Re:A lot more market-rate construction helps low-income rent...
by bjourne on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @09:38AM
(#9256431)
Well, redeveloping existing areas is of course not as simple as building on unused land. From my limited research using Google Streetview, Mission Street looks like a charming neighborhood with many buildings worth preserving.
What about south of San Francisco? Couldn't you build five story or higher apartment buildings there? Again, using Streetview, it looks like there are many newly built suburbs (or maybe they are just well-kept?) but almost all of them are single homes. Which isn't dense enough to solve the housing shortage. Also quite a number of golf courses and country clubs around. :)
Re:A lot more market-rate construction helps low-income rent...
by nulltype on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @06:15PM
(#9259876)
Well, SF has definitely chosen the "preserve" option. Of course, the result of that (in the face of increasing demand) is ridiculous prices.
Oddly enough south san francisco still seems to be fairly expensive, especially along the decent public transit lines. Assuming you're commuting to the city every day, you are trading say, an extra hour or two a day in commuting time for cheaper rent.
Re:A lot more market-rate construction helps low-income rent...
by brudgers on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @08:59AM
(#9256263)
The proximate constraint on housing in your example is obsolescent uses [porn is free on the internet] that are occupying space in lieu of housing...three story development is dense when there is not significant open space devoted to automobiles. Going taller means higher per square foot construction costs and more automobile storage per square foot of land. Both drive up the cost of placing new dwelling units on the market.
Real estate economics is not fourth grade math.
Examples:
+ Mission Street between 16th and Ceasar Chavez is a rail corridor. There was a proposal to limit this area to 8 story buildings. SF counterproposed and adopted a height limit which was on a per-property basis the lower of either a) what was presently built there or b) what city staff recommended, to preserve the character of the neighborhood. (Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/11/san_francisco...)
What is currently built there includes e.g. two- to three-story non-operating pornographic theatres. (Source: I periodically walked past them while doing business in SF.) Reasonable people can disagree on whether one prefers non-operating pornographic theatres or new housing. San Francisco has decided, through their elected representatives, that they affirmatively prefer the theatres.
+ San Francisco has a complex, interlocking system of permits required to approve new construction, which is designed to and has the effect of minimizing it.
SF has built an average of 1,500 new housing units per year, for the last several decades. I pulled that stat from an advocacy organization which quotes it as what is realistically possible given that SF is filled with "strong communities, both those concerned about equity and those with more NIMBY interests, that will not allow the radical deregulation many developers (and the growing ranks of Ayn Rand libertarian techie counterparts) seek"
http://www.sfccho.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Whose-Futur...
The population of SF has increased by almost 100k in ~15 years. (2001 census: 777k, 2013 census: 837k, all signs point to it accelerating) At that point, Ayn Rand libertarian techie propaganda ^H^H^H^H^H^H fourth grade math takes over.