March 2021: California Median Home Price Soars to All-time High of $758,990

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

IMO the discussion of SF neighborhoods misses the larger challenge.

SF isn't the issue. SF population is less than 10% of the overall Bay Area population, and SF prices, while very high, aren't insane by global urban standards. You'll pay the same in NYC, London and other urban centers.

Places like Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, have the completely insane SFH prices. You aren't gonna fix this issue by rezoning SF, and I'm not sure you can fix the issue by rezoning Silicon Valley. Its suburban SFH's, in proximity to tech employment centers, that have gone completely bonkers.

Densifying SF will not solve all of the Bay Area's housing problems, no. Who claimed otherwise? But there's no reason that the city couldn't grow to represent a larger percentage of the total Bay Area. There are a lot of people who work in the city but cannot afford to live there-- and not just families, but people of all ages. These people end up in distant locations in the East or South Bay, which contributes to housing pressures felt out in those locations. The city, by not being able to accomodate a large number of people that would choose to live there if they could, is shifting housing pressures to other parts of the Bay Area.

And I do think the Bay Area is getting to a point where SFH ownership is not going to be in the cards for a large part of the population. Given the amount of protected lands and geographical barriers, there really isn't much room for more SFH development. In coming generations, it will probably become more normal for families to live in multi-family buildings as opposed to SFHs in the Bay. Unless you want to live out in Tracy or commute in from Sacramento, I guess.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

Densifying SF will not solve all of the Bay Area's housing problems, no. Who claimed otherwise?

I don't think densifying SF has practically any relevance to the Bay Area housing crisis, which is overwhelmingly a SFH crisis in/around SV. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, but no, I don't think it will do anything for Cupertino or Sunnyvale.

And again, SF doesn't have crazy prices. It has high, but largely expected, prices for a very affluent global city. You pay the same as in other world cities. But Cupertino prices are completely insane. You don't pay Cupertino prices in its equivalents anywhere else on the planet.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think the Bay Area has room, but it's all protected. Flying into SFO from the east, it looks like someone literally drew a line on the ground and said "do not build anything past here" lol. L.A., on the other hand, has probably just run out of room.

we laugh, but that do not build past here is what much of europe and elsewhere looks like when you fly in. thankfully.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

we laugh, but that do not build past here is what much of europe and elsewhere looks like when you fly in. thankfully.

Oh, absolutely. We need a lot more of it in the U.S. However, the way that Bay Area is doing it doesn't really seem ideal. Having growth boundaries and low-density zoning just creates runaway prices when there is even modest population growth. On the other hand, the metros in the Midwest would eliminate a lot of the urban decay in their big cities if they just implemented green belts.

[Pedestrian]

https://sfist.com/2017/03/13/sf_density_mapping/

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

we laugh, but that do not build past here is what much of europe and elsewhere looks like when you fly in. thankfully.

With the exception of Marin County, much of whose land is protected by having sold development rights or because it's parkland of various kinds or zoned agricultural, the "do not build past here" line is usually topographical meaning it's mountains that have only a few passages through them and those passages are already hopelessly congested. Basically, there are 3 routes from the Central Valley into the Bay Area: I-80, I-580 and Highway 152 (north to south). They all rank high in national rankings of congested highways and you can't really cram many more people into the commute from land available for SFH in the CV into the Bay Area. As I said above, expansion of rail transit offers some possibilities: Right now there are 2 commuter rail lines more or less paralleling 2 of the roads: The Capital Corridor in the north (Sacramento to SV via Oakland with options to cross-platform to BART in the Bay Area) and ACE (Altamonte Corridor Express) in the center paralleling I-580 (Stockton to SV, also with some options to transfer to BART at the Trivalleys stations). If CA HSR gets built, it will add a third rail route in the south parallel to Highway 152.

These 3 roads and potentially 3 rail lines are the 3 mountain passes--there aren't any more.

Although Marin does restrict development by law and zoning to a large degree, even if it didn't Highway 101 is pretty packed now and the ferries from Marin to SF don't add that much capacity.

So what appears to be "do not build past here" lines are really practical barriers that exist because in practical terms you can't get from one side of them to the other.

[iheartthed]

^Another way to look at it: San Francisco tends to be analogized to Manhattan, but if SF's population density were similar to Manhattan's then the city's population would be over 3.4 million versus the current 874k.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

^Another way to look at it: San Francisco tends to be analogized to Manhattan, but if SF's population density were similar to Manhattan's then the city's population would be over 3.4 million versus the current 874k.

It makes sense only to compare the eastern third of the city--east of Van Ness Ave--to Manhattan. That's where all the towers are. The rest is more like the Bronx and Oakland is like Brooklyn. I'm not sure if there are available density figures for just the "downtown" section but it would be much higher than the city overall.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It makes sense only to compare the eastern third of the city--east of Van Ness Ave--to Manhattan. That's where all the towers are. The rest is more like the Bronx and Oakland is like Brooklyn. I'm not sure if there are available density figures for just the "downtown" section but it would be much higher than the city overall.

SF is not nearly as dense as Brooklyn or the Bronx, either. It's more similar to Queens, which is low density by NYC standards:

Brooklyn: 35k ppsm
Bronx: 32k ppsm
Queens: 21k ppsm
SF: 18k ppsm

[badrunner]

Yeah it's not as dense as NYC, but still, I don't buy the notion that the second densest major city in America needs to be massively upzoned to meet the insatiable demand. Even if you did, it's not like it will ever become affordable. All the same problems will still be there, just with a lot more people.

[Pedestrian]

A new proposal in SF's Mission District is instructive about housing costs (sorry about the size of the images):

New Rendering Revealed For 401 South Van Ness Avenue, Mission District, San Francisco
BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON MAY 5, 2021

Developers have filed a Large Project Authorization request for an eight-story group housing project at 401 South Van Ness Avenue in the Mission District, San Francisco . . . . The corner-lot proposal will become a mixed-use building with 153 bedroom suites, commercial retail, and residential amenities. The Kansas-based Elsey Partners is responsible for the development.

The 99-foot tall proposal yields 63,960 square feet, with 44,190 square feet for residential use and 3,660 square feet for retail. The rooftop includes a 750 square foot amenity terrace with seating and an open kitchen area, while another 856 square feet of the rooftop will be covered with solar panels.

Residential space will be included within the two basement levels and floors two through eight. Each floor will consist of a shared living area open to the dorm-like studios between the second and eighth levels. The basement and sub-basement include several bathrooms, a dining hall with a kitchen, an exercise studio, a courtyard, a gym, and a lounge.

. . . Parking is included for 60 bicycles and no vehicles. Twenty-nine units will be rented as affordable, ranging for residents earning 55%, 80%, or 110% of the Area Median Income.

In the planning document, Elsey Partners describe the intent behind 401 South Van Ness, writing that “the proposed group housing project is a modern-day version of the affordable SRO (single-room occupancy) hotels that were populated by San Francisco’s working classroom, transient laborers, and immigrants during the last century. The same dynamics that attracted the working class to SRO hotels 100 years ago are at play with the current development.” The description goes on to highlight the relative affordability and access to transit . . . .

Construction is expected to cost $25.4 million over an estimated duration of 18 months. The project is two blocks away from the 16th Street Mission BART Station.









(The site now)

https://sfyimby.com/2021/05/new-rend...francisco.html

It's interesting to do the math on this: $25.4 million/202 "beds" = $125,742.57 per "bed" (some of the 153 rooms have 2 beds) or about $166,000 per room (no bathroom or kitchen).

This seems like as far toward "minimalism" as you can go in new housing and it's gonna cost $166,000 per room to build without ensuite kitchens or bathrooms. There are still places you can buy a pretty nice SFH for $166,000. That's about what my AZ desert house is worth and it's a cozy little place that has all the stuff most houses have including not only 2 bathrooms and kitchen but attached garage, central A/C and so on.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

With the exception of Marin County, much of whose land is protected by having sold development rights or because it's parkland of various kinds or zoned agricultural, the "do not build past here" line is usually topographical meaning it's mountains that have only a few passages through them and those passages are already hopelessly congested. Basically, there are 3 routes from the Central Valley into the Bay Area: I-80, I-580 and Highway 152 (north to south). They all rank high in national rankings of congested highways and you can't really cram many more people into the commute from land available for SFH in the CV into the Bay Area. As I said above, expansion of rail transit offers some possibilities: Right now there are 2 commuter rail lines more or less paralleling 2 of the roads: The Capital Corridor in the north (Sacramento to SV via Oakland with options to cross-platform to BART in the Bay Area) and ACE (Altamonte Corridor Express) in the center paralleling I-580 (Stockton to SV, also with some options to transfer to BART at the Trivalleys stations). If CA HSR gets built, it will add a third rail route in the south parallel to Highway 152.

These 3 roads and potentially 3 rail lines are the 3 mountain passes--there aren't any more.

Although Marin does restrict development by law and zoning to a large degree, even if it didn't Highway 101 is pretty packed now and the ferries from Marin to SF don't add that much capacity.

So what appears to be "do not build past here" lines are really practical barriers that exist because in practical terms you can't get from one side of them to the other.

Highway 4 also connects the Central Valley to the Bay Area, and there is currently a third interurban commuter rail line between the Central Valley and Oakland, the San Joaquins. If California High Speed Rail is built, I would imagine the San Joaquins will become a 'last mile(s)' supplemental service based around the relevant CAHSR stations.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

^Another way to look at it: San Francisco tends to be analogized to Manhattan, but if SF's population density were similar to Manhattan's then the city's population would be over 3.4 million versus the current 874k.

Who analogizes Manhattan to San Francisco? That's an apples to oranges comparison, as Manhattan is only the densest part of a municipality while San Francisco is an entire municipality. And in terms of population density, no city in America is as dense as the borough of Manhattan--not even New York City.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by craigs

Highway 4 also connects the Central Valley to the Bay Area, and there is currently a third interurban commuter rail line between the Central Valley and Oakland, the San Joaquins. If California High Speed Rail is built, I would imagine the San Joaquins will become a 'last mile(s)' supplemental service based around the relevant CAHSR stations.

I looked at it as the Sacramento River and its delta cutting the pathway through the coastal hills/mountains and there are, indeed, both road and rail routes to its north (I-80, Capital Corridor) and south (Highway 4 and San Joaquin trains). But technically you are right.

If CA HSR is built, whether the San Joaquins continue seems like it will depend on whether there's a perceived need for service between the Merced area and the northern parts of the East Bay and/or Oakland directly (HSR won't really serve Oakland).

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

https://sfist.com/2017/03/13/sf_density_mapping/

A giant * should be next to the Phoenix graphic. The city of Phoenix has 41,000 acres of open desert preserve and mountain parks. That is over 64 square miles, much larger than the entire city of San Francisco! That doesn't include the 185 city parks and 8 city run/owned golf courses, also in the city limits.

All of this land is within the city of Phoenix (Phoenix Mountain Preserve north of Downtown)

flickr

Also in the city of Phoenix, south of Downtown.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Probably, yeah.

I'm not against Bay Area densification, I'm just skeptical that such public policies will meaningfully impact SFH affordability. It would be like if, in Chicagoland, entry-level SFHs in Schaumburg were $2 million and the solution were building more highrises in the South and West Loop. I mean, huh?

I don't think anyone is saying that it would impact SFH affordability. It would impact housing affordability though by introducing more housing of other types (condos/apartments), which would reduce housing costs for people willing to buy those (of which there are millions of households in northern California already in these types, plus likely many millions more that could be with lower prices).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Gordo

I don't think anyone is saying that it would impact SFH affordability. It would impact housing affordability though by introducing more housing of other types (condos/apartments), which would reduce housing costs for people willing to buy those (of which there are millions of households in northern California already in these types, plus likely many millions more that could be with lower prices).

I agree with this, but from a public policy perspective, nothing will have really changed. Because, again, the Bay Area affordability crisis is overwhelmingly a SFH crisis.

Multifamily housing in urban enclaves doesn't appear to be unaffordable relative to incomes. Rent-to-income ratios aren't skewed (they're actually much lower than other major metros, like Miami) and condos are priced much lower than SFHs. Of course more supply will put further downward pressure on condos/rentals, which is (generally) a good thing.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I agree with this, but from a public policy perspective, nothing will have really changed. Because, again, the Bay Area affordability crisis is overwhelmingly a SFH crisis.

Multifamily housing in urban enclaves doesn't appear to be unaffordable relative to incomes. Rent-to-income ratios aren't skewed (they're actually much lower than other major metros, like Miami) and condos are priced much lower than SFHs. Of course more supply will put further downward pressure on condos/rentals, which is (generally) a good thing.

I think I would disagree there was a rental crisis in the Bay Area. If there was no rental crisis, we wouldn't see stories of people renting bunk beds in a shared room. Or large groups of unrelated people sharing rental of houses. That sort of crowding is partially due to cost, but also clearly due to supply issues, because no one who as the option of at least getting an efficiency with privacy wouldn't pick that over shared living space with strangers.

Yes, I know this also sharing apartments with strangers also happens in New York City. But NYC at least has housing mix heavily focused on apartments.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think I would disagree there was a rental crisis in the Bay Area. If there was no rental crisis, we wouldn't see stories of people renting bunk beds in a shared room. Or large groups of unrelated people sharing rental of houses. That sort of crowding is partially due to cost, but also clearly due to supply issues, because no one who as the option of at least getting an efficiency with privacy wouldn't pick that over shared living space with strangers.

Yes, I know this also sharing apartments with strangers also happens in New York City. But NYC at least has housing mix heavily focused on apartments.

Partly it's due to the extreme cyclicality of SF's (it's particularly an issue in the city--people aren't renting bunk beds in the suburbs) tech economy. I've been here through several cycles now. I can recall the place seemed to empty out in 2001/2002 after the dot-com crash just like it has now. The crowding you describe happens at the peaks because no one could ever build housing as rapidly as the tech industry can enter a boom phase and hire thousands and thousands of recent engineering grads. But similarly, when there's a crash/decline, those people leave town and there's plenty of "for rent" signs as now.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I agree with this, but from a public policy perspective, nothing will have really changed. Because, again, the Bay Area affordability crisis is overwhelmingly a SFH crisis.

Multifamily housing in urban enclaves doesn't appear to be unaffordable relative to incomes. Rent-to-income ratios aren't skewed (they're actually much lower than other major metros, like Miami) and condos are priced much lower than SFHs. Of course more supply will put further downward pressure on condos/rentals, which is (generally) a good thing.

I guess I just disagree. Cheaper condos allow more home ownership and/or cheaper rent, which is phenomenal from a public policy perspective. I guarantee that every Bay Area politician will brag if they can claim an increase in home ownership or more affordable rent, regardless of whether SFH house prices continue to increase. That's probably the best possible scenario actually - I brought X number of new units online, allowing an increase in home ownership while SFH prices for my existing base continued to increase.

In a place like the Bay Area any limited upzone is going to do both - allow increased supply AND increase the value of existing places because their land value increases. A huge across the board upzone might have downward effects on some of the previously upzoned places.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I agree with this, but from a public policy perspective, nothing will have really changed. Because, again, the Bay Area affordability crisis is overwhelmingly a SFH crisis.

Multifamily housing in urban enclaves doesn't appear to be unaffordable relative to incomes. Rent-to-income ratios aren't skewed (they're actually much lower than other major metros, like Miami) and condos are priced much lower than SFHs. Of course more supply will put further downward pressure on condos/rentals, which is (generally) a good thing.

Public policy should advocate for construction of the most residential units, within the physical and financial reach of the most potential buyers, as is practicable--and that means multifamily units in areas that are well served by transportation corridors and public transit.

New single family homes in the Bay Area are a luxury. Public policy shouldn't be focused on delivering luxuries to the few.