Key jobs that don't pay enough to live in San Francisco (or some other major cities)

[Pedestrian]

^^I repeat: I've never read of a builder who said he isn't building because he can't find a site. Can you site a specific example? You are ignoring what was said by BrownTown and that I was responding to: That we should bulldoze "row homes" for highrises. Are you advocating putting highrises in San Francisco's single family neighborhoods, maybe Noe Valley or the Haight? I've also never heard any San Franciscan advocate that before because it isn't necessary to find places to build whatever housing we need. But you can be the first.

I'll also repeat: IF we need new high(er) rise neighborhoods, we have good candidates in SOMA west of 4th St., Third St and Geary Blvd. There are few if any single family homes needing bulldozing there.

"Shitty row homes" needing bulldozing for high rises per Browntown

http://www.upout.com/blog/san-franci...painted-ladies

[10023]

^ To be fair, you could probably replace a lot of single family housing in SF with multi-family and greatly increase density, in areas like Sunset. A lot of those are what I would call "shitty rowhouses", and the commercial streets are largely single floor retail with no housing above.



You'd need to upgrade the transit infrastructure (the whole area was obviously built around the automobile), and you would invite charges of gentrification and displacement. Then of course there is the question of how many people would actually want to live there, given that it's fogged in half the year.

But at the very least, lift the zoning restrictions - the mid 20th century bungalows are no big loss.

Link to PDF zoning map:
http://default.sfplanning.org/zoning/zoning_map.pdf

In a city like San Francisco, an 'NC-1' (single story commercial) zoning shouldn't even exist!

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

There are plenty of people--I'd say the majority who currently live in the city not in subsidized housing--who do so because of (a) rent control, (b) Prop. 13 and the fact they bought homes 20+ years ago, © they live in inherited property, (d) lots of roommates. My own excuse is (b). My best friends are mostly (a).

Yeah, a lot of people don't realize that the insane (market rate) prices they've heard about only apply to part of SF's population. It's not surprising, because almost every news article i've read about housing prices in SF fails to clarify that, and makes it sound like SF is populated solely by wealthy people. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of rich folks, and everything is relatively expensive, but most people aren't paying $5,000 a month for an apartment. The average rent a year or two ago, when factoring in all the rent controlled units and public housing and whatnot, was "only" $1600-$1700 per month.

So it's perfectly possible to live in SF as a bus driver or teacher, or whatever, but increasingly less possible for new arrivals or people who get evicted, etc. And unless you inherited your home or have been living in the same apartment for 30 years, you won't be able to live quite as lavishly on the same amount of money as someone in ...oregon or sacramento or something.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

2. I say this every time San Francisco is brought up and get made out to be a monster every time, but the answer is so simple; different zoning laws.

Things aren't perfect, but zoning has been slowly changing for the better. Just the other day for example, the city passed a density bonus law, that allows extra building height if enough affordable units are built.

There's been a lot of construction over the past decade that was only possible because of increased height limits.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Like 90% of San Francisco is single family dwellings

Wrong. You're not even close.

67% of residential buildings in SF are multi-unit, 33% are single family homes.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

If the city refuses to build up then of course prices will go through the roof. But of course that's exactly what most people living there want because it means the houses they own are now worth a fortune and nobody "undesireable" can live in the city because they could never afford to.

Actually, I'd say most people feel the opposite way, because most people in SF are renters (64%), not property owners, and because most people in SF aren't wealthy, and don't want to be priced out. Many property owners love the restricted supply and increased land values though.

And the city has been building up. Still not fast enough, but it's an improvement at least.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

I just honestly don't get the fetish San Fran has for all these shitty row homes. Would it really be the end of the world to tear some of them down and build apartments and condo mid-rises instead?

Fetish? Shitty? It's part of the city's urban fabric and history, dude. And many of them are actually multiple unit buildings.

There are a lot of apartment buildings, including plenty of midrises and highrises that have been/are/will be going up, and very few single family homes are getting built. SF already has 63,000+ housing units in the works (around 5,000 currently under construction I believe), and 99% of them require zero rowhomes to be demolished. SF has more empty lots, derelict industrial stuff, underbuilt one-story commercial buildings, parking lots, gas stations, etc, than a lot of people realize.

But no, it wouldn't be the end of the world to tear a few row houses down. It's just not necessary yet on any kind of large scale, and hopefully it never is, because rowhouses are a strong part of SF's identity.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

It's not like rents going down some is going to turn San Francisco into a ghetto, it's actually going to make it a better place even for the wealthy if you ask me.

Lol who thinks that a small drop in rent would turn the entire city into a ghetto?

[tech12]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ To be fair, you could probably replace a lot of single family housing in SF with multi-family and greatly increase density, in areas like Sunset. A lot of those are what I would call "shitty rowhouses", and the commercial streets are largely single floor retail with no housing above.

I wouldn't call them shitty. They're quintessential SF houses, and a lot of people like them. A lot of them are multi unit too, with in-law apartments on the ground floor, so don't get fooled into thinking they're all single family homes.

Originally Posted by 10023

You'd need to upgrade the transit infrastructure (the whole area was obviously built around the automobile), and you would invite charges of gentrification and displacement.

The sunset district first started development before the automobile actually, and has had streetcar service going back to the early 1900s at least (a quick google search just turned up a map from 1911 with lines out there). But it did do most of its filling in after the car showed up.

Originally Posted by 10023

Then of course there is the question of how many people would actually want to live there, given that it's fogged in half the year.

Fog hasn't stopped people from living in the sunset so far, why would it start now? Also, the sunset district actually gets a pretty good amount of sun. There's plenty of wind and fog, but it mostly hits in mornings and afternoons (so you get warm sunny weather at midday), and mostly during the summer (which freaks tourists out haha). I lived in the outer sunset for a few years. I had giant happy cactuses in my yard.

[10023]

Ok, well then all of that supports the point that the area is primed for more dense residential development.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^I repeat: I've never read of a builder who said he isn't building because he can't find a site. Can you site a specific example? You are ignoring what was said by BrownTown and that I was responding to: That we should bulldoze "row homes" for highrises. Are you advocating putting highrises in San Francisco's single family neighborhoods, maybe Noe Valley or the Haight? I've also never heard any San Franciscan advocate that before because it isn't necessary to find places to build whatever housing we need. But you can be the first.

As anyone in the development business. This is only debatable because you're an outsider.

[pdxtex]

you'd think everybody priced out of the city would have moved to oakland. oakland has barely grown since the 90s. is crime enough of a deterrent to keep people out? also, oregon is full! try idaho....

[BrownTown]

Just because someone has converted a single family home into a few apartments doesn't change the fact that it's a single family home. Cramming more people into smaller spaces is hardly an improvement. And its a total strawman to act like saying a few of these houses could be replaced and saying we should tear every single one if them down. Not that i'd mind if they were all torn down. I don't get this obsession people have with preserving old houses simply because they're old. These houses were a dime a dozen when they were built, what makes them so special now?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

you'd think everybody priced out of the city would have moved to oakland.

People aren't being priced out. This whole "no one can afford to live in SF and NYC and Seattle and DC" is something being pushed by people who don't actually live in these places.

I know tons of people who have come and gone from NYC, and never once did I hear someone claim they were "priced out of the city" as if they had no choice but to live in a garbage can if they were to remain. People are well aware you get less space in these places, and adjust. Most of these places have been ungodly expensive since forever.

And the whole "we need to demolish neighborhoods and build even higher density to making housing cheaper" is another idea pushed by outsiders, not locals. Good luck finding actual Manhattanites, regardless of political affiliation, who would endorse such a policy.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Crawford

People aren't being priced out. This whole "no one can afford to live in SF and NYC and Seattle and DC" is something being pushed by people who don't actually live in these places.

I know tons of people who have come and gone from NYC, and never once did I hear someone claim they were "priced out of the city" as if they had no choice but to live in a garbage can if they were to remain. People are well aware you get less space in these places, and adjust. Most of these places have been ungodly expensive since forever.

And the whole "we need to demolish neighborhoods and build even higher density to making housing cheaper" is another idea pushed by outsiders, not locals. Good luck finding actual Manhattanites, regardless of political affiliation, who would endorse such a policy.

People are "priced out" due to life circumstances. Those millennials splitting rent by cramming into tight apartments will one day grow up and their needs will naturally change. They'll move out with their significant other, most will have kids, requiring yet more space and flee to the suburbs or a lower CoL region.

Millennials will be replaced by the next Gen (?) and the process continues and repeats.

I agree, theres no need to demolish historic neighborhoods only to cram more millennials in to shiny glass condos, so they can walk to bars.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ To be fair, you could probably replace a lot of single family housing in SF with multi-family and greatly increase density, in areas like Sunset.

Like I keep saying: It isn't necessary. We have places to build currently and we have better places to upzone than the sort of street you pictured: Third St., all of SOMA between 4th and Duboce, Geary Blvd (in the Richmond District). Thats miles and miles, blocks and blocks of potential building lots without anyone's home or any historical buildings.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

I don't get this obsession people have with preserving old houses simply because they're old. These houses were a dime a dozen when they were built, what makes them so special now?

What makes Italian Renaissance hill towns special other than being old? The same thing makes 19th century homes special in the US. The European homes are just older but if we don't tear them down, the homes we have that are 150 years old will one day be hundreds of years old. And meanwhile they define the character of the city in which they exist. In SF, it's redwood Victorians and Edwardians. Along the eastern seaboard in some places its Federalist architecture and masonry Victorians.

As for newer houses such as those 10023 pictured, they aren't so much valuable for the houses themselves as for the character of the neighborhoods in which you find them which people value. The people who live there like what they have and it's not for outsiders to take it from them, especially when it isn't necessary (I won't repeat the alternatives yet again).

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

What makes Italian Renaissance hill towns special other than being old? The same thing makes 19th century homes special in the US. The European homes are just older but if we don't tear them down, the homes we have that are 150 years old will one day be hundreds of years old. And meanwhile they define the character of the city in which they exist. In SF, it's redwood Victorians and Edwardians. Along the eastern seaboard in some places its Federalist architecture and masonry Victorians.

As for newer houses such as those 10023 pictured, they aren't so much valuable for the houses themselves as for the character of the neighborhoods in which you find them which people value. The people who live there like what they have and it's not for outsiders to take it from them, especially when it isn't necessary (I won't repeat the alternatives yet again).

Even if you think they're special (which I don't) you're still missing the point that nobody is suggesting tearing every single one of them down. Take NYC for instance. It has plenty of "classic" neighborhoods but plenty of others have been built up over the years. There's a difference in saying you want some "classic" San Francisco neighborhood to be around forever and saying you want to keep every single old house around.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

People are "priced out" due to life circumstances. Those millennials splitting rent by cramming into tight apartments will one day grow up and their needs will naturally change. They'll move out with their significant other, most will have kids, requiring yet more space and flee to the suburbs or a lower CoL region.

Millennials will be replaced by the next Gen (?) and the process continues and repeats.

I agree, theres no need to demolish historic neighborhoods only to cram more millennials in to shiny glass condos, so they can walk to bars.

This bolded line is interesting.

Cities back then were built to accomodate the masses. Cities now are built to accomodate the privileged. That's why legacy cities will always feel more authenitic and organic than new age cities. It's not worth demolishing the historic urban fabric of legacy cities to accomodate a fad among the privileged. Expand the city. That's what Asian cities do. They just keep expanding becoming these gargantuan cities that can span dozens of miles of dense urban fabric.

[mhays]

A fad among the privileged? The average $1,700 apartment might be a resident around median household income. And infill has been going on in some cities for three or four decades...how is that a fad?

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I agree, theres no need to demolish historic neighborhoods only to cram more millennials in to shiny glass condos, so they can walk to bars.

Exactly why do the wealthy need to live in low-density developments away from younger people? I'd understand if they want their own enclaves, but do they really need the whole damn city?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Even if you think they're special (which I don't) you're still missing the point that nobody is suggesting tearing every single one of them down. Take NYC for instance. It has plenty of "classic" neighborhoods but plenty of others have been built up over the years. There's a difference in saying you want some "classic" San Francisco neighborhood to be around forever and saying you want to keep every single old house around.

Why are you ignoring my repeated argument that we have plenty of developable land without tearing down any single family homes, historic or otherwise? Your atitude reminds me of the unrestrianed bulldozing of 1950s "urban renewal" that was a disaster in SF.

There's the southern half of SOMA:


https://www.google.com/search?q=SOMA...cidwuGhx65zBM:

The northern half, but only that, is currently high rises and there are few if any single family homes or historic buildings in any of it because a lot of it burned in 1906.

There's Geary Blvd:


https://www.google.com/search?q=Gear...ZBSD0TBym7wMM:

It's about 5 miles long, most of it is low rise commercial like this image and there are virtually no homes and few historic buildings.

Finally, there's Third St.


https://www.google.com/search?q=SF+T...BBdfCFQfz32AM:

Close to downtown it's being developed as part of Mission Bay nearly all of which, IMHO, should have been a lot taller (but more height was blocked by Potrero Hill residents, one of whom is a connected former mayor, concerned about their views) but farther south it looks a lot like Geary with mostly low rise commercial, no homes and not much historic--and it has great transit (as does Geary).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Exactly why do the wealthy need to live in low-density developments away from younger people? I'd understand if they want their own enclaves, but do they really need the whole damn city?

If you had any familiarity with these neighborhoods you'd know they are full of "younger people". The ones farther from the center of town on the western side of the city are full of kids, many children of the successful Asian families (many owning small businesses) who own the homes, and the ones closer to downtown, where there are many houses that have been converted to flats, have numerous Millennial renters.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

As for newer houses such as those 10023 pictured, they aren't so much valuable for the houses themselves as for the character of the neighborhoods in which you find them which people value. The people who live there like what they have and it's not for outsiders to take it from them, especially when it isn't necessary (I won't repeat the alternatives yet again).

The character of the neighborhood wouldn't change by building up a few stories. I'm serious when I say that single story commercial is not a zoning that should exist anywhere. But I'm not talking about building luxury glass condo towers out there, I'm talking about 3-4 floor walk-ups. I understand the desire to maintain the look and feel of a quiet residential neighborhood, but the housing itself is unremarkable.

SoMa can't be a solution to everything precisely because that sort of building isn't economically viable so close to downtown, and not everyone can afford to buy into the luxury glass condo towers that are.

[llamaorama]

Why aren't there more good TOD's around east bay and contra Costa BART stations.

Yes there are newish apartment complexes adjacent to many, but that's weak. Im talking about something on the scale of large satellite urban cores around DC metro stops in Virginia and Maryland?

Fremont, Walnut creek and Concord all oughta have some serious height and density.

The low hanging fruit is in the suburbs.