No more skyscrapers for San Francisco?

[Dariusb]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/05/san-...er-battle.html
For those of you in the city, is this new or has this been brewing for some time?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/05/san-...er-battle.html
For those of you in the city, is this new or has this been brewing for some time?

They have the problem right but the solution wrong.

The key isnt to limit development its to figure out what is making it so difficult for developers to build affordable housing not just in San Francisco but in neighboring and commuter cities.

Figure out that issue, dont limit office development.

[chris08876]

The decline continues...

Tune in to season 2 where we discuss how the solution to housing and office needs IS not to build housing or office.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/05/san-...er-battle.html
For those of you in the city, is this new or has this been brewing for some time?

The cities a mess Dariusb. Extremely hostile development environment, housing costs off the charts, poor efforts to mitigate or reverse the trend, a super aggressive strain of NIMBY's, over regulation that mitigates the residential and office outlook and potential... just bad news in general. Shame too, because it a gorgeous city within a pristine geographical area... but... its policies and long-term outlook are in the gutter. Speaking of the gutter, so are some of its residents. And how the people feel about it? Just dandy! Nothing wrong going on there.

If one is not rich or well off, the Bay Area will eat you alive in this current housing climate. But nobody seems to care, and will defend that this is false (that the housing situation is fine).

[craigs]

Originally Posted by chris08876

And how the people feel about it? Just dandy! Nothing wrong going on there.

You've never been to San Francisco, have you? Please proceed, Senator . . .

If one is not rich or well off, the Bay Area will eat you alive in this current housing climate. But nobody seems to care, and will defend that this is false (that the housing situation is fine).

Confirmed you've never been to San Francisco.

--------------------------------
Anyway, I've been working 12 hours a day and didn't even realize this dumb prop had passed. It will get challenged, and hopefully fall in court.

There was a prop passed in the 1980s that had a similar goal, and it messed up skyscraper construction for the entire 1990s. That said, we eventually did get the current skyscraper boom.

[SFBruin]

I feel like this is a reasonable idea. We need more affordable housing in San Francisco, and in the Bay Area in general, and with the current demand for office space in the city, this should help spur the construction of more affordable housing.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by craigs

You've never been to San Francisco, have you? Please proceed, Senator . . .


Confirmed you've never been to San Francisco.

--------------------------------
Anyway, I've been working 12 hours a day and didn't even realize this dumb prop had passed. It will get challenged, and hopefully fall in court.

I'm not sure what kind of reasoning that is. Are some suppose to be exempt from speaking on issues. I was never around during 1865, doesn't mean we can't talk about the issues of that time.

Like I said, folks ignoring the issues at hand when presented with the raw truth. Over regulation, and an inhospitable housing climate. Its not like we don't live in an era where info isn't readily available, like housing info or homeless stats or info on the gripes of the business community.

Its not some voodoo trade secret that SF is a very tough environment to get developments going, as it is to live expense wise. Its quite evident that if your well off (good income) or rich, the bay area is manageable. Yeah you can scrap by with a shoe box unit and pay-check to pay-check, but that's kinda a not so desirable outcome is it?

EVEN in the article, the locals are happy (NIMBYS) but the business community is venting their frustrations. Of course the locals are happy, the very anti-development mindset that serves to drive prices up and keep new folks out or even reduce the amount of business.

If I didn't know any better, hmmm... might be some selfishness, as that tone of your reply indicates and possibly a protective bubble mentality when challenged on the circle of fermenting chaos that is self-induced among the SF community.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm not sure what kind of reasoning that is. Are some suppose to be exempt from speaking on issues. I was never around during 1865, doesn't mean we can't talk about the issues of that time.

Professor, there are 900,000 people living in San Francisco right now who are fully aware of, and mostly concerned about, a whole slew of issues affecting our lives; meanwhile, in some dank New Jersey basement, you've decided to declare otherwise out of sheer ignorance.

Look, you can write whatever you like about people and places you've never known; each time, though, it becomes more clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

Like I said, folks ignoring the issues at hand when presented with the raw truth. Over regulation, and an inhospitable housing climate. Its not like we don't live in an era where info isn't readily available, like housing info or homeless stats or info on the gripes of the business community.

Its not some voodoo trade secret that SF is a very tough environment to get developments going, as it is to live expense wise. Its quite evident that if your well off (good income) or rich, the bay area is manageable. Yeah you can scrap by with a shoe box unit and pay-check to pay-check, but that's kinda a not so desirable outcome is it?

Are you asking me, Doctor? At least it's a start. San Francisco has problems (and as you know, Fox News reports all of them every day). Everybody who lives here knows it, and yet, like similarly-afflicted West Coast cities, SF remains incredibly desirable to live and work in. That's why housing prices and office space are so expensive--the competition is fierce to live and work here.

EVEN in the article, the locals are happy (NIMBYS) but the business community is venting their frustrations. Of course the locals are happy, the very anti-development mindset that serves to drive prices up and keep new folks out or even reduce the amount of business.

If I didn't know any better, hmmm... might be some selfishness, as that tone of your reply indicates and possibly a protective bubble mentality when challenged on the circle of fermenting chaos that is self-induced among the SF community.

You don't know better. You don't know better than we do about our lives and our community--and that's my whole point.

If you must declare what other people are thinking and how other people are living based on third-hand knowledge, you're better off sticking with people and places you actually know a little something about beyond Fox News clips. Perhaps you can tell us about Sbarro customers at the mall?

[chris08876]

^^^^



You've spent more time attacking me (emotional) than debating with counterpoints. Typical...

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by chris08876

the circle of fermenting chaos that is self-induced among the SF community.

Lol wow. Is this really how people outside the Bay Area view it?

I must've been living here too long to realize I'm fermenting in my own chaos.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Lol wow. Is this really how people outside the Bay Area view it?

I must've been living here too long to realize I'm fermenting in my own chaos.

How typical of you to not let some ignorant fail-son inform you of who you are, what you think, and how you live.

Don't you understand, homebucket? He watches Fox News! That means he knows more about us than we do, and everyone should take notes while the Professor expounds on people he doesn't know in places he's never been!

[chris08876]

Indeed its self induced. The local opposition is incredible when it comes to skyscrapers and providing ample housing. Measures taken are marginal if that. Now with "self-induced", there is an indication that it pertains to NIMBYS, and not everyone. The politicians, the local community boards the stifle development (often wealthy), and the over-regulated nature makes it hard for the law of supply with respect to demand to adequately address the present and future needs.

All one has to do is look at the pipeline report for your city on various quarters both this year and/or the past years, and look at the trends for actual construction versus the immense backlog. Its a slow process, hindered by a slew of other issues that plague the soft cost stage of things.

Proposition E, yet another hinderance.

I just find it difficult on a concept level how your fine Craig with ridiculous rents that are only rising, and property prices across the region that are not ideal for any middle class folks.

And now, restrictions on office and skyscraper construction mitigation. I suppose if your fine with long term diminishing results, if that's your cup of tea, so be it.

Originally Posted by homebucket

Lol wow. Is this really how people outside the Bay Area view it?

I must've been living here too long to realize I'm fermenting in my own chaos.

The business community does, yes indeed. Again, not trying to attack the residents, because they are dealing with a housing condition and cost situation and business migratory climate induced by bad policies and one could say an aura of selfishness by those who are more interested in preserving their property values than providing an ample climate for new comers or the young kin of California to thrive. We all know the wages are higher in California, but even than, pound for pound, they need it to keep up with the asinine costs. Outside of those well off or that struck the right jobs in the right industries, the middle class is struggling. Forget the lower class, they are a galaxy away from having good odds to rise up. And if one wants somewhat affordable conditions, the rise of the super commuter comes into play.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I just find it difficult on a concept level how your fine Craig with ridiculous rents that are only rising, and property prices across the region that are not ideal for any middle class folks.

And now, restrictions on office and skyscraper construction mitigation. I suppose if your fine with long term diminishing results, if that's your cup of tea, so be it.

First, I challenge you to produce a quote of me saying anything like "I'm fine with ridiculous rents and property prices." Let's see the quote.

Second, if you can manage to read my first post in this thread you'll see I called this prop dumb and predicted a legal fight.

You just keep on insisting you know things you don't, like how other people think, out of sheer ignorance and bluster. College would do you a world of good.

[chris08876]

^^^^

In all fairness, you dismissed my original post (4th post in this thread) by going on a rant about how I should essentially mind my own business regarding SF.

So the perception of it based on your emotional outburst would indicate that you disagree with what I'm saying. And yet again, you state "You just keep on insisting you know things you don't, like how other people think, out of sheer ignorance and bluster. College would do you a world of good".

Not a good way to start a discussion.

See this was what I was baiting at in the post #4, the reaction indicative in people that think its just dandy and fine.

I suppose I should of clarified the intent on those that think its dandy being the "NIMBYS", instead of assuming folks would pick up on it (since SSP general is pro-development), but than a response of "the competition is fierce to live and work here" ... which is very complacent in nature. Yes, folks know its competitive and fierce, but thats the issue. Competitive in the wrong things, like housing prices or competitive in making developers harder.

I really have no intent of starting a quarrel with an individual... but against bad policies, like this one, and a string of other issues that effect skyscrapers (commercial, residential), of course.

This is just not a SF issue, its also common in my neck of the woods, and also fueled by the NIMBYS. We too have a share of inane policies in the pipeline being proposed that do nothing but hinder growth.

[mthd]

prop E is complicated.

it has nothing to do with skycrapers. it doesn't change any height limits.

although prop E introduces a very high "tax" on office development, it also creates a path to build an essentially unlimited amount of office IF you build lots of affordable housing - 809 units per million square feet of office space. call it roughly half a million square feet of affordable housing for every million square feet of office. affordable housing can be built cheaper than office, so practically speaking this is something like a 30 to 40% "tax" on office space. residential already has a requirement for somewhere between 18 and 40 percent affordable units, so in some twisted sense this is just extending that policy to office. as i understand it also overlaps/eliminates the jobs-housing-linkage fee, which was already at almost $70 a square foot, or about 15% of the construction cost of office space.

this won't make much of a dent on any immediately proposed office towers. all of the major projects in central soma are exempt of already approved.

i don't necessarily agree with elberling on this, but it's not as insane as it sounds, and there was a certain political genius to creating exemptions for central soma and a path forward for certain other sites than can provide the housing - it essentially removed the opposition that would have normally come to fight such a thing.

[38R]

This only restricts office space. Calling it a skyscraper ban is extremely misleading.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/05/san-...er-battle.html
For those of you in the city, is this new or has this been brewing for some time?

It’s a new initiative but I don’t see much effect. There are only 3 really tall towers in the pipeline, 2 under construction (but in trouble because off the issues of the Chinese owner) and one approved but not yet under construction. The other towers planned are residential so should be unaffected.

[Dariusb]

^^Ok. Is the city running out of space/lots to build on or not?

[wwmiv]

I fully expect to see a bunch of 800-900k square feet office tower proposals.

[ocman]

What is it about SF that they keep pushing with this failed idea over and over again that if the city stops building, people will stop coming?