4 ms·

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 t

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.
    - ryan_j_naughton 12y ago
      Rent controlled apartments are effectively removed from the supply of housing in the market. Thus, anyone who isn't lucky enough to get a rent controlled apartment (which are most people) faces a market with decreased supply and thus higher prices. It's one of the economically proven ironies of rent control -- higher prices for everyone else.
      - dragonwriter 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.
  - ryan_j_naughton 12y ago
    Rent controlled apartments are effectively removed from the supply of housing in the market. Thus, anyone who isn't lucky enough to get a rent controlled apartment (which are most people) faces a market with decreased supply and thus higher prices. It's one of the economically proven ironies of rent control -- higher prices for everyone else.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago