San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartments in 73.5% of the city(sfzoning.deapthoughts.com)
sfzoning.deapthoughts.com
San Francisco's zoning makes it illegal to build apartments in 73.5% of the city
https://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/
438 comments
Here is an instance of government getting in the way of the free market. The reason SF's housing market is so messed up is because of government meddling in the market. That's not to say the government shouldn't regulate anything and that all zoning laws are bad, but it is clear in this situation it is not helping. IMHO the answer here is less government, not more.
I've been really confused at why cities are becoming exponentially more important rather than less despite better and better remote-working tools and the general de-industrialization of America (reducing the benefits of agglomeration economics). I find the economic claim that a firm being close to other firms being a significant productivity advantage unconvicing. My current theory is after 2008, the suburbs pretty much went belly up. So young people had less money and no desire to get stuck with a dangerous mortgage like their parents. With no desire to own a house or even a car and an emphasis on experiences, people started moving to the cities and the companies followed them there which created a positive feedback loop. So the jobs followed the people, not the other way around. My sense is that there just aren't that many good jobs even in the cities since there isn't any real advantage any more outside some old industrial sectors of being geographically close to others. It's primarily a cultural phenomena not an economic one of the growth of cities. So at what point is the cultural gain no longer rationale and trend flows back to the suburbs?
I can't think of a way to write this that doesn't come across as a little facetious, but I swear this is an honest question. Would the YIMBYs here be happy replacing the parks in SF (especially Golden Gate Park) with high density housing? It would be a huge and likely effective trade of city character for affordability.
We need more density. Serious question: do you guys think market rate development will push down prices enough to make SF affordable to the working class (service industry, teachers, etc.)? Or do we need subsidized / below market rate housing?
This is an issue that affects all of us. Commuting in 1+ hours for low wage jobs is not a viable growth model. Already small businesses in SF are having a very hard time hiring. Unless Elon Musk builds us some tunnels, we need local housing for the working class just to function as a city that’s desirable to live in.
My thought on market rate: it will certainly make it more affordable for folks like us (upper 5 - lower 6 figure incomes). But there is a long queue of white collar professionals particularly in tech that would like to move into the city. All that demand needs to be soaked up before the market rate becomes “affordable” for the working class — which means dirt cheap for professionals. How many tech professionals would decide to move here if SF was dirt cheap? That’s a lot of induced demand to satiate.
So that’s where the real debate is here when it comes to upzoning the west side. Do you open it up to maximum market rate, or do you negotiate with developers for maximum BMR units? I feel the “nimby vs yimby” dichotomy here tends to cloud that issue.
This is an issue that affects all of us. Commuting in 1+ hours for low wage jobs is not a viable growth model. Already small businesses in SF are having a very hard time hiring. Unless Elon Musk builds us some tunnels, we need local housing for the working class just to function as a city that’s desirable to live in.
My thought on market rate: it will certainly make it more affordable for folks like us (upper 5 - lower 6 figure incomes). But there is a long queue of white collar professionals particularly in tech that would like to move into the city. All that demand needs to be soaked up before the market rate becomes “affordable” for the working class — which means dirt cheap for professionals. How many tech professionals would decide to move here if SF was dirt cheap? That’s a lot of induced demand to satiate.
So that’s where the real debate is here when it comes to upzoning the west side. Do you open it up to maximum market rate, or do you negotiate with developers for maximum BMR units? I feel the “nimby vs yimby” dichotomy here tends to cloud that issue.
FWIW, I would totally live in Berkeley if my commute to the dogpatch could be shortened. Right now, there's no obvious mass transit way to get to my office in SF in less than 80 minutes (assuming every connection is hit perfectly). With an Uber, it's highly variable (between 40 minutes and 90 minutes depending upon the day).
Will SF reach a point where homeowners decide to build downwards (like they do in London) to gain living space? Is it feasible given the geography?
For some people the glass is always 3/4 empty. I would say zoning allows building on 26.6%.
Where does San Francisco get its water supply and how secure is in the present/project climate?
Senate Bill 827 would have helped a lot of this. Unfortunately it was killed by "affordable" housing advocates and other NIMBYs.
Rent Seeking by incumbents is a huge issue with land use.
I'd love to see a map like this of the whole Bay Area, or the Seattle area.
I'd love to see a map like this of the whole Bay Area, or the Seattle area.
Speaking as your neighbour to the north, Vancouver has a similarly horrible NIMBY zoning problem.
https://imgur.com/a/CftAdv5
All the grey areas are single-family only zoning. Just eye-balling it, I'd say 80% of the land is for low density use only, despite Vancouver having some of the world's most expensive real estate relative to incomes and rents.
This situation is perpetuated by successive city governments who owe their existence to wealthy single family home owners. Oddly, those same single family home owners would become rich if they could subdivide their properties for intensive development. I have never understood this paradox.
https://imgur.com/a/CftAdv5
All the grey areas are single-family only zoning. Just eye-balling it, I'd say 80% of the land is for low density use only, despite Vancouver having some of the world's most expensive real estate relative to incomes and rents.
This situation is perpetuated by successive city governments who owe their existence to wealthy single family home owners. Oddly, those same single family home owners would become rich if they could subdivide their properties for intensive development. I have never understood this paradox.
San Francisco is only 7 miles square and nearly a 1/3 is the Sunset and the Richmond which is almost entirely 2 story max, single family homes. Measure K which limited most of the big construction to South of Market pushed everything into an already packed downtown. Not everyone wants, or can afford, a condo on the 30th floor.
I also hadn't realized how much of the city is green space. Kind of amazing that has been preserved.
I also hadn't realized how much of the city is green space. Kind of amazing that has been preserved.
Good. You can't always fix housing demand with increase in supply. The streets and sidewalks and parking don't increase when the buildings get taller. After living in NYC for 11 years, I can tell you that just adding housing makes the real city: which is everything at street level worse.
I know that many people that want to increase housing in SF just want to commute to their tech jobs, but that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland: too many people in a single area can't form a cohesive community. The people who already live in SF understand this, I think.
Edit: Some specifics:
The things that fall apart when density is too high. Here's an article about how density is making the subway worse than ever: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/28/nyregion/subw...
Schools overcrowded: https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170921/riverdale/overcrow...
Traffic congestion: https://ny.curbed.com/2018/1/18/16903152/nyc-traffic-congest...
Trash infrastructure overwhelmed: https://citylimits.org/2015/04/20/new-report-nyc-trash-is-wo...
I know that many people that want to increase housing in SF just want to commute to their tech jobs, but that's what turned NYC from neighborhoods and communities into a hellish wasteland: too many people in a single area can't form a cohesive community. The people who already live in SF understand this, I think.
Edit: Some specifics:
The things that fall apart when density is too high. Here's an article about how density is making the subway worse than ever: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/28/nyregion/subw...
Schools overcrowded: https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170921/riverdale/overcrow...
Traffic congestion: https://ny.curbed.com/2018/1/18/16903152/nyc-traffic-congest...
Trash infrastructure overwhelmed: https://citylimits.org/2015/04/20/new-report-nyc-trash-is-wo...
Seems like the best fix is to make a new city.
It's surprising how "Owning a home is the most important investment you can make" collides with "Why isn't housing affordable?"
Here's what parents are telling their kids: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/999364778907914245
Here's what parents are telling their kids: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/999364778907914245
I'm going to throw out an unpopular opinion. I think it's great that 73.5% of the city is low rise. 26.5% of the city having apartments is already more than plenty. 100% apartments would destroy SF. People fighting to get to live in SF because of its character. Destroying that you won't have San Francisco.
Lol I have a friend in SF who complains about high house prices and wants increased development. When I said he should move to NYC he said its too big and crowded and he doesn't want to live with a family in an apt. Didn't even blink.
At this point wouldn’t it be profitable to buy an old cruise ship and park it offshore and sell living space? Give folks a high speed ferry running back and forth.
when you talk about high density housing, the only people who then own land are billion dollar investment funds with robotic inhuman desire to maximize per square foot profit because fuck you thats why.
sure, we need more housing - but it also perpetuates another set of problem factors by having such.
as far as building and ciy planning, id look at singapore and other high density asian ities for lessons. heck, we cant even have good quality transportation. if you think bart and muni are good services, then you havent been to places like singapore, hong kong, tokyo or beijing.
singapore digs down for every floor it puts up.
sf will never solve true density problems. period.
sure, we need more housing - but it also perpetuates another set of problem factors by having such.
as far as building and ciy planning, id look at singapore and other high density asian ities for lessons. heck, we cant even have good quality transportation. if you think bart and muni are good services, then you havent been to places like singapore, hong kong, tokyo or beijing.
singapore digs down for every floor it puts up.
sf will never solve true density problems. period.
SF is in a similar situation as Barcelona, kind of. SF is 121.4 km2 while BCN is 101.9 km². SF is sea-locked on three sides while BCN is sea-locked on one side and on the other has mountains. As per the map, SF is mainly single-family housing while BCN is mostly multi-family housing (average is 12 homes per building). Population (in 2016) is 870k vs 1.6m.
If all those low density areas in SF were converted to high density, SF could grow a lot and housing issues could be plaited temporally (years?) but after a while it be the same thing, where there's more demand than supply.
Personally, I think having single-family housing inside a city is a waste of space but a city full of 30 story buildings usually is not very pretty. I like the Eixample, were streets are wide and buildings just the right size so there is plenty of sunlight, airflow and all that. Obviously if I were an owner of a single-family home in SF I would be against of converting my quiet, low-density neighborhood into all high-rise.
Tricky problem to solve.
If all those low density areas in SF were converted to high density, SF could grow a lot and housing issues could be plaited temporally (years?) but after a while it be the same thing, where there's more demand than supply.
Personally, I think having single-family housing inside a city is a waste of space but a city full of 30 story buildings usually is not very pretty. I like the Eixample, were streets are wide and buildings just the right size so there is plenty of sunlight, airflow and all that. Obviously if I were an owner of a single-family home in SF I would be against of converting my quiet, low-density neighborhood into all high-rise.
Tricky problem to solve.
The problem with "just build more" is that eventually you run out of space the same as now, only you get to do it with a worse quality of light / space / light / traffic / noise / etc. I wish more cities fought to maintain true pristine open space.
There is no housing crises. There is a concentration of jobs problem and a wealth inequality problem. The internet's winner-take-all nature has created a world where one office in one city can do what used to require more sprinkled out offices of different businesses. Couple that with too many rich people, who will always have more money to park in desirable places than we have time to out build, and you get people priced out of the "one place" they can get a job.
It's not housing. It's the structure of our economy. If you don't believe me, notice how every city in America right now talks about its "housing crisis". It's wealth inequality and job monopolies.
There is no housing crises. There is a concentration of jobs problem and a wealth inequality problem. The internet's winner-take-all nature has created a world where one office in one city can do what used to require more sprinkled out offices of different businesses. Couple that with too many rich people, who will always have more money to park in desirable places than we have time to out build, and you get people priced out of the "one place" they can get a job.
It's not housing. It's the structure of our economy. If you don't believe me, notice how every city in America right now talks about its "housing crisis". It's wealth inequality and job monopolies.
Oh, so it's still expensive to live in a city that refuses to build more housing? And here I thought that had changed since the last weekly article on the same subject. ;-)
Maintaining its culture is one thing, but it's irresponsible that SF has continued to allow commerical zoning and jobs to increase without upzoning for housing accordingly. It places strain on cities around SF and causes the transportation infrastructure to be unnecessarily stressed.
SF is trying to pull a Palo Alto where they reap the benefits of having many jobs, but push the cost of housing to neighboring cities. It's irresponsible.
SF is trying to pull a Palo Alto where they reap the benefits of having many jobs, but push the cost of housing to neighboring cities. It's irresponsible.
Eugene Wei summed it up well on Twitter: There should be an SF Fortnite mod that replaces the shrinking storm circles with encroaching zoning restrictions. Eventually no one can build any structures and all players are homeless and running around trying to avoid stepping in poop while getting in a long line for brunch.
The problem isn’t even San Francisco. It’s the entire Bay Area. In 1 hour in any direction you have exorbitant rent/ housing.
Building codes make it next to impossible anywhere in the bay to affordably build.
I live in Belmont, and my gf lives on Van Ness downtown.
They need to create more housing pretty much ANYWHERE in the bay. And somewhere close to the major business areas.
When I moved here years ago to work at a startup, the cheapest housing I could find was $800 sharing a house with 10 roommates. Having 4-8 roommates it’s not uncommon.
Who is making money off this scheme?
And on an unrelated note, downtown San Francisco has turned into a writhing cess pool of filth. Homelessness, unstable/ crazy people. Rampant drug use and needles everywhere. Tents lining the streets. Prostitution. Human excrement all over the sidewalks.
The only way to avoid it is stay in your bubble and pretend is doesn’t exist.
Building codes make it next to impossible anywhere in the bay to affordably build.
I live in Belmont, and my gf lives on Van Ness downtown.
They need to create more housing pretty much ANYWHERE in the bay. And somewhere close to the major business areas.
When I moved here years ago to work at a startup, the cheapest housing I could find was $800 sharing a house with 10 roommates. Having 4-8 roommates it’s not uncommon.
Who is making money off this scheme?
And on an unrelated note, downtown San Francisco has turned into a writhing cess pool of filth. Homelessness, unstable/ crazy people. Rampant drug use and needles everywhere. Tents lining the streets. Prostitution. Human excrement all over the sidewalks.
The only way to avoid it is stay in your bubble and pretend is doesn’t exist.
It’s weird how NIMBY is a pejorative
“Other people should sacrifice their wellbeing for me me me”
“Other people should sacrifice their wellbeing for me me me”
Honest question, is it truly possible to build yourself out of a housing crisis? Or is housing like roads, where an increased supply just leads to even more demand?
In other words, traffic exists not because of a lack of roads per se, but because people are willing to accept a given level of traffic when deciding whether to drive somewhere. In an area as beautiful and in demand as SF, will people essentially keep on immigrating until it's unattractive enough that they stop, regardless of supply?
Edit: thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies and for pointing out some of my potentially flawed assumptions. It's refreshing to have civilized exchanges of opinion on the internet every once in a while :)
In other words, traffic exists not because of a lack of roads per se, but because people are willing to accept a given level of traffic when deciding whether to drive somewhere. In an area as beautiful and in demand as SF, will people essentially keep on immigrating until it's unattractive enough that they stop, regardless of supply?
Edit: thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies and for pointing out some of my potentially flawed assumptions. It's refreshing to have civilized exchanges of opinion on the internet every once in a while :)
If you're looking to move to the Bay area, you should also look at moving to the like Lincoln, NE or Omaha, NE or Kansas City. A lot more so if you have a family. I know that sounds strange, but....
The Midwest is cheap. Albeit harder than the past, it is still possible and common in the Midwest to live a middle-class-ish lifestyle on a single income. A two bedroom apartment can be less than $500 a month. I have friends with $830/month mortgage payments on their house.
The Internet is solid in the Midwest too, unless you're actually out on a farm. In the cities you can get Gigabit up/down for $90 a month. Most places don't have Google Fiber, but other fiber companies have sprung up. The majority of my tech friends have fiber in to their walls for Internet.
It is very much a culture of YIMBY right now too. Driverless shuttles? Yeah sure. New apartment building? Yeah sure. New tech startups? Yeah sure.
Lastly, (this is a hot topic issue so I am reluctant to put it in, but it is something that comes up from my friends on the west coast) the states are red states, but the cities are blue. As an example, Omaha is blue enough that it split the electoral vote of Nebraska to Obama in the past. (NE is a state that can split its electoral vote rather than winner-takes-all.) Yes it is true that if you start driving out in to the country you will see "Trump" painted on to barns and such, but in the cities you don't.
The Midwest is cheap. Albeit harder than the past, it is still possible and common in the Midwest to live a middle-class-ish lifestyle on a single income. A two bedroom apartment can be less than $500 a month. I have friends with $830/month mortgage payments on their house.
The Internet is solid in the Midwest too, unless you're actually out on a farm. In the cities you can get Gigabit up/down for $90 a month. Most places don't have Google Fiber, but other fiber companies have sprung up. The majority of my tech friends have fiber in to their walls for Internet.
It is very much a culture of YIMBY right now too. Driverless shuttles? Yeah sure. New apartment building? Yeah sure. New tech startups? Yeah sure.
Lastly, (this is a hot topic issue so I am reluctant to put it in, but it is something that comes up from my friends on the west coast) the states are red states, but the cities are blue. As an example, Omaha is blue enough that it split the electoral vote of Nebraska to Obama in the past. (NE is a state that can split its electoral vote rather than winner-takes-all.) Yes it is true that if you start driving out in to the country you will see "Trump" painted on to barns and such, but in the cities you don't.
There was an NPR clip a month or so ago that likened homeowners to a cartel.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/04/californias-transit-d...