U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-24-2018, 11:06 AM
 
1,874 posts, read 2,074,070 times
Reputation: 853

Advertisements

San Francisco's Abundant Developable Land Supply | Newgeography.com



"The San Francisco Bay Area (home of the San Francisco and San Jose metropolitan areas), which has often been cited as a place where natural barriers have left little land for development. This is an impression easily obtained observing the fairly narrow strips of urbanization on both sides of San Francisco Bay, hemmed in by hills.

However the Bay Area’s urbanization long ago leapt over the most important water bodies and then the Berkeley Hills to the east. Not only is the San Francisco Bay Area CSA high density, but it is also spatially small. In 2016, the San Francisco built-up urban area was only the 23rd largest in land area in the world. New York, the world's largest built-up urban area in geographical expanse is more than four times as large.

There is plenty of developable land in the San Francisco Bay Area. Data in a 1997 state analysis indicated that another 1,500 to 4,300 square miles (3,900 to 11,000 square kilometers) could be developed in the Bay Area CSA. The lower bound assumed no farmland conversion and stringent environmental regulation. The report also found that in recent years, residential development had become marginally denser, yet not incompatible with the detached housing remains the preference in California (Figure). The state has more than enough developable land for future housing needs."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2018, 05:04 PM
 
Location: New York NY
4,266 posts, read 6,348,204 times
Reputation: 9056
I’ve always wondered why SF itself wasn’t denser. No land? Build up. Build higher. But from what I’ve seen, city residents are near pathologically opposed to high rise construction in most of the city, and the development process makes the process here in NYC look like a cakewalk. There is a mayoral election in the city this year, but I don’t know if any of the candidates are specifically addressing up zoning and streamlining development. My guess is that if anyone is, they’ll probably lose, as San Franciscans seem happier living in an expensive museum of a city than a dynamic, changing, more affordable one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2018, 10:54 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,094 posts, read 22,960,701 times
Reputation: 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Coe View Post
San Francisco's Abundant Developable Land Supply | Newgeography.com



"The San Francisco Bay Area (home of the San Francisco and San Jose metropolitan areas), which has often been cited as a place where natural barriers have left little land for development. This is an impression easily obtained observing the fairly narrow strips of urbanization on both sides of San Francisco Bay, hemmed in by hills.

However the Bay Area’s urbanization long ago leapt over the most important water bodies and then the Berkeley Hills to the east. Not only is the San Francisco Bay Area CSA high density, but it is also spatially small. In 2016, the San Francisco built-up urban area was only the 23rd largest in land area in the world. New York, the world's largest built-up urban area in geographical expanse is more than four times as large.

There is plenty of developable land in the San Francisco Bay Area. Data in a 1997 state analysis indicated that another 1,500 to 4,300 square miles (3,900 to 11,000 square kilometers) could be developed in the Bay Area CSA. The lower bound assumed no farmland conversion and stringent environmental regulation. The report also found that in recent years, residential development had become marginally denser, yet not incompatible with the detached housing remains the preference in California (Figure). The state has more than enough developable land for future housing needs."
What is your personal opinion? I don't see the point of cutting and pasting articles and links without an opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 12:41 PM
 
1,874 posts, read 2,074,070 times
Reputation: 853
I agree that SF needs to increase it's housing supply. I would estimate that SF could accommodate up to one million people but will at some point will run out of parking lots and non historically valuable or aesthetic buildings that could be demolished for new skyscrapers.

Most of the growth will have to be accommodated in Oakland, San Jose, and older inner ring suburbs such as Daly City, Fremont, and Emeryville.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Berkeley, California
17 posts, read 15,993 times
Reputation: 28
Wow you have good memory. 1997 man what was i doing back then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 02:57 PM
 
10,930 posts, read 5,040,103 times
Reputation: 4890
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101 View Post
I’ve always wondered why SF itself wasn’t denser. No land? Build up. Build higher. But from what I’ve seen, city residents are near pathologically opposed to high rise construction in most of the city, and the development process makes the process here in NYC look like a cakewalk. There is a mayoral election in the city this year, but I don’t know if any of the candidates are specifically addressing up zoning and streamlining development. My guess is that if anyone is, they’ll probably lose, as San Franciscans seem happier living in an expensive museum of a city than a dynamic, changing, more affordable one.
It's maddening to think that people would rather sprawl out over our open space preserves (which are not exactly prime flat developable land) than densify the flat areas. SF should be much denser on the whole than it is.

Same goes for the peninsula and much of the East Bay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 02:59 PM
 
10,930 posts, read 5,040,103 times
Reputation: 4890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Coe View Post
I agree that SF needs to increase it's housing supply. I would estimate that SF could accommodate up to one million people but will at some point will run out of parking lots and non historically valuable or aesthetic buildings that could be demolished for new skyscrapers.

Most of the growth will have to be accommodated in Oakland, San Jose, and older inner ring suburbs such as Daly City, Fremont, and Emeryville.
There is no reason to be thinking about parking spaces. In fact, this highlights greatly an enormous flaw in our land use policies. We should be building for Public Transit usage, not personal automobile transportation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 03:58 PM
 
1,874 posts, read 2,074,070 times
Reputation: 853
I was referring to redeveloping parking lots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,094 posts, read 22,960,701 times
Reputation: 35240
San Francisco is already the 2nd most dense city in the US, second only to New York, and it's only around 23 square miles. Nobody can make it be what it's not. And as I always say, if you build a bunch of sky scrapers, those will just fill up - and probably won't be affordable housing - and then you're out of housing again. The demand is just too great to accommodate everyone who would like to live there.

Maybe someone will invent floating housing that's floats in the air. Put a bunch of dense housing literally in the cloud.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 10:19 PM
 
10,930 posts, read 5,040,103 times
Reputation: 4890
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
San Francisco is already the 2nd most dense city in the US, second only to New York, and it's only around 23 square miles. Nobody can make it be what it's not. And as I always say, if you build a bunch of sky scrapers, those will just fill up - and probably won't be affordable housing - and then you're out of housing again. The demand is just too great to accommodate everyone who would like to live there.

Maybe someone will invent floating housing that's floats in the air. Put a bunch of dense housing literally in the cloud.
It will only outpace demand if you stop building. Which is exactly what we've done since the 70s. We're hundred of thousands of units underbuilt, so building a few thousand units in soma isn't gonna do much to move the needle.

We needed to keep pace in the 70s, but screams of "Manhattanization!!" Stopped that. We're now dealing with the consequences of those land use policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top