Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments • Hacker News Board

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#31

Post by rayiner » Mon, May 16, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #14

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #13

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.

I don't know about New York. I lived in a two-tower complex in Chicago, 45-stories with over 1,000 apartments total.

But you don't need tons of high-rises. Having everything be free-standing buildings is the larger problem. Blocks of mid-rises is what drives density in places like Paris: https://agingmodernism.wordpress.com/category/sarcelles.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#32

Post by mahyarm » Mon, May 16, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

forgotmysn wrote: post #23

capkutay wrote: post #16

Obligatory reminder: If you care about housing in the Bay Area, register to vote now. Scott Wiener is a housing and transportation advocate running for State Senate in this election. http://registertovote.ca.gov/ 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.

the SF Planning Commission holds their public meetings on Thursdays at Noon. They don't want people to come

More the unemployed and retired.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#33

Post by x0x0 » Mon, May 16, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #27

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #9

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.

"Building straight into the sky is easy." Except, it isn't. Construction costs of taller buildings scale non-linearly with every additional story [1]. Building skyscrapers costs upwards of $300 per square foot, whereas single-family homes cost a fifth or a sixth of that. It's so much cheaper to build low-rises, in fact, that virtually no developers will take on a high-rise project unless the property is so expensive…

Why is $300/ ft2 construction costs a problem when condos are going for $1k / ft2? Even selling condos for $600 / ft2 would be a major improvement.

data: http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/m... then click the wavy graph next to "explore this area" sales price / sqft

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#34

Post by rayiner » Mon, May 16, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #27

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #9

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.

"Building straight into the sky is easy." Except, it isn't. Construction costs of taller buildings scale non-linearly with every additional story [1]. Building skyscrapers costs upwards of $300 per square foot, whereas single-family homes cost a fifth or a sixth of that. It's so much cheaper to build low-rises, in fact, that virtually no developers will take on a high-rise project unless the property is so expensive…

> Instead, they build class I-III in the Mission and SOMA. These buildings will always be "luxury" units, because at $300+/sq.ft. construction costs the economics don't pencil out otherwise.

In the long run, that isn't true. A skyscraper has a useful life well in excess of 50 years. If you look at places like Chicago, you'll see that luxury high-rises get renovated 20-30 years in to become mid-range places.

Of course, that requires the foresight to have permitted enough high-rise construction yesterday.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#35

Post by sampo » Mon, May 16, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #13

rayiner wrote: post #6

> 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...

> New York City's population density is 56% higher than San Francisco's

And even New York City is not really that dense:

    San Francisco: 18 000 people per mi2
    New York City: 27 000
    Barcelona:     41 000
    Paris:         55 000

Only Manhattan (72 000 per mi2) is dense.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#36

Post by kbenson » Mon, May 16, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #27

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #9

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.

"Building straight into the sky is easy." Except, it isn't. Construction costs of taller buildings scale non-linearly with every additional story [1]. Building skyscrapers costs upwards of $300 per square foot, whereas single-family homes cost a fifth or a sixth of that. It's so much cheaper to build low-rises, in fact, that virtually no developers will take on a high-rise project unless the property is so expensive…

An hour north of SF, my single family home cost me $216 sq. ft. Prices in SF are significantly higher. Trulia makes it look to be ~ $700-$1000 sq. ft.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#37

Post by twinkletwinkle » Mon, May 16, 2016, 9:51 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #33

timr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Building straight into the sky is easy." Except, it isn't. Construction costs of taller buildings scale non-linearly with every additional story [1]. Building skyscrapers costs upwards of $300 per square foot, whereas single-family homes cost a fifth or a sixth of that. It's so much cheaper to build low-rises, in fact, that virtually no developers will take on a high-rise project unless the property is so expensive…

Why is $300/ ft2 construction costs a problem when condos are going for $1k / ft2? Even selling condos for $600 / ft2 would be a major improvement. data: http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/m... then click the wavy graph next to "explore this area" sales price / sqft

A quick distinction, you have to build all of a skyscraper but you only get to sell part of it as condos. There are hallways, janitors' closets, fire stairways, etc etc.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#38

Post by timr » Mon, May 16, 2016, 9:52 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #34

timr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Building straight into the sky is easy." Except, it isn't. Construction costs of taller buildings scale non-linearly with every additional story [1]. Building skyscrapers costs upwards of $300 per square foot, whereas single-family homes cost a fifth or a sixth of that. It's so much cheaper to build low-rises, in fact, that virtually no developers will take on a high-rise project unless the property is so expensive…

> Instead, they build class I-III in the Mission and SOMA. These buildings will always be "luxury" units, because at $300+/sq.ft. construction costs the economics don't pencil out otherwise. In the long run, that isn't true. A skyscraper has a useful life well in excess of 50 years. If you look at places like Chicago, you'll see that luxury high-rises get renovated 20-30 years in to become mid-range places. Of course…

"In the long run, that isn't true. A skyscraper has a useful life well in excess of 50 years. If you look at places like Chicago, you'll see that luxury high-rises get renovated 20-30 years in to become mid-range places."

It really depends. They just gutted 101 Van Ness (a pre-existing 1960s-era skyscraper) and turned it into housing. It's all luxury -- the cheapest units are upwards of $3000 a month for a tiny studio. When developers renovate a building, they ask for what the market can bear, not for their cost of redevelopment.

All you can really do is assume that long-term, more housing is good, and less housing is bad. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that new construction doesn't help anyone but wealthy people in SF, today.

"In the long run, we're all dead."

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#39

Post by martinald » Mon, May 16, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #9

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.

It might be 'easy' and 'earthquake-proof', but it sure isn't cheap.

Re: Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments

#40

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, May 16, 2016, 9:54 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #34

timr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Building straight into the sky is easy." Except, it isn't. Construction costs of taller buildings scale non-linearly with every additional story [1]. Building skyscrapers costs upwards of $300 per square foot, whereas single-family homes cost a fifth or a sixth of that. It's so much cheaper to build low-rises, in fact, that virtually no developers will take on a high-rise project unless the property is so expensive…

> Instead, they build class I-III in the Mission and SOMA. These buildings will always be "luxury" units, because at $300+/sq.ft. construction costs the economics don't pencil out otherwise. In the long run, that isn't true. A skyscraper has a useful life well in excess of 50 years. If you look at places like Chicago, you'll see that luxury high-rises get renovated 20-30 years in to become mid-range places. Of course…

> In the long run, that isn't true. A skyscraper has a useful life well in excess of 50 years. If you look at places like Chicago

...they aren't like San Francisco. In addition to construction costs, I wonder what the effect of periodic major earthquakes is on maintenance costs of large buildings. And, particularly, the relative costs of larger vs. smaller buildings.