San francisco's abundant developable land supply (Oakland: home, buy, school)

[iExtrapolate]

Originally Posted by citylove101

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.

Home owners in San Francisco are opposed to new construction because they have a vested interest in perpetuating the housing shortage. The more severe the housing shortage, the richer they get. Living in a $1.4m house that would otherwise be $400k is worth a million dollars in cash when you sell and can pay you when you rent out the front studio, bedrooms, etc for $1k+/month. If you give local governments control of housing, they act in their own selfish interests.

San Francisco's housing market is a failure of incentives, not geography.

[kennygg]

Wouldn't cramming more people into SF create a major safety problem? I don't think there are enough egress paths to handle a catastrophic disaster. I wouldn't be shocked if we lost access to a couple bridges following either of the Big Ones (Hayward and San Andreas faults).

[Dave Coe]

SB 827 impact map (including how it would affect SF and its suburbs) put together by Sasha Aickin:
https://transitrichhousing.org/

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Dave Coe

SB 827 impact map (including how it would affect SF and its suburbs) put together by Sasha Aickin:
https://transitrichhousing.org/

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting map and commentary.

[iberanon]

Fill in the bay and there'll be tons of new land to build houses on.

[SocSciProf]

Originally Posted by citylove101

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.

I've always wondered why Manhattan itself wasn’t sparser. Dirty air, too much pollution, and nowhere to really see and experience the restorative beauty of nature? Raze buildings, plant trees, re-build paths (not "parks"). But from what I’ve seen, city residents are near pathologically opposed to the "natural world," (i.e., real hills, real ponds). When the next mayoral election occurs, I doubt any of the candidates will specifically address nature restoration and proposals to encourage and streamline that process. My guess is that if anyone did, they’d probably lose, as Manhattanites seem happier living in an expensive museum of a community than a dynamic, changing, more humane one.

[Oakformonday]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

I've always wondered why Manhattan itself wasn’t sparser. Dirty air, too much pollution, and nowhere to really see and experience the restorative beauty of nature? Raze buildings, plant trees, re-build paths (not "parks"). But from what I’ve seen, city residents are near pathologically opposed to the "natural world," (i.e., real hills, real ponds). When the next mayoral election occurs, I doubt any of the candidates will specifically address nature restoration and proposals to encourage and streamline that process. My guess is that if anyone did, they’d probably lose, as Manhattanites seem happier living in an expensive museum of a community than a dynamic, changing, more humane one.

I get what you are doing but it makes absolutely no sense in context to the subject matter of this thread nor does it take into account the history of NYC. You live in Manhattan and want to see a pond - go upstate.

[SocSciProf]

Originally Posted by Oakformonday

I get what you are doing but it makes absolutely no sense in context to the subject matter of this thread nor does it take into account the history of NYC. You live in Manhattan and want to see a pond - go upstate.

I get what the Manhattan poster was doing but it makes absolutely no sense in [the] context of this region and its history. You live in the bay area. You wanta live surrounded by skyscrapers, go to NY.

[Oakformonday]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

I get what the Manhattan poster was doing but it makes absolutely no sense in [the] context of this region and its history. You live in the bay area. You wanta live surrounded by skyscrapers, go to NY.

Backing away slowly... Good day to you.

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by Dave Coe

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

Build! Build! Build!