
Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco apartments - spenrose
https://experimental-geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html
======
rayiner
> 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.

~~~
matt_wulfeck
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?

~~~
lyqwyd
Definitely red tape.

I'm doing an expansion on my house in SF. 1 year in already, and at least
another year to go before we get permits, if we even wind up getting them.

It will probably cost over $10,000 just in planning review / permitting costs
when it's all done. That does not include the added time architectural costs
of changing the plans as demanded by the various planning departments.

~~~
bane
By way of comparison, out here on the East Coast, I went by my county office
on a Friday, talked over what I wanted to do with the clerk, sketched out a
basic plan on a blank sheet of paper, paid $75 in fees, taped the permit to my
front window and started work on an expansion the next day.

~~~
lyqwyd
Yes, SF's process is incredibly broken. It's not just that they are too
expensive and time consuming (which they are!), it's also that the rules are
arbitrary, and there are multiple departments, which often have the exact
opposite requirements.

Additionally, any approval can be appealed by neighbors for any reason, at
very little cost, but then the person applying for the permit will then have
to spend thousands more, and potentially years more, to fight the appeal.

The uncertainty and lack of clear rules is actually worse than the cost (which
is ridiculous).

I find it hard to imagine a more dysfunctional planning process.

------
matt_wulfeck
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.

~~~
kafkaesq
_Build in a city where you 're required to post notice any time you cut down a
tree on your own property._

That's because you're talking about one of the most beautiful cities in the
world (despite the attempts of some people to decry otherwise) and, as
expressed through the will of its electorate, intends to stay that way. It's
also a city that's keenly aware of ecosystem dynamics and environmental issues
generally, and the effect of removing that removing certain kinds of trees
(for example, trees of significant age, size, and/or foliage) -- particularly
if they're close to the street -- can have on the neighborhood well beyond the
tiny confines of your own property.

If you want to live in a city that couldn't begin to give a flying F* about
trees, or anything else green, for most of its history -- and has the
corresponding development footprint and visual character to show for it -- try
moving to San Jose.

~~~
Balgair
HA! San Fransisco is a dirty, 2 fisted drinking town, full-stop. It is not
'one of the most beautiful cities in the world'. Try Hamburg or Vienna. It is
a port of call for those looking to escape polite society, be they gays,
Chicanos, drunk miners, Russian trappers, whores, Burners, or whatever else
isn't talked about on 5th Ave. Do not delude yourself into thinking San
Fransisco's people care about anything but the prices of their vices. That is
what makes SF great, it just wants to get sloppy drunk. Do whatever else you
want.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
San Francisco's wooden victorian are very beautiful, it also has a lot of
"western American port city" architecture in tact, as you say. Many of us find
that beautiful compared to old European cities that have their own very
different histories. "The most beautiful city in the world" is most definitely
an exaggeration, but it definitely has its own charm.

~~~
Retric
IMO, San Francisco is an ugly city. It's got that smattering of high rises in
a mostly low rise city that just screams slums in most of the world. I mean
there is a reason most photos are of a bridge not the buildings.

I accept everyone has different aesthetics. But, the city just screams fake to
me without any of the organic charm an old city or the brutal asthetic of say
NY.

PS: I guess you can call it unique...

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Not just bridges, I mean, SF has stuff like this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies#/media/File:Pai...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies#/media/File:Painted_Ladies_San_Francisco_January_2013_panorama_2.jpg)

Linking into
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_ladies):

> "Painted ladies" is a term in American architecture used for Victorian and
> Edwardian houses and buildings painted in three or more colors that
> embellish or enhance their architectural details. The term was first used
> for San Francisco Victorian houses by writers Elizabeth Pomada and Michael
> Larsen in their 1978 book Painted Ladies - San Francisco's Resplendent
> Victorians.[1]

Such housing is virtually everywhere in SF if you bother walking out of the
urban core. I used to lose myself for hours just wandering around SF
neighborhoods.

I really wonder if you really know what slums really are. I live in Beijing, a
high rise city by any definition, which has slums galore (though not the ones
found in India). Even the tall buildings are dingy, lack character. I also
lived in Lausanne for a couple of years...supposedly a nice city, but it
definitely had its share of grit and urban fake-ness. Especially high rise
social housing (say in Renens), which, while not bad, definitely had a feeling
of sluminess to them.

------
capkutay
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/](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.

~~~
guelo
Gentrification step 13: vote out the pre-existing population's preferred
politicians and install new "free market" policies (since the "free market"
works in favor of the people with the money the new policies will benefit the
richer new comers).

~~~
owlmonkey
Building is the one variable of the three he cites that is reasonable to
encourage IMO. But the pre-existing population here has demonstrated a clear
disdain for building. So who is really to blame then for the inflation and
displacement and thereby the gentrification?

------
Gibbon1
Answering a question, why the decline in rents 1950-1960? Far as I know during
WWII the population of the city swelled due to war time industry. After the
war people moved to newly created suburbs in Santa Clara and the Peninsula.

I'm unsure but I think my grandparents moved to SF during the 1939-1940 WWII
preseason. And by the late forties had moved away.

~~~
refurb
People were leaving!

In 1950 the population of SF peaked (at the time) at 775,000, by 1960 it was
down to 740,000, then by 1980 down to 678,000 (13% drop over 30 years!).

Hard to believe it living in SF today.

~~~
elliotec
It's not hard to believe at all. White flight to suburbs after the war is a
pretty well known phenomenon that happened in every major city in the US.

------
busthrow
SF should work on rezoning some hub areas higher density, and build (lots of)
unit blocks. For comparison, I live in a suburb that has had the zoning rules
changed to allow for transit-oriented development. Houses are being moved out
and being replaced by 5 story apartment blocks. I live in one of those, a 3
minute walk from a busway station.

There will probably be 50000 units built in my the city in the near future.
However, Brisbane, Australia has twice the population of SF, and a possibly
irrational building boom happening though:

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/brisbane-to-
see-50,000...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/brisbane-to-
see-50,000-new-apartments-added-to-skyline-expert/7117686)

------
ktRolster
New housing doesn't even need to be right in San Francisco. Anywhere along the
Peninsula, even Oakland would be good enough, as long as it's close enough to
public transportation.

~~~
ghaff
To a lot of people though, it does. And public transit is already stretched
thin with a lot of problems. A second Transbay Tube is being discussed so
you're not looking at anything soon.

------
original_idea
Using a logarithmic scale seems kinda silly. It really detracts from my innate
visual ability to understand the topic.

~~~
bagels
Inflation is exponential. It removes all the contrast in the the historical
data, and trends are more difficult to spot if a linear scale is used on
exponential data.

------
youngButEager
Supply and demand.

Demand is higher than supply.

Everyone in SF knows that and actually seems to _not want_ to increase the
supply.

Strike that, they want the property tax revenue but only from huge, high-brow
luxury apartment build-outs. The City has no problem letting the supply at the
high end of the market increase.

By stopping any growth in the supply of nominally affordable rentals, the City
leadership is pushing people of limited means outside of the city.

Let's see then if the City's limitations to increasing Supply makes sense:

1) low-income people -- like it or not, the vast majority of crime is
committed by this group -- are pushed out of the city. That reduces crime.
Check, makes sense from the City leadership perspective.

2) Rent control fools the city's renters into voting for more of the same.
Landlords cannot profit; take affordable units off the market. Again, the low
income types are pushed out of the city. Check. (see #1)

3) Also, by putting these mom-and-pop landlords out of business, rent control
eliminates a COMPETITOR for the Luxury Apartment developers -- if there are no
low-cost apartments to rent, people have no choice but to pay up or get out.
Rent control also pushes up rents at the low end as those units go offline/out
of business/converted to condos/etc., leaving fewer units available for low
income folks.

The City is acting in its own best interest to:

\- limit supply growth of apartments \- put mom and pop landlords with
affordable units offline \- thus eliminating affordable units and the low
socio-economic status people who create most of the crime problems from the
city

And _all that_ pushes up rents to benefit high-property-tax-paying Luxury
apartment developers.

The City needs as much property tax revenue as they can get.

"How do we attract luxury apartment developers to boost the City's property
tax haul?

\- eliminate the low-priced competitors -- and even get the voters to approve
it -- by imposing rent control

\- reduce crime so Luxury apartment developers will feel they can attract
high-dollar customers

\- reduce/eliminate the creation of new affordable housing

SF wants property tax revenue. If you understand the above, you know
everything.

It's not like the City leaders are going to announce their strategy to voters.
Too many low-income/moderate-income renters here in SF.

But you can see the effects: \- high rents due to the gradual elimination of
mom-and-pop low rent units (they go out of business or convert to condos) \-
no more low-end Supply allowed to be created \- rent control is here to stay
(at least until all the low-priced apartments are gone)

------
dang
Url changed from [https://medium.com/@andersem/a-guy-just-
transcribed-30-years...](https://medium.com/@andersem/a-guy-just-
transcribed-30-years-of-for-rent-ads-heres-what-it-taught-us-about-sf-housing-
prices-bd61fd0e4ef9#.vpoetfkkv), which points to this.

~~~
mfringel
Yeah. Keeping it classy with a tiny grey link at the bottom of the Medium
article.

~~~
techsupporter
I really dislike this trend of "oh we totally credit our sources here is a
tiny link at the bottom of the article, never mind that it isn't underlined
like all the rest of our links and it is in the same color and font as the
word 'Advertisement' just below."

The source should be clearly defined and easily accessible, especially with
these just-rewriting-the-source articles. (Glaring at you, Gizmodo and
TechCrunch.)

