The case for making New York and San Francisco much, much bigger

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Paris is charming because of it's Haussmann architecture and winding medieval streets. SF's newly built apartments would be plain, boxy, and the opposite of charming. SF is charming now because of it's large selection of victorian houses and architecture along with it's human scaled neighborhoods that make you feel cozy. Replacing it with bland 6 story apartments wouldn't do much for the city and would be nowhere near the charm of Paris, Barcelona, or Roma.

exactly. the reality is, people want to live in the San Francisco of today, not the place San Francisco would have to transform into to accommodate everyone. the charm of San Francisco is its current built environment. if you destroy that just to accomodate more people, then youve destroyed the thing that attracted people in the first place.

im not saying cities shouldnt grow, but i think we also need to accept that not everyone who wants to live in a certain spot will ever be able to squeeze in. especially in a state prone to natural resource issues, i think we should question how wise that is anyway.

also, in a 21st century world, the notion that we all need to cram into one place to do our jobs (especially the kind of jobs that have fueled the Bay Area) is utterly antiquated. which again, is ironic given Silicon Valleys love of "disruption". want to disrupt things? let your damn employees work from wherever the hell they want to work and cut out the damn charade that mainly exists to make middle managers justify their own existence.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

but I can't see realistic conditions for giant towers in currently suburban-esque neigborhoods.

What? You're not still talking about the Richmond district, are you? In what world is Richmond "suburban"?

Also, Richmond is nowhere near as "bland" as people in this thread are trying to make it seem, it's filled with great San Francisco-esque architecture.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

What? You're not still talking about the Richmond district, are you? In what world is Richmond "suburban"?

Also, Richmond is nowhere near as "bland" as people in this thread are trying to make it seem, it's filled with great San Francisco-esque architecture.

Much of SF consists of at least quasi-suburban neighborhods that would be culturally very resistant to massive increases in density.

Richmond probably wouldn't be the best example, but really the whole city south of Golden Gate Park (and especially south of Sunset) would be very poor candidates for massive density increases. Even Richmond, I can't see ever happening.

Places like Noe Valley, Forest Hill, the whole SW corner of the city.

So where would all this density go? I mean, rezone Market Street to allow subsidized 200 floor towers or something? I just don't see where you would put all this new housing.

[fflint]

A quick note on nomenclature: "Richmond" is an inner suburb with BART service and 110,000 residents; "The Richmond" is a mostly residential district in San Francisco proper, with an average population density of 21,920 ppsm.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Only if you assume that most people in the Bay Area are homeowners AND have the vast majority of their wealth tied up in their home (I have no doubt that the majority of homeowners is like this, just question if 50%+ of the population is a homeowner AND has most of their wealth tied up in their home). Anyone who has a decent amount of wealth in other areas, like say, a 401k invested in index funds, is potentially worse off if the tax on general economic growth is high enough.

Slight correction, the bar for Crawford being correct is most people being homeowners but merely having enough of their overall wealth tied up in their home that the consequences of the Bay Area being expensive (good for owners, bad for economy) are better for them than the opposite.

I have no doubt that someone who has a third of their wealth in the form of a San Francisco house and the other two thirds in the general stock market would still be among those losing wealth if SF became significantly cheaper.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by emathias

You could make San Fran Paris Density without hurting its charm and triple it population.

In theory, maybe -- in practice though, it would never be possible. We don't seem to be able to manage to "build 'em like we used to", except very occasionally. Done on a larger scale, it's guaranteed to have real negative impacts on SF's architectural value.

In theory, if San Fran had had Paris' density a couple centuries ago, then yeah, it would currently have the same kind of density right now with an interesting and valuable urban fabric where Victorian-era 6-story buildings would be the norm.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Paris is charming because of it's Haussmann architecture and winding medieval streets.

The Paris of nowadays actually has few "winding medieval streets". (London does, and so do plenty of other French cities that aren't Paris.)

I'm in agreement with you on the rest of your post, though.

[mhays]

Tripling the population is very different from adding say 25% on the market rate side (15% overall perhaps?) to ease rents. That would take a tiny percentage of the city.

A 25% increase in ownable units in a decade (unrealistically) might double the number of potential incoming buyers in that period. That's because many of the existing units are never on the market. Prices would drop substantially.

A 25% increase in market-rate rental units would reset market rates substantially but not as much, because most market-rate units are subject to fluctuation regularly.

For any type of rent control or regulation, that's one more unit for the sub-market category and one fewer to help the market-rate people.

[barney82]

I agree that in a perfect world, some zoning technocrats would identify (what I think of are pretty objectively) the less appealing parts of SF, extend public transport into those areas, and zone them for much greater density. As someone else here said, you don't need to tear down the whole city to add an extra say 200k in population, which I think would go a long way to meeting tech demand in the city.

In a perfect world it would seem even easier to do the same exercise down a line of suburbs into Silicon Valley, with a sufficient public transit spine to connect them with each other each other and with SF. Nothing really would be lost, because you would be replacing bland low-density with bland higher density. Lets not kid ourselves though that bland is not what you would get, with architecture and building codes being what they are.

Of course, what seems logical and not-even-particularly-difficult will never happen, for all kinds of ultimately petty little political reasons. At best, and as is currently happening, SF will go part-way accommodating growth in SOMA and infill here and there, some other growth will spill over into Oakland and the East Bay, and more generally a lot of non-tech people will be displaced, one day and one month and one year at a time, as the market price of RE stays high. Reducing the quality of life even for the tech people who can afford to live there, as restaurant prices go up, arts decline, quirkiness is driven out, and services in general become more expensive and less available.

This is all a shame, because SF will stay a large town, (instead of the great city which it would have become in any other historical period, with similar economic success), satellite offices and ultimately whole startups will spill over into Seattle, maybe Austin, maybe NY, definitely overseas, network effects will be attenuated, and the whole country will be worse off, overall.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm obviously not a local, but I suspect this would be politically impossible. Doubling population, destroying water/hill view corridors, angering homeowners, building out-of-context, straining infrastructure in areas far from the core and existing transit?

Well, sure, it would be politically difficult. Less so than retrofitting suburban areas to urban or other things that we discuss all the time on this site, so...

And ignoring the megabillions BART extensions all over SF to handle doubled population, and putting aside fact that most SF nabes are much more charming than Richmond, I still don't see how this gets SF anywhere near Paris-levels of density. Richmond currently has 20,000 per sq. mile. Double this and still nowhere near Paris' 55,000 per sq. mile.

I dispute that "most" neighborhoods are more charming than the Richmond. The entire west and south halves of the city are arguably less charming that the Richmond. I chose the Richmond because it's a neighborhood that has had active plans for substantial transit improvement for decades (including numerous proposed subway lines, including BART). I never said anything about Paris-level density, that was someone else. I was simply disputing the notion that any densification of existing neighborhoods would hurt the "charm" of SF. Most of SF isn't particularly charming at all, but it is mostly gridded and ped-oriented, and the lack of that infrastructure is a major impediment to doing anything nice in 95% of the US, but not a problem in SF.

I don't think SF has tremendous room to grow. South of Market appears to have tons of construction, and there are corridors like Van Ness that are getting increased density (and are appropriate for more growth), and maybe some targeted upzonings would work around transit/commercial nodes, but I can't see realistic conditions for giant towers in currently suburban-esque neigborhoods.

No one is suggesting towers in suburban-esque neighborhoods, though now that you mention it, one of the big areas of development over the next few years in SF is Park Merced, which is an existing group of towers in a suburban-esque neighborhood, so perhaps you're on to something.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by lio45

Slight correction, the bar for Crawford being correct is most people being homeowners but merely having enough of their overall wealth tied up in their home that the consequences of the Bay Area being expensive (good for owners, bad for economy) are better for them than the opposite.

I have no doubt that someone who has a third of their wealth in the form of a San Francisco house and the other two thirds in the general stock market would still be among those losing wealth if SF became significantly cheaper.

I absolutely do have that doubt, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Now, folks with two thirds of their wealth in a SF house, maybe. Of course, if the market were to smooth out some, they'd probably transfer some of that wealth into other assets over time. No one's talking about something that could drop the nominal value of SF real estate, just slow the increase.

[1977]

Let's not forget about the Hunters Point/Bayview Plan, the Treasure Island development, Schlage Lock Plan, Park Merced, etc. etc. There is plenty of room in this city for more density, and surprisingly, still a lot of underdeveloped land.

Most of these plans have been adopted and some (Schlage and Hunters Point) have even started construction/site prep.

[fflint]

Socketsite reported last month the city of San Francisco has 63,000 housing units in the pipeline ("units proposed, approved and under construction"), with some 7,000 of those under construction currently. But San Francisco alone cannot build the Bay Area into affordability. The affordability crisis will never be solved or at least ameliorated unless the entire region, as a whole, adds significant new housing stock. There is an organized regional plan that has set new housing goals at the county level, but there's no real teeth behind it. The suburbs regularly fail to meet their targets.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by fflint

Socketsite reported last month the city of San Francisco has 63,000 housing units in the pipeline ("units proposed, approved and under construction"), with some 7,000 of those under construction currently. But San Francisco alone cannot build the Bay Area into affordability. The affordability crisis will never be solved or at least ameliorated unless the entire region, as a whole, adds significant new housing stock. There is an organized regional plan that has set new housing goals at the county level, but there's no real teeth behind it. The suburbs regularly fail to meet their targets.

While I don't disagree that it's a regional problem San Francisco has (and continues to) under build relative to it's population growth. The pipeline figure sounds impressive until you realize that the lack of construction going back decades is a deficit that such a figure barely puts a dent in. Deliveries are still long going to trail population increases at the rate things are going.

[mhays]

Densifying suburbs is EASY. You don't need much land to make a real difference.

Older supermarket or strip mall with surface parking? Put six story buildings on the whole site, including below-grade parking, retail at ground level, and a few hundred units above. Car dealership? Sell the land for multifamily and build a stacked dealership. Office complexes can replace surface lots with structured parking and use/sell the extra land for an additional office building, housing, a hotel, whatever. All of this is common stuff, just not common enough in the SF area. There are hundreds of square miles of suburbia, and densifying a small percentage of that would do wonders, even if you never touch a single house.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by mhays

Densifying suburbs is EASY. You don't need much land to make a real difference.

Older supermarket or strip mall with surface parking? Put six story buildings on the whole site, including below-grade parking, retail at ground level, and a few hundred units above. Car dealership? Sell the land for multifamily and build a stacked dealership. Office complexes can replace surface lots with structured parking and use/sell the extra land for an additional office building, housing, a hotel, whatever. All of this is common stuff, just not common enough in the SF area. There are hundreds of square miles of suburbia, and densifying a small percentage of that would do wonders, even if you never touch a single house.

You are correct that the Bay Area doesn't do enough in the way of infill/densification, and the other poster is correct that relative to population growth and demand, in addition to an overall deficit, San Francisco proper is not really adding an impressive amount of new housing.

However, the Bay Area suburbs are some of the densest this country has already and a fair amount is in fact being done to add office and housing, just not nearly enough. The suburbs are essentially already "built out" when you factor in the year/age, our culture,local and general American wealth which often leads people to desire homes/yards, and the current density of Bay Area burbs, so understandably and given the particularly unique brand of NIMBY culture here in CA born out of a political system where the people have always had a say, none of this is surprising or all that ridiculous that it would be very difficult to get projects out of the ground in the suburbs compared to other US metros. Still, some of the most notable infill developments in the country (in suburbs) are UC or proposed for the Bay Area.

Also consider that people have a point about traffic concerns. In this day and age it costs too much and takes too long to build real transit and people don't want to wait around. People who already have houses and cars and the lifestyle they want don't want to feel a regression and don't want to give up even temporarily what they have to make way for something new for other people, often people they perceive to be different and clashing with themselves (empty nester or family versus single Millennials, black versus white, rich versus poor, homeowners versus renters, etc etc)


On SF, it's easy to complain that the city is not building enough, and I certainly do A LOT. But factor in geography, history and culture of politics, the unique scenery, the impossibility of adding new transit (financially and length of time) these days, and an overly intellectual population that results in a city of full time architects, planners, and politicians, AND most importantly consider the age/time and the fact that the city is already considerably denser than all but a select few, really all but NYC if you ask me, and it becomes more reasonable to at least empathize with the local position and all the reasons why the city doesn't add at the rate of say Seattle or Phoenix.

I would really like to see what happens to pace of development of DC and Seattle and other cities once they approach 20K ppsm population density and build out their CBDs to a perceived max. I would imagine that unless that doesn't happen until their is a power shift, older generations will put the kibosh on new development much the way they have in SF, and even in NYC and Boston.

[ByTheBay]

I think the Bay Area has done a poor job of promoting Oakland as an ideal alternative to SF. What other metro in the country offers their third largest city with the kind of built in transportation network, direct access to an airport, great weather, a top tier university nearby, and cheaper housing with close proximity to SF and equal distance as SF is to Silicon Valley. I know crime is still an issue in Oakland but as with any city, there are good neighborhoods and there are bad ones. The northern part of Oakland near downtown and towards the hills seem really nice while the southern part from downtown is where the more industrial and seedy neighborhoods are which is pretty similar to SF.

I can understand why the communities in the Peninsula want to remain untouched but the East Bay is ripe for development. I'm surprised there aren't any high rise construction for condos in downtown Oakland near Jack London Square with Bart having multiple stations. The Bart extension to San Jose will only help turn the East Bay into a central hub. With the Warriors and possibly the Raiders and A's leaving Oakland, I think that plot of land should be converted into a high density neighborhood being right next to the freeway and a Bart station with direct access to Oakland Airport. I don't know the NIMBY culture in Oakland but really this should be a no brainer when it comes to alleviating the housing stock in the Bay Area.

[barney82]

Originally Posted by ByTheBay

I think the Bay Area has done a poor job of promoting Oakland as an ideal alternative to SF. What other metro in the country offers their third largest city with the kind of built in transportation network, direct access to an airport, great weather, a top tier university nearby, and cheaper housing with close proximity to SF and equal distance as SF is to Silicon Valley. I know crime is still an issue in Oakland but as with any city, there are good neighborhoods and there are bad ones. The northern part of Oakland near downtown and towards the hills seem really nice while the southern part from downtown is where the more industrial and seedy neighborhoods are which is pretty similar to SF.

I can understand why the communities in the Peninsula want to remain untouched but the East Bay is ripe for development. I'm surprised there aren't any high rise construction for condos in downtown Oakland near Jack London Square with Bart having multiple stations. The Bart extension to San Jose will only help turn the East Bay into a central hub. With the Warriors and possibly the Raiders and A's leaving Oakland, I think that plot of land should be converted into a high density neighborhood being right next to the freeway and a Bart station with direct access to Oakland Airport. I don't know the NIMBY culture in Oakland but really this should be a no brainer when it comes to alleviating the housing stock in the Bay Area.

From my understanding, new developments in Oakland have not penciled until just very recently. The regulatory environment in the Bay Area pretty much mandates that new urban market-rate housing will be very expensive, even without NIMBYs. And Oakland is not really as similar to Brooklyn (vis a vis SF and Manhattan) as people think. Bart takes much longer and services a much smaller area in Oakland than the MTA does in Brooklyn. Oakland's future is not as an urban commuter belt for SF, but as a close-in satellite office. A bit like Jersey City in relation to Manhttan. Relatively back-office stuff will move out there.

As for it being easy to densify the Peninsula, if all you do is tear down strip malls and build 6-story apartments, you will end up with LA. A dense auto-oriented suburb with horrendous traffic. There is no real point densifying suburbs unless transit (public transit, self-driving uber, whatever) is in place.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by barney82

From my understanding, new developments in Oakland have not penciled until just very recently. The regulatory environment in the Bay Area pretty much mandates that new urban market-rate housing will be very expensive, even without NIMBYs.

Yes, I think that is true compared with most US cities. Costs are higher, across the board.

And Oakland is not really as similar to Brooklyn (vis a vis SF and Manhattan) as people think. Bart takes much longer and services a much smaller area in Oakland than the MTA does in Brooklyn. Oakland's future is not as an urban commuter belt for SF, but as a close-in satellite office. A bit like Jersey City in relation to Manhttan. Relatively back-office stuff will move out there.

Well, first of all, Oakland is its own city with its own peculiarities, history, demographics. It is materially different from San Francisco, Brooklyn, etc. and so there is no point in comparing.

Oakland has for a few years now served as a spillover area for San Franciscans for less expensive housing and, increasingly, for interesting restaurants and bars. There has been some movement of corporations from SF to Oakland, especially architecture and engineering firms. Tech is now joining that move as well, and I suspect that will continue as well.

Oakland has eight BART stations, and the lines follow the natural contours of the land, which is to say, the vast majority of people in Oakland live in the flatland neighborhoods which BART serves. No other city in the Bay Area has better heavy rail connectivity, especially in relation to downtown San Francisco. West Oakland is 7 minutes from San Francisco's Financial District by BART; the downtown Oakland stations are about 12-14 minutes from the FiDi; 16 minutes from MacArthur; 20 minutes from Coliseum/Oakland Airport, and so on. It takes longer to get to downtown SF from most of our outer districts than it does from much of Oakland.

[mousquet]

^ Gentrification as expected. Whether Brooklyn or Oakland, it can only turn better off.

This trend is always positive and exciting, but some over here would always (and most often rightfully) stress on broke locals eventually driven away, as a result.

Always that same disturbing issue we fail to address here. The only answer would be more efficient and generous social expense, so "broke locals" could be trained to moneymaking occupations that would allow them to stay over their own place.

It's been so hard to implement this better kind of society...