In 2016 San Francisco built twice as much housing per capita (EDIT: per new resident) as the state average. (https://sf.curbed.com/2017/5/4/15543668/san-francisco-new-ho...)

The city could do much, much better. The issue here isn't approvals, per se; it's the high cost of construction, and a big part of that is the concessions that the city (and NIMBYs) squeeze out of developers. But in any event at least the city is _approving_ projects. Compared to every other city in the Bay Area San Francisco is leading. Unfortunately that says more about the Bay Area than it does SF, but in any event SF isn't being hypocritical when it criticizes Brisbane, Palo Alto, etc.

Imagine Tokyo was located near SF. Would you criticize Tokyo for complaining about the pace of development in SF, simply because Tokyo could be doing a better job?

By defending Brisbane, you defend every other city in the Bay Area that has been dragging its feet, especially those on the peninsula. Don't forget that both Santa Clara County and San Mateo County have substantially greater median incomes than SF, yet most of the cities in those counties--especially the richest ones--have literally flat-out opposed growth in residential units.

I call out SF for its/our blatant hypocrisy. It's a bona fide city but they/we act as if we're still in the late 1800s Victorian times. Oh, historic, oh, views, oh, character, oh residential displacement. Always some provincial excuse.

Give homeowners/developers incentives to turn low density blocks into mid to high density housing. And build Geary Street light rail (and put most of it underground so it doesn't take as long as the N-Judah does to get downtown)

There is a growing group of people on the west side of the city who do want density.

I live in a mixed SFH/midrise apartment neighborhood in Oakland, and our population density is 24,000 per square mile.

So putting 24k people in that part of Brisbane wouldn't even look particularly built up.

The Nob Hill, Russian Hill and Telegraph Hill areas (beautiful, treasured, highly desired places) in San Francisco all vary from 30k to 60k per square mile.

Putting 45k people on Brisbane baylands would be awesome.

What's really happening is that Brisbane loves the sweet tax revenues from all the businesses they host, but don't want the (expensive) responsibility to house all those people that work in town.

That's a common, often unstated problem, in many places. A new family often doesn't pay enough in taxes to cover the services they need, schools in particular. Which puts pressure on everyone's tax burden.

I live in a rural/exurban town in New England and the tax issue definitely comes up in any discussion of approving any sizable development. (The town tends to be against development in general for traffic etc. reasons but taxes are part of it.)

Prop 13 can take almost exclusive blame for cities in California giving preference to jobs and retail over housing. It's like a direct incentive if they want to keep their budgets balanced.

I think it's fair to say that the real calculus in Brisbane is simply opportunity cost: they get a better ROI with commercial than residential. And this calculus simply makes it easier to defend anti-development sentiment, which is really what it all comes down to.

Geographic mobility really is a huge hurdle. A lot of business is becoming centralized around major long-distance transportation hubs, San Francisco being chief among them. Live in Concord, but want to work in Los Gatos? Good luck getting there by train. I lived in the Mission and to get to China Basin was a bus to a train to a bus. I opted for the ten minute drive instead of forty-five minutes of transferring. It's embarrassing how much better we could do so much better moving people around. Right now I opt to drive the 101 south instead of taking Caltrain, even though my employer covers the cost, because it would cost me an additional $10 a day to take other trains/buses to get to the Milbrae transfer, and by the time I've driven myself either to 4th/King or San Bruno I could have already been half way to work just driving the whole way. We need to do better.

Not to mention, no one is asking to knock down the beautiful hillside neighborhoods - they want to build housing in the flat baylands across the 5-lane highway Bayshore Blvd. The SF Muni T-line basically already services this proposed baylands neighborhood.

As for the mobility issue - I agree 100% that transportation is a crucial part of this whole equation. I also understand that you can't build effective transportation if you keep surrendering to people who want car-oriented sprawling development patterns, including prioritizing cars even in our dense neighborhoods.

Brisbane's city report from 2013 states there were ~6,500 jobs in the city. Add in children, unemployed, retired, etc... and that accounts for many times more residents than can actually live in Brisbane. Which means Brisbane is contributing heavily to the housing problem in the Bay Area.

Now, imagine the opposite, Brisbane demanding San Francisco become more suburban because San Francisco is to city-like for their liking.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-control...

The attitude is essentially, "I've got mine, let's pull the ladder up after me and deny anyone else affordable housing."

It also has ensured that residents of San Francisco have very easy access to wilderness - I'm certainly better off being able to go hiking with just a 15 minute drive.

What I'm advocating for is regional ("metropolitan") leadership and planning. We all have to make sacrifices. That doesn't mean we can't have planning - I think urban planning is essential to building a city that works. But we need to do the planning at the level we're having the problem - which is, the Bay Area level.

Maybe high-rises do make sense on Golden Gate Park, but then we'd better have BART stations there taking people down to Mountain View and Sunnyvale (or wherever they're working).

At the same time it's not like Brisbane isn't building. They just aren't building housing, because they want to build commercial so they can get the taxes without having to get the population increase.

High rise condos around Golden Gate park wouldn't affect the usability of Golden Gate Park all that much. It would barely affect the beauty.

Yes, Brisbane ought to build more housing, but what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

And if we want Brisbane to give up its autonomy so that we can cram housing into it, and significantly change the character of the place--and we do!--then we have to be willing to cram housing into other places that will significantly change the character of that place.

As soon as one goes all sacred cow, one loses the game.

The bottom line is that both cities have things they value and they don’t want someone else to tell them what to do. If we are to solve the problem, everyone will have to make sacrifices. Everyone’s neighborhood will need to change. Including golden gate park.

Incidentally, “disingenuous” implies active deception. There nothing like that here. I don’t live in Brisbane or San Fran, and I support Beale every housing initiative I have been exposed to.

Good for them. I mean, probably not, but Brisbane is their town and they should determine their own values and courses of action.

The solution to San Francisco needs to occur in San Francisco - not CC county or Marin or Sonoma. There's a lot of very, very distinguished and historic and noteworthy 1-4 story housing stock in San Francisco that I hope stays around ... but there's a lot of 1-4 story housing stock that is complete shit and needs to be rebuilt, in-filled, brought up to 2017 sanitation and earthquake regs and served by new rail lines.

Notice how I didn't say "served by BRT[1]" ? Served by rail.

If you see a bus, they blew it.

[1] Bus Rapid Transit (and related half-assed bullshit)

Strictly, the entire area is paying the price for the entire area being willing to add jobs but not add housing.

San Francisco is no different from Palo Alto and Mountain View in that regard.

All but about 1/8th of the city is just a sprawling suburb.

Yeah, we have a problem, but razing 7/8ths of San Francisco? Yikes.

Also - there are suburbs and there are suburbs. The excelsior in SF, as an example of a generally SFH neighborhood, has a population density of 17,640/sq mi. Palo Alto has a population density of 2,808.46/sq mi . I think you can make a compelling case that because it is closer to job centers, we should increase density. I don't really object to the use of the word "suburb" to describe the excelsior (or the sunset), but if someone uses "suburb" to refer to a low density neighborhood more typical of what an American thinks of as "suburban" (7/8 of SF is "suburb"), I do think there may be an ambiguity creeping into the argument. The two things are very different.

And if you see streetcars, they blew it worse. Streetcars combine the traffic creation of buses with the inflexibility of a rail line. As an added bonus they make biking extra treacherous.

If you have the budget to build a real buried or elevated rail line, go for it. Otherwise stick with BRT until you do.

Do you feel the same way about other critical shortages that cause massive human suffering?

If you are employed in a tech job somewhere in the United States, , you are very likely in the top 20% of Americans in terms of income, and the top 1% in the world. Perhaps much higher.

I take it you are willing to give all that up in the face of the crushing poverty in the rest of the world.

Bay area housing shortages are nothing compared to the critical shortages that cause massive human suffering in the rest of the world.

None of our mass transit operates near the speed limit anyway, afaik.