
Rethinking Residential Zoning - apsec112
https://www.livablecity.org/rethinking-rh/
======
jpao79
I think the current strategy of guiding ultra-high density residential
developers towards the Central Waterfront (i.e. the Dogpatch and the flat but
underutilized industrial parts north of the Bayview) makes more sense than
trying to up zone existing Victorian neighborhoods. There aren't many NIMBYs
there to block development and it will also give the entrance from the
Peninsula up to SF a much better feel.

[http://sf-planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Docume...](http://sf-
planning.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/4877-CW_DPR_chapter2.pdf)

The challenge is that construction in general (not to mention the once in a
millenium transformation of a former industrial zone to a people friendly
multi-story residential zone along with supporting light rail/subway
transportation) takes time and the media doesn't have the patience.

There will definitely be a lag time between a project as significant as
Salesforce Tower being completed and the supporting residential tower being
completed. Residential developers aren't going to start building until there
is a sufficient guarantee that the office buildings are going to get completed
and corresponding demand will be there. Unfortunately that lag does mean some
interim pain with respect to apartment rental rates.

Here's a fun historical time-lapse of Downtown SF. A lot of the office
buildings are actually relatively recent (post 90's-20's).

[https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BAY-DSJ-Salesforce-
Tow...](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BAY-DSJ-Salesforce-Tower-Now-
the-Tallest-Building-in-San-Francisco-474747303.html)

~~~
TulliusCicero
> I think the current strategy of guiding ultra-high density residential
> developers towards the Central Waterfront (i.e. the Dogpatch and the flat
> but underutilized industrial parts north of the Bayview) makes more sense
> than trying to up zone existing Victorian neighborhoods.

Mandatory low-density neighborhoods are de facto gated communities. There's no
reason for government to enforce such by rule of law. If anything, the
government should be encouraging mixed-income communities, not fighting them.

~~~
jpao79
Definitely not saying up zoning is bad, but the issue with that is the
previous 'rules' for the neighborhood did not allow such density. I think what
needs to be addressed is the speed at which the rule change/re-zoning occurs.

If I were a homeowner in such a zone and I had just bought into a neighborhood
that was zoned single family residential or just sunk 250K into a remodel in
the same zone, and then all of sudden a bunch of developers not even from the
neighborhood try to lobby to change the zoning, I'd feel shortchanged.

If however, I was given fair notice about 8-10 years before the rule/zoning
change that the city had such intent, then I would make financial decisions
appropriately (i.e. not buy in that neighborhood, wait to build a
duplex/triplex instead of an expensive single family that will be sandwiched
in between two four story buildings, etc.). It's like when you buy an iPhone
and the next day Steve Job announces the new iPhone.

That said, my main point is that the change that can happen in the
Dogpatch/Central Waterfront is orders of magnitude greater than up-zoning
tweaks to the Victorian neighborhoods of SF with less loss of character.

~~~
thwarted
_If however, I was given fair notice about 8-10 years before the rule /zoning
change that the city had such intent, then I would make financial decisions
appropriately (i.e. not buy in that neighborhood, wait to build a
duplex/triplex instead of an expensive single family that will be sandwiched
in between two four story buildings, etc.)._

This just means that the people there who own who are trying to sell then
think they get screwed by this announcement, even if it's actually going to
change for a decade, especially if people like you won't buy because the
change is pending.

Announcing it a full decade out also provides a chance for, potentially, two
other municipal administrations to do political machinations that undo the
pending change before it takes effect.

If these aren't actually worse situations, an announcement with a decade lead
time doesn't necessarily make it better.

~~~
jpao79
'Announcing it a full decade out also provides a chance for, potentially, two
other municipal administrations to do political machinations that undo the
pending change before it takes effect.'

>> Agreed. I had not thought of that scenario (which is very likely)! Maybe
that's even more reason to focus on the strategy of upzoning under-utilized
industrial land to ultra high density residential instead of trying to up zone
existing residential neighborhoods.

~~~
nedwin
Sadly upzoning those areas still won't be enough housing. And some areas (like
piers along the Embarcadero) the neighbourhoods like Telegraph Hill viciously
oppose them too.

I don't think the "neighbourhood character" test really holds much muster.
Maybe if you bought one of the Painted Ladies, or are on a street that is 90%+
Victorians. Maybe.

I live on 18th and there are few Victorians left. There are a lot of ugly 60's
and 70's 2/3/4 story buildings. These could all be upzoned to 6-8 stories
without having much of an effect on "neighbourhood character".

My view is you don't buy a time capsule, you're buying a block of land in an
evolving city. Things will change, they need to.

------
Scaevolus
> One would expect San Francisco, with its progressive and environmental
> values, to be in the forefront of reforming exclusionary practices.

Talk is cheap, but voters consistently prefer increasing property values.

~~~
JBReefer
It looks from the outside that the whole of the Bay Area has realized it can
cover its awful behavior by _claiming_ to be progressive.

You don't need to care about privacy, just claim to; you don't need to care
about poor people when you can claim it's the right wing (who don't exist in
SF)'s fault; you can claim to care about diversity and continue to hire only
white men from Stanford etc.

Weird world.

~~~
jjtheblunt
That's very accurate, having lived there for 6.5 years most recently.

------
Romanulus
Good God almighty that's a giant claptrap of words...

"Maybe if we just create/change a few more rules everything will be better"
type mentality probably won't fix things. I see there are ideas to relax
rules, which is good, but ultimately that might actually remove the 'money'
aspect of the situation.

My mentality is that if the costs are too high then don't pay them (hint: move
away).

~~~
jernfrost
But the issue here is the opposite of deregualtion. The problem is overly
strict zoning rules. They should be relaxed. Less rules, not more.

I am Norwegian myself but when I lived in the US I was always puzzled by the
extremely segmented feel of cities. Everything in one area was the same, and
when you meet people you get the feeling that most people only know people
from their own economic class.

As a country that prides itself on diversity, there doesn’t seem to be much
diversity where people live.

I think cities with less rules which are able to grow more organically will
tend to develop better.

Or I guess it depends on the type of planning. Where I live in Oslo a lot of
thought went into making it possible for kids to walk to school, playgrounds
etc without crossing car roads or walking next to car roads.

~~~
mjevans
I often like to revisit the Japanese concept of zone planning. Mostly it's
based on how much impact activities have on neighboring land / buildings.

[http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-
zoning.html](http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html)

It's from a while back...
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540845](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540845)

------
reillyse
This is exclusively about San Francisco, can you update the title to reflect
that?

~~~
organsnyder
These details might be localized, but similar discussions are happening
elsewhere. My city (Grand Rapids, MI) is having similar discussions regarding
ADUs and other ways to increase housing supply:
[https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/Government/Programs-and-
Initia...](https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/Government/Programs-and-
Initiatives/Housing-Now)

------
baybal2
I am all for Americans changing their zoning laws.

America must adopt the "build whatever you want on your own land" regime that
progressive nations have.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not.

In the US, we're not going to view as "progressive" anything that lets my
next-door-neighbor decide to build an oil refinery in my subdivision. That
will take significant value from my house and land, with no recourse available
to me. That's... not going to fly here.

What we need is something between what we have now (too rigid) and "build
whatever you want on your own land".

~~~
baybal2
To begin with, that should not be a matter of zoning, but of a sanitary code.

Want to build one? Also buy the land to have a minimum distance in between it
and the nearest residential.

In contrast to that, a system fully reliant on "expert" opinion to do zoning,
can allow for that if that expert thinks that this is a smart thing to do so.

------
mjevans
I'm with them all the way until the /parking/ thing.

Cars aren't going away. At /best/ we'll get self driving cars, but we aren't
there yet, and even when we get there it'll probably be a bit before they
fully kill the dedicated car.

It is reasonable to assume 1 car for EVERY ADULT that MIGHT live someplace,
and to then add an additional 0.2 cars for any adult that might thus visit
someplace.

THAT is how much parking should be accommodated, not on the street or in
front, but probably in a shared community parking garage (with some slots
assigned by unit, and others for guests).

The community garage should also have a loading dock and staging area for
deliveries and movers; with egress paths that make sense given use for both
that and light/mid level construction activities.

-

In a separate point, the building codes should be such that when I shut my
windows and doors, I don't hear or smell anyone near by me in any way. Even if
they're doing something noisy but normal. (Watching a film, the laundry, a
shower, etc.) They should also require /specific/ areas for smoking, and
anyone smoking outside of those areas (particularly in rented units) should
see //HEAVY// fines. I am so sick of opening a window or door and being unable
to breath.

~~~
jvm
Why would we not just let the market for parking determine how much parking to
build?

My wife and I live in San Francisco, don't have a car, don't have a garage.
Are you saying I should be forced to pay for not just one, but actually two
spots?

Square footage in San Francisco is extremely precious. If people aren't
willing to pay for parking I don't see why it should exist, or why people
without cars should be forced to pay for it.

To be clear, I'm against parking maximums as well. If people _are_ willing to
pay for a spot, let them do so!

~~~
mjevans
I guess having it zoned would allow for alternate uses like putting up
isolation walls and using it as additional storage; or just parking a movable
storage container in the spot.

The loading dock is a very useful part of the concept, as is the necessity of
a /community/ garage encouraging all moving vehicles to operate on a distinct
layer from pedestrian areas.

It would not be uncommon to have lawns, pathways, even a park or garden above
such a garage.

In a denser area the streets could actually be moved entirely underground,
aside from some access roads that /normally/ wouldn't be used as such.
(Special permits to bring in LARGE cranes/etc.)

Also, it would be required of the area /building/; if you don't need that
particular piece of property then I can easily imagine it being leased to
nearby businesses as part of their parking allocation.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Meh, people who want Cara can park outside the urban core like we do in
Manhattan.

~~~
mjevans
I'd be more amenable to living in such an area if there were a dedicated sub-
level(s) for services (water, sewer, power, data; and transport; especially of
packages) and free public transit /within/ the core and out to the parking
structures (preferably with some form of real security).

