This is what an affordable SF looks like - Do you approve (San Francisco: rent, mortgage)

[Logicist027]

Originally Posted by ketch89

Everyone should be in favor of more density, at least everyone who has consistent, logical political beliefs.

Progressives should support density because infill development prevents the destruction of farmland/open space, reduces CO2 emissions from transportation, and statistically makes people more likely to vote democrat.

Neoliberals should support density because it's what the market demands, and property owners should be able to develop their parcel as they so desire. Zoning restrictions are market distortion.

Conservatives should support density because it improves our national security by reducing dependence on oil, and reduces the need for massive government healthcare subsidies due to sedentary (suburban) lifestyles.

To those who say: "but what about infrastructure?!" - building in the city means those people have the opportunity to walk, bike, or take MUNI to work. Building outside the city means they'd have to crowd onto BART (which is already at capacity), or drive (which is obviously extremely undesirable). Building nothing is not an option, so long as we are adding jobs, the people will continue to come.

All of this assumes that people put their political beliefs before their personal preferences. I think if people thought on a basis as the one you mentioned, SF would be much closer to this look already. But in reality, I doubt people want to ruin the view based on progressivism.

[ketch89]

Originally Posted by sav858

Muni couldn't handle that additional population either, it's a pretty mediocre system as it is. SF's intra-city rail system is rather pathetic for a city with its built environment/density, it would need major rail expansion to handle a plan like this.

The 30-Stockton and the 38-Geary both carry more riders than the J-Church. The 5-Fulton carries nearly as many. Adding more buses to the MUNI fleet is doable, accommodating more cars isn't. If we don't build in the city, more homes will be built in places like Antioch and Brentwood.

Originally Posted by clongirl

Seems to me that San Francisco is already building more high rise apartments. I'm actually seeing billboards in the East Bay now for new high rise developments in SOMA/Mission Bay, etc. So it looks to me that it's already happening. Problem is- cost...still. Not really attracting the kind of people that the City is going to need in the future that actually tend to the needs of the wealthy.

I'll add that all the building in the world (at least in San Francisco) won't make rents any cheaper...one can look to Manhattan for this---still very expensive!! I think all the building is inevitable despite it turning the city into something very un-San Francisco. It's ugly. I hate it. It turns the small, cool, artsy, fun city into something more "businesslike" and "power yoga" and focused on career and $$...very sad.

All over the world, in London, Paris, Tokyo, New York, etcetera - the most expensive part of a city is the center. This is normal; living close to work is desirable. American city centers were largely the way they were (centers of concentrated poverty) after World War II and before the year 2000 due to a few factors - racist redlining, large government subsidies to freeways (the feds paid for 90% of the cost if you called it an Interstate), and the fact that we had lots of available land to build on the periphery. As our cities age, we're beginning to follow the normal, global pattern - expensive in the center, cheaper as you move farther out.

No, building in the city won't make it cheaper at the market rate, but it WILL provide much needed funding for affordable housing construction, and reduce the amount of absurdly inefficient sprawl being built 40 miles away.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ketch89

The 30-Stockton and the 38-Geary both carry more riders than the J-Church. The 5-Fulton carries nearly as many. Adding more buses to the MUNI fleet is doable, accommodating more cars isn't. If we don't build in the city, more homes will be built in places like Antioch and Brentwood.

Ok? I'm not sure what that is suppose to prove, those lines are notoriously overcrowded and don't have great on time performance either. SF has the slowest average bus speed of any major city in America, its quicker to get to Downtown SF from some outer East Bay cities than it is from the Outer Sunset/Richmond. Cities like Paris couldn't function off buses and streetcars alone, which what SF's transit is pretty much composed of. Not sure why you don't think SF's infrastructure wouldn't need to be upgraded to handle additional density and population, that basically goes against the fundamentals of urban planning and development.

[ketch89]

Originally Posted by sav858

Ok? I'm not sure what that is suppose to prove, those lines are notoriously overcrowded and don't have great on time performance either. SF has the slowest average bus speed of any major city in America, its quicker to get to Downtown SF from some outer East Bay cities than it is from the Outer Sunset/Richmond. Cities like Paris couldn't function off buses and streetcars alone, which what SF's transit is pretty much composed of. Not sure why you don't think SF's infrastructure wouldn't need to be upgraded to handle additional density and population, that basically goes against the fundamentals of urban planning and development.

-Do we need more rail? Yes, but that will take a decade or more.
-Building nothing while we wait for rail is not an option, that just causes sprawl and more car congestion
-Doubling MUNI's bus fleet and imposing restrictions on private cars on MUNI routes is doable on a much shorter timeframe than rail expansion.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

How long before those 150,000 units fill up?

And then they're full. And now the city is uglier.

And then we need more housing.

The supply will never meet the demand. Leave it beautiful.

[Lockdev]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

How long before those 150,000 units fill up?

And then they're full. And now the city is uglier.

And then we need more housing.

The supply will never meet the demand. Leave it beautiful.

So I'm guessing you're a fan of population control then?

We can't have our cake and eat it to.

We either recognize there's an influx of people here and deal with it or stick our heads in the sand and "yell nanananana it's beautiful here nanananana".

[NYMTman]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

How long before those 150,000 units fill up?

And then they're full. And now the city is uglier.

And then we need more housing.

The supply will never meet the demand. Leave it beautiful.

Yes indeed.

The tech scene has outgrown the Bay Area. Decentralization will probably be painful and undesirable in many aspects (employers like having all these prospective employees crowded into one geographic area, and the employees enjoy being able to job hop and advance their careers at a moment's notice). That said, government wields the scalpel of regulation and zoning restrictions, and barring a major change in construction limits, the tech sector will simply stop growing in the Bay Area at some point.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by Lockdev

So I'm guessing you're a fan of population control then?

We can't have our cake and eat it to.

We either recognize there's an influx of people here and deal with it or stick our heads in the sand and "yell nanananana it's beautiful here nanananana".

No, I'm saying I agree with the poster who said basically that you could turn SF into Manhattan, and the rents will still be sky-high and it will still end up being difficult to find an apartment.

I grew up in the East Bay. I can remember when the sprawling was happening fast and the hills were in danger of being covered with pavement and homes, and the people voted to leave the hills alone so we'd still have something pretty to look at while we were stuck in our traffic jams on the freeways.

I'm old enough to know how the cycles go. There will never be enough housing in SF. You won't be able to keep up with the demand. Ever.

So, why turn it into a visual garbage dump? It would be a long-term blight for a temporary fix - for the lucky 150,000 original new tenants.

And then the waiting lists begin. And the demand still can't keep up, so the rents go up again and again.

It's just reality. Think beyond your 150,000 new units. What happens after that? How do you guarantee they will be affordable? How does someone qualify to live there? Do they have to be low income? If so, that doesn't help the shortage for housing for the techies who want to live there, does it?

Think.

[ketch89]

San Francisco is less than half as dense as Paris. Is Paris an ugly city? ...

[Ceece]

I don't think more high rises will make anything affordable in SF. I think we have to wait out the boom cycle until it swings and people start moving out. Maybe to the surrounding burbs. Then those burbs can build up more creating more vibrant city centers of their own. The answer isn't to change SF, it's to change other places near SF. Or other places entirely. Not what people want to hear but I don't care.


SF isn't Manhattan and never will be. It's just too hot to handle right now but at some point it's going to be less desirable again.