[BTinSF]

In spite of reports here that people are moving out of California:

Think the Bay Area's crowded now? Just wait
- Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, December 14, 2006

(12-14) 13:30 PST OAKLAND -- The Bay Area's population will increase by about 2 million people over the next 30 years, with the largest increases in San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland, the Association of Bay Area Governments projected in a report released today.

San Jose is expected to be the first Bay Area city to surpass the 1-million population mark, in 2010, and San Francisco should see about 161,000 new residents by 2035, according to the projections, which the organization makes every two years.

Regional planners who wrote the report predicted 1.5 million new jobs will be created in the Bay Area between 2000 and 2035, with large increases in health and education services; professional and managerial services; and arts and recreation and restaurant services.

"There's no question the Bay Area is going to grow in jobs and population," said Paul W. Fassinger, research director for the organization.

The planners also said cities will need to create more multifamily housing and boost growth in areas that are hubs of public transportation.

E-mail Wyatt Buchanan at wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com.


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/14/BAGGOMVPLQ10.DTL

That's about a 20% increase. Hard to know where they're going to build homes for 20% more people except in highrises.

[slock]

You know ABAG (assoc. bay area govts.) has assigned SF alone to build over 40,000 housing units by 2014 to take regional responsibility as job and transportation center.

And they're forecasting 100,000 new jobs by 2015 and over 250,000 new jobs in San Francisco by 2030.

That is why density and projects like the Transbay Terminal are so important; to grow gracefully.

[rs913]

That's about a 20% increase. Hard to know where they're going to build homes for 20% more people except in highrises.

I'd like to think that transit-oriented development will start to catch on faster, as the article suggested, and provide at least some relief for the inevitable cries of "too much traffic!"

But it seems like everyone's other major gripe, housing costs, will play a big role in whether this kind of growth even happens, right?

[fflint]

^And vice-versa: that kind of growth in the housing supply would drive down housing costs.

[Smiley Person]

hmm, I might be one of those 161,000...

[Frisco_Zig]

Really this could be easily accommodated without high rises with the political will. Or at least not all high rises but a mix of types

I just don't believe SF has the will. We seem to be making strides forward, then we take a steps backward.

Just today I was reading the BOS is considering pushing through a 2/3 affordable housing inclusionary requirement in the Eastern Industrial neighborhoods; a de facto moratorium on housing development.

Geez I glad we wasted all of that money on the 3rd Steet light rail. Maybe they are right. Containerized shipping and that info tech are just a fads. We need to save space for a return of San Francisco as an maritime industrial city. My 91 year old grandfather would be proud

Stuff makes your head ache sometimes. They just don't get it


http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4000#more

[urbanflyer]

1.5 million jobs is a large and interesting assumption. I took an urban economics class with Mr. Fassinger several years ago and he specifically regarded making assumptions about jobs and economic tidings beyond a two year outlay as the bane of regional planners everywhere. It would seem the ABAG job has sucked the academic principles out of him ;)

[J Church]

The thing you have to understand about the ABAG projections is that they're not so much projections as goals. I mean, the total growth figures are based in real analysis; but then ABAG applies smart growth policies so you end up with an optimistic proportion of the total concentrated in cities. Remember that CADoF (whose methodology is itself problematic, but that's another post) projects the population of San Francisco to decrease over the long-term. The truth likely lies somewhere in between.

The Eastern Neighborhoods inclusionary requirement is in fact a de facto housing moratorium:

http://beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4000

But if we're talking 30-year windows, a lot can happen. Call me a sunny optimist, but even if the Central Waterfront lies fallow for another decade or even a generation, I think its redevelopment is inevitable. The rail and development on either side, in Mission Bay and the Bayview, will apply increasing pressure.

[BTinSF]

http://beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4000



The thought that kept going through my head as I read that piece is that we need to return to city-wide election of supervisors. This attempt to determine which kind of voters can live in which districts through housing policies is ugly and contrary to the interests of the city as a whole. It doesn't surprise me that Maxwell and McGoldrick like the idea, with Daly fellow travelling (not leading only because he can't run again and the issue may be moot in his district by the time of the next election), but can this pass the Board as a whole with a veto-proof majority? I haven't been following it so I don't know and I didn't see in the article any info on where the rest of the Board sits.

By the way, another thing I evidently haven't been following closely enough is the political evolution of Randy Shaw--when did he get so sensible?

[Frisco_Zig]

sensible?

He is implying that a Eastern Neighborhoods ban is caprcious and to my mind at least seems to be advocating a total ban on market rate housing. Maybe I am reading into to it. This is a postion that the SF Bay Guardian also has had

BOS seem to be stalling on this one

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4008#more

[Frisco_Zig]

"If the Board wants to ban future market-rate housing in the city, it should pass an ordinance to that effect. But making believe that San Francisco is stopping the scourge of market-rate housing when the city is simply redirecting it to certain neighborhoods"

Insanity