
San Francisco zoning: Needs more density and tall buildings - brown9-2
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/11/san_francisco_zoning_needs_more_density_and_tall_buildings.html
======
rdl
I mostly hate San Francisco, but I don't think there would be any serious
negatives (except displacing renters, predominately poor and minority, and SRO
residents, which could if politically needed be addressed by other forms of
assistance and resettlement) by completely redeveloping the TL, Bayview, and
HP as high-density, and the Mission heavy rail corridor as at least the
original 8 story plan.

The current Mission Bay and South Beach stuff seems to have gone really well.

Leaving Haight, Noe, etc. with the Victorian character would probably be
enough to preserve SF's historical features.

I'm not really sure about increasing density in "suburban" SF (Sunset,
Richmond) -- it's already 2-3 story apartment buildings and townhomes, so the
next jump is up to 5 or so, and it's not very well served with transit now.

~~~
tomsaffell
Agreed on TL, Bayview, HP. For those unfamiliar with SF: Tenderloin is in the
heart of SF (walking to Union Square shopping, Financial District) and where
you go if you want to score drugs, offload stolen good, pick-up, or feel
scared at night. Bayview and Hunters Point comprise miles of water-front
property, close to the city center, on transit (T-line trolley car). Today
they are a mix of industrial use, abandoned/empty/derelict industrial (there
are brick warehouses that have been condemned since the 1989 quake), mixed in
with some low income housing, and converted military barracks.

For a city infamous for its high rent, small rental stock, and boom in highly
paid jobs to leave miles of water-front property undeveloped is near criminal.
AFAIK, there are some complexities around industrial clean-up, but either way
someone needs to get it done.

~~~
rdl
HP is particularly special because of all the ships from Pacific nuclear tests
being taken there to be cleaned, which mostly consisted of spraying them with
water (left to drain on-site). So in addition to chemical contamination from
Navy facilities of the era (PCBs, particularly), there are various
radioisotopes.

~~~
tomsaffell
Yup, cleaning up HP will be expensive. But isn't that a perfect case for an
economic stimulus project? Invest now to create an asset that will improve
economic productivity for the following century.

The fact is that HP will _one day_ be a gorgeous place to live and watch the
sun rise over the bay. The question is whether that's a 100 years from now, or
whether we start on it now, so we can see the benefits in our life times.

------
jamespitts
America needs more dense cities like NYC, for economic, national-strategic,
and environmental reasons. But the citizens of cities will decide how they
want to live.

The people and property owners of San Francisco may not be able to make the
sacrifices that going ultra-dense require, even though San Fran is putting a
huge amount of effort toward becoming far more dense than it already is.

IMO Los Angeles is more likely to have the ducks lined up for becoming ultra-
dense over the next 25 years. Perhaps the demographic and geographic
conditions are making this possible. Perhaps the strong, small property owners
are also removed enough from where the corridors density will occur.

~~~
rayiner
> America needs more dense cities like NYC, for economic, national-strategic,
> and environmental reasons. But the citizens of cities will decide how they
> want to live.

Sure, but you have to let people actually decide, instead of municipal zoning
boards.

~~~
nextstep
Isn't a municipal zoning board an example of "people deciding"?

~~~
jseliger
The basic problem is that non-residents who would like to live there can't
vote.

Until the 1970s, anyone could basically build whatever residential housing
they wanted to anywhere. Not coincidentally, prices were low and relatively
stable (by modern standards). During the 1970s, the city of Petaluma in CA
passed the Petaluma Plan, which drastically restricted development. Courts
accepted this and more and more residential restrictions.

In the short term they didn't seem to matter much. But in the last 40 years,
as the population has grown and as people have realized that cities are pretty
awesome in many ways (including economically), supply and demand have gotten
way out of whack. One example is Santa Monica, which has the same number of
residents it did in 1970 but vastly higher prices:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_s...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/10/12/sustainable_santa_monica_coastal_california_is_green_but_without_population.html).
Existing property owners, especially of existing single-family houses, like
restricting property so the value of their property goes up (although they
often disguise this in other rhetoric). Potential new residents can't vote,
and courts have empowered existing residents and municipal boards.

Hypothetically, if we had some kind of national zoning / municipal board
setting policy across the country, people in Texas or Arizona who wanted to
move to SF would get equal weight with the people already in SF. As it stands,
property owners in SF can exclude Texans through voting. I cite this as a
thought experiment, not as a proposal.

Further reading: Edward Glaeser, _The Triumph of the City_.

~~~
jamespitts
Really good info here!

City of Quartz is also goot to read and goes into NIMBYism and other related
issues for the case of LA.

~~~
jseliger
I'm looking for an e-mail address and can't find one in your profile or G+ or
Twitter; this is probably too late, but if you see this send me a message at
seligerj AT gmail DOT com.

------
Androsynth
The worst possible thing SF could do would be to completely change density and
building heights _in a boom period_. The money is here now, so are the people.
But are the entrepreneurs in soma going to stick around if the VC money dries
up? Are the hip kids in mission going to stick around once their six figure
tech salaries leave the area?

SF is a unique city on the west coast. It would be a travesty to let a bunch
of out-of-towners come here for a few years, complain loudly enough to get
their changes passed, then leave a barren and soulless modern wasteland once
the boom dies down. _Dont do radical expansion during a boom!_ The south and
south-east bay will look like Detroit in a few decades, dont let it happen to
SF.

Of course the politicians wont help. Brown and Newsom were so greedy/ambitious
respectively, they would probably have loved to work with the tech crowd. Lee
achieved what he set out to do the day he was elected; he will now most likely
look to consolidate his financial situation and his power. I dont think theres
been a mayoral candidate since Jello Biafra who has actually cared about the
city itself.

Some of the problems SF would have if density increased significantly: -public
transportation is made a for a much lower density than other big american
cities. That wont be fixed until bart turns into a comprehensive subway
system, which isnt happening while the state is broke. -highways and their
off-ramps in the city are made for a much lower density city. -The zoning laws
for big-box stores and (i think) grocery stores is pretty restrictive. That
will need to change. Which is pretty significant. Maybe we dont want SF turned
into SJ/LA?

My personal suggestion would be to impose a severe, severe congestion charge
within city limits. This would help to separate the wheat from the chaff, but
also to keep services in line with population. The problem is that city
leaders are making so much money from tourism and the boom (and potentially
development) that they have no interest in helping the city.

The hippies moved to haight because it was cheap and that was all they could
afford. The techies moved to SF because it is a first world playground that
hadnt been used up yet. Well congratulations, youll get there.

~~~
ricw
You propose a congestion charge to eleviate the problem of there not being
enough housing?! Thats completely and utter nonsense. The only way around
overpriced housing is to build more. If people move away and the prices drop,
the flats become bigger and people will have a better life style (assuming
they have jobs). Instead you suggest that all should cram into small housing
and talk about how awesome the place is. I'm sorry to say it, but thats
bullshit.

The "detroit" problem that you mention is of a different kind. What do you do
with derelict areas?! Thats politics and something you can figure out later.
But not at the expense of everyone who now is paying way too much for shitty
housing.

~~~
Androsynth
a congestion charge would lower density. People wouldnt cram in, most would
just leave. Obviously we have different goals in mind for the city.

------
lubujackson
I don't understand why people keep saying SF "needs" more density. Why? I'm
assuming because the cost of living is so high? That is primarily caused by
the Ponzi scheme of renter rights that make it so anyone renting for more than
a few years is hugely disincentivized to move because they will lose their
cheap rent, since their rents can never be increased to meet the market. So
people stay in their crappy old apartment rather than upgrading, which reduces
the inventory and drives up prices for everyone else.

Secondly, you don't just build apartments and you're done - a density increase
requires more services to handle those new people. That's supermarkets,
restaurants, hospitals, police, etc. All of that needs to be built up as well
and usually isn't considered. If you DON'T add any of that, all you have done
is reduce the services available for everyone in that area. What's the
advantage of this again?

Finally, comparing the density of SF to Manhattan is not remotely accurate.
Manhattan is the highest density part of NYC. SF contains a number of huge
parks, mountainous areas like Twin Peaks, deeply residential areas like St.
Francis Wood, etc. If you compare the density of the Mission vs. Greenwich
Village or something like that, I could see it being relevant, but SF vs
Manhattan is apples to oranges.

~~~
rayiner
Manhattan is precisely the right thing to compare to San Francisco. San
Francisco's borders are drawn in a way that encompasses what in other cities
would just be the dense inner neighborhoods. E.g. Oakland is a separate city
while Queens is part of New York City proper, but they're functionally and
geographically equivalent.

If you go neighborhood by neighborhood, you'll see that San Francisco isn't
really very dense. No neighborhood besides Chinatown and the Tenderloin are
more than 50,000 per square mile, and popular areas like the Mission are only
25,000 per square mile. In New York, the UES and UWS are over 100,000 per
square mile. Greenwich Village/SoHo (same community area) is 60,000 per square
mile. Chelsea is about 45,000 per square mile.

~~~
juiceandjuice
The tenderloin is 72,000 sq/mi.

~~~
rayiner
Corrected.

------
amitparikh
Almost a year ago, the author, Matthew Yglesias, wrote nearly the exact same
article with respect to Washington, D.C.
([http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/04/d_c_...](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/04/d_c_s_height_restrictions_on_buildings_are_hurting_america_.html)).

Washington, D.C. is an interesting & relevant case-study in this regard
because of the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_Buildings_Act_of_191...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_Buildings_Act_of_1910))
which restricts the maximum building height in the District. Depending on your
viewpoint, the law has led to the desired "lightness and airiness" of D.C. as
envisioned by planners of that generation; it has also led to expansion and
sprawl into Northern Virginia and the Maryland suburbs of D.C.

~~~
rayiner
What it has led to is a little city of 600,000 having the worst traffic in the
country as it tries to play host to a metro area 10x larger full of people who
commute every day in random directions because the hight limit prevented the
creation of a proper central business district which could be served with
proper transit infrastructure.

------
superbeefy
Having NYC style density is one thing, actually supporting it is another. If
anyone has used the MUNI light rail system in SF it is plagued with constant
delays, breakdowns, inefficient routing, and of all things traffic jams. The
light rail is also a hybrid aboveground/underground system, and when above
ground is not separated from the motor vehicle traffic, which causes more
delays. When underground several lines merge onto one track (bart does this
too) this is another pain point.

As for bus service thats even worse. One of the original goals of muni was
that residences should be within 2 blocks of a MUNI stop. That sounds great on
paper, but in reality it makes trips excruciatingly long. When a bus route has
to stop at every other block, or in some cases every block, especially on flat
terrain, it exemplifies the absurdities of MUNI's grand plan.

------
raverbashing
No!

Why more density? What will that accomplish?

There are _a lot of cities_ that could use the business.

The other side of the Bay. Stockton.

Stop cramming people into a closed space, it will result in a miserable and
still expensive place.

~~~
ajross
The flip side logic works too: if you want wide open sprawl, move to Stockton
or Livermore or wherever. "Cramming people into a closed space" is a way to
make it easier for more people to live where they want.

People in SF right now are already OK with a high density environment. Lots of
people who want to move to SF are, too, but can't because there is no space
for them.

The idea that "density" is "miserable" is a uniquely post-war american one. It
really doesn't work that way.

~~~
raverbashing
It is miserable when architects are trying to cram everything to tiny sizes
because of costs caused by real-estate speculation.

Yes, I lived in a college dorm, tiny, but not miserable (college helps, of
course ;) ).

Now, see this: "[http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2013/03/07/san-francisco-
micr...](http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2013/03/07/san-francisco-micro-
apartment/)

160 sq. ft. (or around 14m2 for the metrically able, or my favorite measure,
this is the size of a square with a side of 3.7m)

That college dorm I lived, no kitchen, no shower, was around this size.

~~~
ajross
Then surely you would _support_ the argument in the linked article which would
allow building more square feet of living space by increasing allowed building
heights, right?

You're equating living space with physical land area, and that's not right at
all.

~~~
raverbashing
I know they are different

Increasing build height poses a burden on the road/transport system.

Believe me this is a bad idea. You can't do that with either a good investment
in public transport and road work (which is usually not possible since you
can't reduce the size of the buildings to make roads wider)

That's one of the reasons for massive traffic jams in cities like Sao Paulo
for example.

New York has a higher density, but a very good public transport system.

~~~
ajross
NY didn't always have that transport system: it built it as it grew. The same
can be true for SF. Again you're making an assumption (SF can build apartment
buildings but somehow not subway tunnels) that is both flawed and addressed by
the linked article.

It's _fine_ that you don't want to live in SF. But that simple fact doesn't
make increasing density a bad idea for those who do. And to be clear: there
are a _lot_ of people who want to live in SF.

~~~
rdouble
NYC kind of did always have that transport system, though. The subway hasn't
significantly expanded for 100 years.

~~~
ajross
And interestingly the housing density along the subway lines hasn't changed
much either. Manhattan has always been as dense as its infrastructure will
allow. The point is that you can build infrastructure to support density. NY
did, SF didn't. But now SF is in a situation where increased density would be
preferable, so the solution is to _build infrastructure_ (housing and transit,
etc...) and not to use the lack of one to refute the need for the other.

------
CarlosT
Instead of lobbying, or fighting policy (the old way) hack together a
crowdsourced version of a future San Francisco,and let the people chose how
they want the city to look 400 years from now.

Something similar to the Manhattan Project, in New York, but instead of
looking back 400 years, look forward 400 years.

The Manhattan Project, gives a mapped 400 year history of New York. One can
watch the TED below.

Source: <http://welikia.org/>
<http://www.ted.com/speakers/eric_sanderson.html>
[http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_sanderson_pictures_new_york_be...](http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_sanderson_pictures_new_york_before_the_city.html)

------
spenrose
A lot of smart, well-informed people object that increasing density will make
things worse. They are not entirely wrong; from the current 10 people/acre
moving to 15 or 20 in a clumsy way will make things worse, but moving to 30 in
a smart way will unlock vast benefits. See Alex Steffen's Carbon Zero for
more: <http://www.alexsteffen.com/carbon-zero-2/>

------
afreak
There is a certain point where density begins to become a hindrance and can as
a result create communities that are just as 'dead' as some suburban ones.

For example, here in Vancouver we have more condos per capita than anywhere
else in North America--with maybe New York ahead of us and San Francisco just
behind. In areas where there are 4-6 story buildings, I find that the
communities are vibrant and have a lot of activity on the sidewalks.

However, go into neighbourhoods like Yaletown or newer developments in North
Burnaby, you'll find that the large towers are actually not very vibrant and
just act as terminus-es for those who live there.

I believe that there was an Economist article a few years back that discussed
this very problem affecting Tokyo, which is pretty much the epitome of urban
densification.

Cities need density in order to thrive, but there is a point where too much
density leads to problems. It might be premature or naive to call for San
Francisco to make itself even more compact considering that it is already one
of the most dense cities on this continent.

~~~
mortenjorck
The important ingredients, so often overlooked, include mixed-use zoning and
public spaces. If all you have are a bunch of condo towers abutting each
other, you're almost guaranteed a dead high-density area.

Once you start mixing things up, though, it gets much better. Add some
restaurants and shops and other businesses on the ground floors of the condo
towers (even better, mix in a few two-to-three-story retail centers), and some
small parks, squares, and other public areas, and the density can be leveraged
to create a thriving street-level area.

------
hack_edu
Article has great points, but I must remind everyone of the unbelievably rapid
pace the city is already being developed. Business in SOMA, let alone its
status as an extension of the Valley itself, practically didn't exist 15 years
ago; the real estate boom saw a huge number of affordable(ish) apartments
turned into crazy-expensive condos that can sit vacant for months before a
purchase, and the real estate bubble never popped on single-family homes in
the more appealing neighborhoods. This has a nearly immeasurable effect on its
demographics and tax base that the city can hardly keep up with. It also
wouldn't hurt if resources were allocated for construction projects to be much
more accelerated. I don't understand why large-building construction takes 3x
as long in this city as others (and no, its not just permits/redtape).

Is more, and rapid, development critical today? Sure, maybe. Do I support it?
Yes.

But its complicated...

~~~
rayiner
It's incredible to me that people think San Francisco is all that dense or
rapidly developing. It has half the people of Manhattan in twice the area yet
still rents between the two cities are approaching parity. Much of the city is
a glorified suburb and needs to be razed and developed into proper
civilization as quickly as they can work the bulldozers.

~~~
rdouble
It's the 2nd densest city in America. Even if it's not comparable to Hong
Kong, that is why Americans might think it's dense.

~~~
rayiner
Maybe that's the reason...

As an aside, San Francisco is denser on paper than in real life because of how
its borders are drawn relative to other cities. The core of Chicago fits the
population of San Francisco into 31 square miles with an average density of
25,690 per square mile. 1.3 million people in Chicago live in a neighborhood
with at least the average density of San Francisco, with a total average
density of 22,240 per square mile. If you take a subset of Chicago
neighborhoods with the same average density as San Francisco, it has about 2.4
million people.

------
exue
On one hand urban planners tells us density is the future and inevitable for
American cities to not fall behind and .

On the other hand the fastest growing cities in the US are the low density
type: Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, etc. Cheap housing and easy growth, and new
vehicle technologies (hybrid, electric) are challenging the transit energy
advantage. Most cities have a hard time building new housing and becoming more
dense after a certain stage (SF) and a large proportion of the lower-class
workers starts to commute as they are priced out of their workplace.

[http://www.newgeography.com/content/003629-houston-rising-
wh...](http://www.newgeography.com/content/003629-houston-rising-why-next-
great-american-cities-aren-t-what-you-think)

The author has his biases, but offers a different perspective from the
mainstream.

------
ryguytilidie
To be fair, the perspective here is insanely skewed. Most of the people here
have moved to SF in the past 5 years or so and have this idea that the city
should basically rebuild itself to optimally accomodate the SF startup
community. However, much like everyone's hometown, people actually live here
and care about maintaining a bit of the culture. Deciding that because people
who have a lot of money and need housing right now are temporarily moving here
necessitates rebuilding an entire city with those peoples needs in mind and
basically not caring at all about current residents needs and wants seems
pretty silly and selfish honestly.

It seems like "improvement" is the modern code word for "build housing poor
people can't afford so we can get rid of the poor people"

------
rcirka
As others have mentioned, increasing units without increasing infrastructure
will only make things worse. NYC is great because of its transportation,
subways for intra-city and rail for the suburbs. Even then, NYC isn't perfect.
The middle class can't afford to live safety in NYC. It is polarized for the
rich-poor. Living in Manhattan is price-prohibitive, $2500+ for a decent one
bedroom. The bronx is mostly poor with a high crime-rate. Queens/Brooklyn are
polarized too. The middle class need to commute from the suburbs (NJ, upstate
NY, long island/CT), with commutes of 1 hour+ each way. Fortunately the rail
system can mostly handle it, but it is still a lot of time out of the day.

------
bluedino
> a height limit of 85 feet, or 8-story buildings, for > Mission Street,
> between 16th Street and Cesar Chavez > Street, in order to take advantage of
> Mission Street’s > high transit service, including BART and Muni line

Has the author ever tried to ride a bus down Mission street now? It takes like
45 minutes to go 8 blocks and you're packed in there like a sardine can.

Imagine if you made the buildings twice as tall you'd have to triple the
amount of buses. Which probably wouldn't help because with the current amount
of traffic you spend more time stopped than you do moving.

~~~
rayiner
That's more of a problem with the traffic management than the density. Mission
district has a density of only 25,000 per square mile.

------
mikk0j
There's tons of space to do this in without compromising the quality of the
city. Bayview and south from there, all the way to South San Francisco where
there is tons of undeveloped space, and where the combination of new large
developments with high-speed commuter rail (i.e. modern fast BART, with a
couple of branching lines - CalTrain is decades past prime) could end up being
cheaper and faster to build. It doesn't have to be the heart of the city, nor
does it have to be the suburban sprawl you commute to/from +2hrs per day. It
should be a menu of options.

------
ctdonath
A major problem with the high-density occupancy issue is the persistent
absolute insistence that every vertical structure end at a few hundred feet,
forcing everyone to ground level. Of course frequent forcing of a volumetric
problem to a planar solution will have congestion problem, and increasing the
range of the third dimension just makes moving from one building to another
worse.

To wit: stop limiting buildings to single-block dimensions. Span the roads,
not just with the occasional bridge, but by extending whole buildings.

------
crapshoot101
Yes. I love the bay area, but the idiocy of the city council when it comes to
building stuff is absurd ; especially when they then complain about a lack of
affordable housing.

------
eweise
Sort of funny how the article is about packing them in even tighter in SF and
the picture is of a bunch of empty hills behind the GG bridge.

~~~
harshaw
well it's not like you are going to put condos on the Marin headlands.

~~~
eweise
Yup. They're not because people fought back in the 60's to preserve large
amounts of land in Marin. Don't expect any different in SF. The existing
residents don't want more density and rightly so since it lowers their
standard of living. This article just seems like a bunch whining. If you can't
afford an apartment, just get a roommate.

------
dgbsco
This is true everywhere. We sacrifice quality of life for old world living.

