roads, attract new residents without kicking out old ones, etc. Rent control is one of the tools they use to try to balance between these conflicting goals. The fundamental problem is that every serious economist says that rent control is a losing battle, and it never truly works anywhere it's been tried. There really aren't any rent control success stories from anywhere in the world. At some point, the city has to realize it can't achieve its conflicting goals, and it will need to prioritize: is it more important to have affordable housing or more important to limit the number of places to live in the city?
    - tptacek 12y ago
      It's worse than a losing battle; it actually makes the housing problem worse. It's good for the lucky few who end up in rent-controlled housing, but most of the people who can't afford $4k/mo rents also aren't that lucky.
      - simoncion 12y ago
        How does it make the housing problem worse in San Francisco? If we assume that the NIMBY crowd will continue to block new development and other interests will continue to block increases to the high limits for new construction across much of the city, then what would elimination of rent control do, other than ensure that every renter in the city was paying ~$2500+/month per bedroom? I have this idea that the monthly payments on the mortgages required to purchase a condo are a pretty good approximation of where rents would be without rent control. With pretty much every condo sale price sitting at or north of $1 million, it doesn't look pretty. Perhaps this is a stupid idea. Thoughts?
        tptacek 12y ago
        The "NIMBY crowd" also must stop blocking new development. SF desperately needs new housing development at a scale unprecedented in its recent history. In the meantime, all rent control does is create an arms race between property owners and tenants, one the tenants will all gradually lose. It also eliminates incentives to renovate or even more productively use existing housing stock.
- cft 12y ago
  This is already happening: the area just north of Bay Bridge looks like Berlin after the wall came down. In my opinion, it has positive feedback and will increase prices even further. Money attracts more money. See New York or Hong Kong- they've built up too. As the economy becomes global, the rise of super expensive cities is inevitable: London, New York, Hong Kong, San Francisco. Oregon has plenty of charming and cheap real estate for non-participants in the global economy.
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    San Fransisco doesn't build up. New York City and London are cheaper than San Fransisco. And those two cities have _orders of magnitude_ more peoplel than San. Fran. So... yeah. The rent is too damn high. Build more houses.
lxmorj 12y ago
If only there were some way for humans to survive on water!
- lxmorj 12y ago
  In all seriousness though, I'm fairly certain that a repurposed cruise ship turned luxury condo building anchored off the coast with a free, regular speed boat shuttle could be a profitable business given the bonkers prices in SF proper.
  - zobzu 12y ago
    Some cities actually do stuff like that. You can can anchor large, cheap boats in Paris on the Seine (you pay a rent for that of course,but its much cheaper - closer to a parking spot). Then these boats are made into single apartments. They're larger than most apartments in fact. There is electricity and water included, the only thing you need to get wirelessly is internet (which is rather easy).
ultrasaurus 12y ago
On Mission street in my neighborhood alone there are at lease 3 large lots with derelict buildings on them and they've been that way for years. There are quite a few other smaller parcels on Mission and smaller streets. If we want to take housing seriously, let's start with a law that says "If the building is abandoned for 5 years, you lose it, it becomes housing."
- tptacek 12y ago
  Unless SF eliminates its insane height restrictions, the very few buildings that would be repurposed in this fashion would immediately become $4000 apartments.
  - ultrasaurus 12y ago
    It's a few drops in the bucket, yes -- but if we can't even bring ourselves to turn derelict buildings into housing, it's hard to claim that we're serious about solving the problem.
patio11 12y ago
Compare: San Francisco Marina which can't build out because of the Pacific. https://www.flickr.com/photos/telstar/15230469/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/telstar/15230469/ Tokyo Minato-ku (the "Harbor District") which can't build out because of the Pacific. http://www.realestate-tokyo.com/media/249559/Windows-Live-Writer_0c7e726c79b5_9196_tokyo%20large_2.png http://www.realestate-tokyo.com/media/249559/Windows-Live-Wr... (This is mildly unfair to SF, which actually has a higher population density than Minato-ku, principally because Minato-ku is not a residential neighborhood. But if SF was serious about affordable housing, it would look like Minato-ku rather than "miles of two-story buildings.")

Build where? You know there's water all around it right?

tptacek 12y ago

UP, for crissakes.

bratsche 12y ago
Well, you've got to tear a bunch of stuff down first. And I've read before that the city doesn't want to build up too much because they want to retain some of their character or something.
- pas 12y ago
  Then build a bit further away and link the new high rises with high-speed whatevers. Subways/underground/metro/u-bahn whatever you want to call it. It costs a fuckload of money, sure, but efficient cities are pretty much unimaginable without them (for now at least).
  - tizzdogg 12y ago
    Well the geography and political climate of San francisco and its surrounding towns make this pretty difficult. It's a small city in a major earthquake zone, with tons of hills, surrounded by water and suburban neighbors who consistently vote down any expansion of the existing rapid transit system. Any new transportation infrastructure would take literally decades (see California's coming high speed rail line).
    - pas 12y ago
      Only problem is politics. Japan has all that and pulled it off a bit too well. Similar goes for the crazy sandcastlers like Singapore. I can't blame them (SF-dwellers) they had someting rare in the US for a little time. And general ignorance in, general ignorance out, that's local municipal politics, due to short-term incentives and big "costs" of initiating any kind of change or shift to a longer term horizon, nothing will change fast enough, so a lot of people will get bitten by these problems.
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  > I've read before that the city doesn't want to build up too much because they want to retain some of their character or something. That's kind of the point. The city has several conflicting goals: make it an affordable place to live, don't allow new growth to change the character of the place, attract high paying jobs, don't widen the roads, attract new residents without kicking out old ones, etc. Rent control is one of the tools they use to try to balance between these conflicting goals. The fundamental problem is that every serious economist says that rent control is a losing battle, and it never truly works anywhere it's been tried. There really aren't any rent control success stories from anywhere in the world. At some point, the city has to realize it can't achieve its conflicting goals, and it will need to prioritize: is it more important to have affordable housing or more important to limit the number of places to live in the city?
  - tptacek 12y ago
    It's worse than a losing battle; it actually makes the housing problem worse. It's good for the lucky few who end up in rent-controlled housing, but most of the people who can't afford $4k/mo rents also aren't that lucky.
    - simoncion 12y ago
      How does it make the housing problem worse in San Francisco? If we assume that the NIMBY crowd will continue to block new development and other interests will continue to block increases to the high limits for new construction across much of the city, then what would elimination of rent control do, other than ensure that every renter in the city was paying ~$2500+/month per bedroom? I have this idea that the monthly payments on the mortgages required to purchase a condo are a pretty good approximation of where rents would be without rent control. With pretty much every condo sale price sitting at or north of $1 million, it doesn't look pretty. Perhaps this is a stupid idea. Thoughts?
      - tptacek 12y ago
        The "NIMBY crowd" also must stop blocking new development. SF desperately needs new housing development at a scale unprecedented in its recent history. In the meantime, all rent control does is create an arms race between property owners and tenants, one the tenants will all gradually lose. It also eliminates incentives to renovate or even more productively use existing housing stock.
cft 12y ago
This is already happening: the area just north of Bay Bridge looks like Berlin after the wall came down. In my opinion, it has positive feedback and will increase prices even further. Money attracts more money. See New York or Hong Kong- they've built up too. As the economy becomes global, the rise of super expensive cities is inevitable: London, New York, Hong Kong, San Francisco. Oregon has plenty of charming and cheap real estate for non-participants in the global economy.
- dragontamer 12y ago
  San Fransisco doesn't build up. New York City and London are cheaper than San Fransisco. And those two cities have _orders of magnitude_ more peoplel than San. Fran. So... yeah. The rent is too damn high. Build more houses.

lxmorj 12y ago

If only there were some way for humans to survive on water!

lxmorj 12y ago
In all seriousness though, I'm fairly certain that a repurposed cruise ship turned luxury condo building anchored off the coast with a free, regular speed boat shuttle could be a profitable business given the bonkers prices in SF proper.
- zobzu 12y ago
  Some cities actually do stuff like that. You can can anchor large, cheap boats in Paris on the Seine (you pay a rent for that of course,but its much cheaper - closer to a parking spot). Then these boats are made into single apartments. They're larger than most apartments in fact. There is electricity and water included, the only thing you need to get wirelessly is internet (which is rather easy).

ultrasaurus 12y ago

On Mission street in my neighborhood alone there are at lease 3 large lots with derelict buildings on them and they've been that way for years. There are quite a few other smaller parcels on Mission and smaller streets. If we want to take housing seriously, let's start with a law that says "If the building is abandoned for 5 years, you lose it, it becomes housing."

tptacek 12y ago
Unless SF eliminates its insane height restrictions, the very few buildings that would be repurposed in this fashion would immediately become $4000 apartments.
- ultrasaurus 12y ago
  It's a few drops in the bucket, yes -- but if we can't even bring ourselves to turn derelict buildings into housing, it's hard to claim that we're serious about solving the problem.

patio11 12y ago

Compare: San Francisco Marina which can't build out because of the Pacific. https://www.flickr.com/photos/telstar/15230469/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/telstar/15230469/ Tokyo Minato-ku (the "Harbor District") which can't build out because of the Pacific. http://www.realestate-tokyo.com/media/249559/Windows-Live-Writer_0c7e726c79b5_9196_tokyo%20large_2.png http://www.realestate-tokyo.com/media/249559/Windows-Live-Wr... (This is mildly unfair to SF, which actually has a higher population density than Minato-ku, principally because Minato-ku is not a residential neighborhood. But if SF was serious about affordable housing, it would look like Minato-ku rather than "miles of two-story buildings.")