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.
Sav858, of course everything is better, bigger, more urban, more fun, cooler people, richer, better lamp post, better garbage trucks, faster subway trains, more sunshine, bigger waves in San Francisco than in LA. And you can keep making your snide remarks about LA . But the fact is we as citizens see what is taking place in and around Los Angeles and as much as you put SF on some pedestal, and constantly put LA down, it doesn't matter. Things are looking very good here. From housing, public transportation, dining, nightlife, cultural amenities, downtown construction, air, jobs, these are exciting times in LA right now.
The SOMA plan was basically upzoning so now it's up to developers. Several office projects are pending approval while most housing is proposed. So I'd imagine at least 10 years.
The Park Merced redevelopment has just gotten under way will produce 5,679 new housing units which is more than what's "in the works" in all of Hollywood (4,000 units) according to your Curbed link.
Mission Bay redevelopment is still chugging along, while I think many of the housing units have been built there is still a lot of office, medical, and retail under construction including a new sports arena. Giants just approved a developer for their large surface lots south of the stadium.
Hunterts Point/Candlestick redevelopment has already been underway will eventually include over 10,500 units though that's far beyond 10 years, not sure how many are included in Phase 1. And it may be delayed due to soil issues.
While LA's construction boom is impressive, particularly because it's helping transform a relatively underwhelming urban core, it doesn't really seem anymore robust than SF when you look at the numbers. SF already had a nice, good urban built environment so it's not as impressive on the surface but for those that have seen the city throughout the decades it really is a lot of redevelopment in change. It's just occurring mostly in concentrated areas that are easier to develop rather than all over the place. For example according to the latest downtown LA report there was 2.8 million sqft of office space under construction versus 4 million for SF's Financial District. This site says SF has 8.5 million sq ft under construction.
This shows the value of commercial and multi-family construction in SF and LA metro areas about the same ($2.8-2.9 billion) in the first half of 2018. Granted this is by metro and value (Bay Area is a lot more expensive) but still the fact that the Bay Area is so much smaller than LA just goes to show you much construction is occurring.
That SOMA plan is in planning, but the zoning for it isn’t enacted yet, is that right?
Park Merced plan is great and perhaps Park La Brea in LA should be looking at it for pointers. It’s an interesting counterpart to Hollywood especially as Hollywood has gone hotel heavy recently.
As far as I can tell, that’s the biggest project planned or under constructuon, and it sizable, outside of downtown SF, SOMA and the eastern waterfront areas, is that right? And from the news, much of the former navy yards and industrial waterfront in Hunters Point, which is probably the least NIMBYist (since there’s not much of a neighborhood community there or historic buildings to protect), largest parcel, that can be massively upzoned and probably build a lot of housing and almost an entire community from scratch, but is mired in a scandal where the contractors who were paid to clean up the site and designate it safe essentially cheated their results and another round of actual testing, potential remediation which can range from pretty light remediation to hundreds of tonnes of material removed and sequestered, and then finally development. Is that correct?
Hunters Point and its adjacent neighborhoods can become a massive and dense secondary downtown for SF and end up rivalling or even besting the northeast quadrant of SF in density and degree of urbanization, but that wrench thrown in means a ten year timespan is unlikely for that, though twenty years is very possible. That last part is pretty much why I think 20 years from now is a toss-up, because it’s impossible to tell what will happen and that massive parcel and adjoining areas and potential legislated upzoning throughout the city can probably work itself out to a whirlwind of construction by two decades time, but right now, it’s still looking to me that ten years time is going to LA’s urban core coming out more urban because the transit projects already have shovels in the ground with one of them being rapid transit linkig the two largest job clusters in the region, the upzoning is already enacted and in effect, and there’s a 2028 Olympics deadline helping nudge things along.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 09-11-2018 at 08:15 AM..
Sav858, of course everything is better, bigger, more urban, more fun, cooler people, richer, better lamp post, better garbage trucks, faster subway trains, more sunshine, bigger waves in San Francisco than in LA. And you can keep making your snide remarks about LA . But the fact is we as citizens see what is taking place in and around Los Angeles and as much as you put SF on some pedestal, and constantly put LA down, it doesn't matter. Things are looking very good here. From housing, public transportation, dining, nightlife, cultural amenities, downtown construction, air, jobs, these are exciting times in LA right now.
I never suggested otherwise and gave credit to LA for its continued urban transformation. Some of you are so defensive and easily triggered...
That SOMA plan is in planning, but the zoning for it isn’t enacted yet, is that right?
Park Merced plan is great and perhaps Park La Brea in LA should be looking at it for pointers. It’s an interesting counterpart to Hollywood especially as Hollywood has gone hotel heavy recently.
As far as I can tell, that’s the biggest project planned or under constructuon, and it sizable, outside of downtown SF, SOMA and the eastern waterfront areas, is that right? And from the news, much of the former navy yards and industrial waterfront in Hunters Point, which is probably the least NIMBYist (since there’s not much of a neighborhood community there or historic buildings to protect), largest parcel, that can be massively upzoned and probably build a lot of housing and almost an entire community from scratch, but is mired in a scandal where the contractors who were paid to clean up the site and designate it safe essentially cheated their results and another round of actual testing, potential remediation which can range from pretty light remediation to hundreds of tonnes of material removed and sequestered, and then finally development. Is that correct?
Hunters Point and its adjacent neighborhoods can become a massive and dense secondary downtown for SF and end up rivalling or even besting the northeast quadrant of SF in density and degree of urbanization, but that wrench thrown in means a ten year timespan is unlikely for that, though twenty years is very possible. That last part is pretty much why I think 20 years from now is a toss-up, because it’s impossible to tell what will happen and that massive parcel and adjoining areas and potential legislated upzoning throughout the city can probably work itself out to a whirlwind of construction by two decades time, but right now, it’s still looking to me that ten years time is going to LA’s urban core coming out more urban because the transit projects already have shovels in the ground with one of them being rapid transit linkig the two largest job clusters in the region, the upzoning is already enacted and in effect, and there’s a 2028 Olympics deadline helping nudge things along.
The upzoning for SOMA was approved already.
Yes outside of SF's entire eastern side Park Merced is the largest development under construction. There's also the Treasure Island redevelopment currently under construction with 8,000 units . I didn't really include that before since it's not on the mainland but it is part of the city of SF.
Think what you want but you really haven't provided any data or statistics to really prove that. Just links to Curbed maps full of 10-100 unit developments.
Yes outside of SF's entire eastern side Park Merced is the largest development under construction. There's also the Treasure Island redevelopment currently under construction with 8,000 units . I didn't really include that before since it's not on the mainland but it is part of the city of SF.
Think what you want but you really haven't provided any data or statistics to really prove that. Just links to Curbed maps full of 10-100 unit developments.
Yea, I used curbed maps, TOC guidelines and explanation, rentcafe's overview, downtown LA's BID's overview, and links to Metro Rail's coming expansions. It is a decade long guess I'm making based a lot on the current state of things, zoning changes and transit under construction, so it'll be some work to cobble something that can be a "definitive" projection. It'd be good if we can do a drill down comparison on this with whatever we can find including starting with finding a snapshot of 2017/2018 for both, want to do it with me?
How should we go about getting a census tract level delineation of estimates? It's easy to get county estimates and SF city and county are the same. It's a lot more complex a process to get an urban core estimate for LA that's to date though. Let me look around a bit for that, but chime in if you already know where to go. There's the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates which wil be released on Thursday, December 6, 2018 which will go into census tract level, but maybe there's something else already released?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 09-11-2018 at 10:52 AM..
I feel like it would be hard to be objective and actually consider SF better. The OP had it right, "I'm just wondering why someone would move to SF over LA. It actually makes no sense from a logical stand point, unless you work in tech."
-Exactly
Our beaches are better, (As you can tell I'm an LA native, but I have been to SF numerous times), our weather is better, there are way more things to do. You have virtually every kind of industry here, not just tech. We have big engineering, Space X, Tesla & the Boring company. There is a reason why Elon Musk moved down to LA. Didn't he used to have his factory in Fremont? But then he came down to LA! We have world class museums - the Getty Villa & Getty Museum. Gene Autry Museum. Last week I just visited the Norton Simon museum (that's Pasadena's art museum) and there were Van Gogh's and they had so many Pablo Picasso's you would have thought he lived up the street. We have the Griffith observatory, Arts District I could go on.
And here is another huge one, LA is getting better. Look at the future of LA's public transportation map with measure M
LA River, yeah they are restoring that too. Now if LA gets electric vehicles and the air quality improves... sheesh why liver anywhere else?
Let's be honest, SF hit it's zenith maybe around 10-15 years ago. Now it's gotten too expensive, even their major companies are starting to look elsewhere. They can't build or do anything new while LA keeps getting bigger and better.
Seriously with all of the advantages LA has, you would think at least SF would have a lower COL, but nope it's more expensive for less.
I feel like it would be hard to be objective and actually consider SF better. The OP had it right, "I'm just wondering why someone would move to SF over LA. It actually makes no sense from a logical stand point, unless you work in tech."
-Exactly
Our beaches are better, (As you can tell I'm an LA native, but I have been to SF numerous times), our weather is better, there are way more things to do. You have virtually every kind of industry here, not just tech. We have big engineering, Space X, Tesla & the Boring company. There is a reason why Elon Musk moved down to LA. Didn't he used to have his factory in Fremont? But then he came down to LA! We have world class museums - the Getty Villa & Getty Museum. Gene Autry Museum. Last week I just visited the Norton Simon museum (that's Pasadena's art museum) and there were Van Gogh's and they had so many Pablo Picasso's you would have thought he lived up the street. We have the Griffith observatory, Arts District I could go on.
And here is another huge one, LA is getting better. Look at the future of LA's public transportation map with measure M
LA River, yeah they are restoring that too. Now if LA gets electric vehicles and the air quality improves... sheesh why liver anywhere else?
Let's be honest, SF hit it's zenith maybe around 10-15 years ago. Now it's gotten too expensive, even their major companies are starting to look elsewhere. They can't build or do anything new while LA keeps getting bigger and better.
Seriously with all of the advantages LA has, you would think at least SF would have a lower COL, but nope it's more expensive for less.
Tesla is still in the Bay Area (Palo Alto) and that plant in Fremont is still the main plant where they're churning out those cars.
LA does have great museums--that's something that both the Bay Area and LA have.
That Measure M map is great and what's under construction right now can be more transformative than what the Bay Area currently has under construction, but who knows what will happen in the decades that will have passed before the full build out in Measure M is done.
Yea, I used curbed maps, TOC guidelines and explanation, rentcafe's overview, downtown LA's BID's overview, and links to Metro Rail's coming expansions. It is a decade long guess I'm making based a lot on the current state of things, zoning changes and transit under construction, so it'll be some work to cobble something that can be a "definitive" projection. It'd be good if we can do a drill down comparison on this with whatever we can find including starting with finding a snapshot of 2017/2018 for both, want to do it with me?
How should we go about getting a census tract level delineation of estimates? It's easy to get county estimates and SF city and county are the same. It's a lot more complex a process to get an urban core estimate for LA that's to date though. Let me look around a bit for that, but chime in if you already know where to go. There's the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates which wil be released on Thursday, December 6, 2018 which will go into census tract level, but maybe there's something else already released?
Sure but I'm not sure how much more I can find than I already have.
I would just use the definitions the LA Times used for "Central LA" and its neighborhoods. I'm sure they delineated the neighborhoods from various census tracts. What kind of estimates are you looking for? Just population?
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.
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.
We just read what you write. Simple as that./cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7014805/Los%20Angeles%20MetroRail%20-%20Comparison.gif)
