Hard choices ahead for growing S.F. (construction, zoning)

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

It may be difficult, but it's not complicated. I basically explained it right there.

That's political speak. Saying it's not complicated shows a lack of understanding of how NIMBYism anti-development attitudes have completely changed the Bay Area.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by phoenixmike11

Looks like SF is going to get a lot more crowded in the future

Not if costs continue on their current trend. Same could be said about most communities in San Mateo County and Northern Santa Clara County. They are becoming playgrounds for the global 1%.

Meanwhile:

Bay Area tops new 'mega-commuter' Census list defining the worst trips to work - San Jose Mercury News

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

That's political speak. Saying it's not complicated shows a lack of understanding of how NIMBYism anti-development attitudes have completely changed the Bay Area.

What exactly am I not understanding?

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

That said, if SF shoots itself in the foot with some development moratorium, I hope Oakland welcomes those new residents with open arms.

In the Plan for "Plan Bay Area" there are a few places designated for "priority development."

Places that are near existing transit centers, downtown San Jose.

I don't recall the rest, but review the map here:

http://onebayareahttp://onebayarea.o...-bay-area.html

Map: http://www.onebayarea.org/pdf/Initia...n_Maps_Set.pdf

[ambient]

What makes those people think that so many people will come to San Francisco if there is no affordable housing? If it stays astronomically expensive, then only mega-rich people will come in and occupy the available housing; ergo, others will not move in. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, folks. Humans are generally rational...if they can't cut it in the market, they will go elsewhere.

[checkup]

Originally Posted by ambient

What makes those people think that so many people will come to San Francisco if there is no affordable housing? If it stays astronomically expensive, then only mega-rich people will come in and occupy the available housing; ergo, others will not move in. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, folks. Humans are generally rational...if they can't cut it in the market, they will go elsewhere.

a) mega-rich is pushing it; ppl making over 80k or so (depends on kids, etc.) can get by in SF
b) SF/SV pays more than other markets for the same jobs in almost any field, job, profession...not enough to overcome the gap in housing costs and taxes, but still 10-30% more
c) SF/SV has a ton of 100k+ jobs; a very high proportion of jobs in this area pay six figures. Those are the types of ppl who will come here and those ppl can make ends meet

obviously at some point, more housing is needed, but some of it is being built -- see SOMA, Transbay, Mission Bay, Hunter's Point, Candlestick, Potrero, etc.

Also, as newer and better housing is built, the "luxury" housing of yesteryear often becomes less prestigious or comparatively nice and experiences a relative and inflation-adjusted drop in value, which makes it more affordable

And continuing past trends, many ppl will work in SF but live in cheaper areas of SV (e.g., near SFO or San Mateo) and East Bay

[cardinal2007]

Originally Posted by ambient

What makes those people think that so many people will come to San Francisco if there is no affordable housing? If it stays astronomically expensive, then only mega-rich people will come in and occupy the available housing; ergo, others will not move in. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, folks. Humans are generally rational...if they can't cut it in the market, they will go elsewhere.

In California on average the difference between birth and death rates means population increases by .8% a year. I am guessing SF must have a lower birth rate in general though. But going by that standard in order to have enough housing for people that are having children, and children that go off to college, then get their own place and so on, an area would have to grow their housing stock by .8% a year, for SF that would mean growing their population from 812k in 2013 to 967k in 2035, so we are not even talking about what is needed for people wanting to more to SF, we are basically talking about just keeping up with having enough housing assuming a 1-1 exchange between people moving and leaving here. I don't know if overall in the Bay Area we do that, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't though.

[wave9x]

The trend is jobs moving out of SF and into SV, just look at traffic every morning. Peninsula and SV are getting more expensive because they are close to the high paying jobs, and most people don't like commuting. That trend will continue. SF's anti growth policy will become a self fulfilling prophecy where they won't need growth at some point because people will want to be closer to work. I don't think it has to do with people being driven out by cost, as the Peninsula is just as bad as SF if not worse. There are plenty of cheaper areas in SF, probably more than mid Peninsula and SV.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

What exactly am I not understanding?

Just how complicated of a barrier NIMBYism is in the Bay Area.

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Just how complicated of a barrier NIMBYism is in the Bay Area.

Anti-development forces join with neighbors to throw the kitchen sink against any new development and hope something sticks. They all try to sound reasonable about smart growth in general, just not this specific project. The cumulative effect, when combined with strict local zoning and permitting laws, means very little makes it through to actual construction. Development gets pushed out to exurbs (and Texas and Arizona . . . ) - out of sight, out of mind. That seems to be the story to me