11–20 of 155 posts
> It will be very hard. If the (first) model is correct, it would take a 53% increase in the housing supply (200,000 new units), Doesn't seem that hard in a city full of three-story housing.
I'm thinking the same thing. Is it physical limitations of building (such as earthquake proofing) that makes it difficult? Or is it the suffocating amount of bureaucratic red tape imposed by short-sighted interest groups?
Url changed from https://medium.com/@andersem/a-guy-just-transcribed-30-years... , which points to this.
Yeah. Keeping it classy with a tiny grey link at the bottom of the Medium article.
> It will be very hard. If the (first) model is correct, it would take a 53% increase in the housing supply (200,000 new units), Doesn't seem that hard in a city full of three-story housing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
http://www.sunilmishra.in/2012/07/05/average-building-height...
> It will be very hard. If the (first) model is correct, it would take a 53% increase in the housing supply (200,000 new units), Doesn't seem that hard in a city full of three-story housing.
Here's an interesting comparison. New York City's population density is 56% higher than San Francisco's, and the average height of a building in New York City is only 6.8 stories (in spite of skyscrapers pushing up the mean). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... http://www.sunilmishra.in/2012/07/05/average-building-height...
[edit]
Thanks for all the replies!
So it looks like we are talking about a minimum of hundreds of buildings to be torn-down and rebuilt taller. That seems unlikely to happen in SF proper.
I worked on at least five different job sites around that city. Everyone one of the job sites were residential condo/homes. There was a slight building boom going on, but nothing like today.
I forget the exact prices of the residential units, but the cheapest one was $950,000, and they went up to 2.5 million quick.
All the units were tastefully done. You got a parking spot. You got a nice place. They were built for wealthy people. I can't imagine what they are going for today.
The companies I worked for added, roughly, I'm guessing close to 400 residential units. I don't think it made a difference in home prices.
Coworkers used to joke around, "Hay, when you get up to $100/hr(including benefits) you will be able to move right in." It was a joke back then; it's a joke now.
Show up to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor meetings. Participate in public comment. We all talk about how NIMBYs rule SF, it's because they show up in full force at these gatherings.
> It will be very hard. If the (first) model is correct, it would take a 53% increase in the housing supply (200,000 new units), Doesn't seem that hard in a city full of three-story housing.
The broader picture is more vigorous. Developers applied to build 60% as much (over 50,000 units) in 2015 alone [3].
This is a political problem San Francisco has dug itself into.
[1] http://www1.nyc.gov/site/housing/index.page
[2] http://gothamist.com/2016/05/16/depends_on_what_affordable_m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an interesting comparison. New York City's population density is 56% higher than San Francisco's, and the average height of a building in New York City is only 6.8 stories (in spite of skyscrapers pushing up the mean). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... http://www.sunilmishra.in/2012/07/05/average-building-height...
Do you happen to know how many units the largest residential building in NYC has? It would be interesting to know the minimum number of buildings needed to cover the 200k unit deficit. [edit] Thanks for all the replies! So it looks like we are talking about a minimum of hundreds of buildings to be torn-down and rebuilt taller. That seems unlikely to happen in SF proper.
http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NYC-Condo-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an interesting comparison. New York City's population density is 56% higher than San Francisco's, and the average height of a building in New York City is only 6.8 stories (in spite of skyscrapers pushing up the mean). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... http://www.sunilmishra.in/2012/07/05/average-building-height...
Do you happen to know how many units the largest residential building in NYC has? It would be interesting to know the minimum number of buildings needed to cover the 200k unit deficit. [edit] Thanks for all the replies! So it looks like we are talking about a minimum of hundreds of buildings to be torn-down and rebuilt taller. That seems unlikely to happen in SF proper.
Building straight into the sky is easy. You'd be amazed at how earthquake-proof skyscrapers are with modern technology. You want a challenge? Build in a city where you're required to post notice any time you cut down a tree on your own property.
This is especially important in the urban core of cities where greenery can be scarce, and mature trees even more so.
