
San Francisco Is Eating Itself - timr
http://alexcastle.net/2014/01/17/san-francisco-is-eating-itself/
======
onedev
Do I complain about not being able to afford living in Manhattan? No. It's
historically one of the most important areas in one of the most important
cities in the world.

In the same way, why are people constantly complaining about not being able to
afford living in San Francisco? It's one of the hottest cities on the planet
right now. I don't get where this entitlement is coming from that people feel
that they SHOULD be able to live there without paying the price?

I'm not saying there aren't real societal issues in San Francisco, but I think
the entitlement from the people who can't afford to live there doesn't make
sense to me.

Yes, we should try to make San Fran affordable as possible. Yes, more housing
should be built, etc, etc. However, the entitled way in which the less
fortunate approach this situation is what baffles me.

~~~
lolwutf
You used the word 'important' for 'expensive'. That, in my opinion, is a
fallacy.

It is expensive. That's different from important.

~~~
onedev
But don't you agree that the reason an area would increase in value (which
often converts to the monetary type) to a lot of people is because it holds
some sort of importance to them?

Whether it be intellectual importance, industrial importance, creative
importance, etc

~~~
lolwutf
To wrap the varied values of an area up into a single word - 'importance' \-
is a gross oversimplification to the extent that it can even be considered
incorrect.

It is, however, and undeniably, expensive.

------
buro9
As an outsider (London, UK based) I keep wondering why SF isn't building
skywards?

By which, rent prices reflect supply and demand (and some other things, but
mostly basic supply and demand), there is water on three sides and a park to
the South.

The only thing to relieve pressure on prices will be more floor space for
residential, and the only space for that is above the existing floor space.

For a long while there will be a lot of profit in supplying the additional
demand, so I don't get why profiteering by developers hasn't led to enormous
swathes of existing housing being knocked down and 8+ story buildings being
laid in their place. And if this is happening, why it doesn't happen at a far
more rapid pace.

Is there something preventing developers from doing this?

Are there local NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard!) groups who resist the building of
additional residential units?

Are there city disincentives to doing this?

Or is this more a case of waiting for the "big one" and starting over when
that happens?

To an outsider, can the question be answered: Why not build up?

~~~
potatolicious
Because San Francisco _greatly_ perceives itself, and desperately wants to
remain, as a small friendly hamlet of sorts. It wants to have its cake and eat
it too: the prestige and economy of a world city, and the friendliness and
pleasantness of a small town.

Because also San Francisco perceives itself as radical - this is true both in
SF tech and outside of it - and perceives mass urbanization as symptom of all
that is stodgy, traditional, and old (see: Chicago, New York City, London,
etc).

"Manhattanization" is a pejorative with no defense in the city - "being like
New York" is anathema to a large number of people, and suggesting that SF
should be like other skyward cities is immediately painting a giant bulls-eye
on your own head and a guarantee that you'll never be a meaningful participant
in civic discourse.

In simple words, SF hates skyward-building because its worst fear is becoming
New York City.

To answer your questions more directly:

\- The city government, in response to voter demand, opposes most development
outside of the downtown core, where there are actually plenty of tall
buildings (almost entirely commercial). As a (shitty) compromise they've
marked out a section of previously underdeveloped light industry just south of
downtown for active development. This is where most of the action is. It's
also not connected to mass transit, and there's currently an expensive project
underway to build a brand new subway line to connect this area of town. This,
despite other parts of SF being underdeveloped and _already_ accessible to
transit.

\- The population of San Francisco, and this includes the techies, loudly
opposes dense developments. San Francisco is well known for its picturesque
neighborhoods of colorful old Victorian houses. The long-time residents are
loathe to see this disappear in favor of mid-rises or high-rises, and the
wealthy newcomers are loathe to lose what is an aesthetic gain. Neither side
seems willing to admit that the price of their aesthetic preference comes
directly out of their pocket book. Proposals to knock these houses down in
favor of denser housing are opposed across the board and across the wealth
spectrum.

All of this is official policy: [http://www.sf-
planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/index.htm](http://www.sf-
planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/index.htm) \- specifically this one: "That
existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in
order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods;"

~~~
buro9
But yet there are great examples of cities that allow building, have increased
the heights of buildings, and maintain the character of the city. Paris
springs to mind, as does Edinburgh.

So long as "character" isn't defined as "3 stories", it should be possible to
build to 6 stories whilst maintaining façades, retail space, etc and yet
doubling available space and improving the standard of housing that exists (oh
man, that dodgy wiring in every place in Mission I've ever stayed).

Do the residents realise the connection between scarcity and price, and that
they are able to do something about it?

From the stuff that appears on here, it seems that there is a lot of anger
against large companies but little reflection that the root imbalance in
supply is caused by policies set by the population (or at least, in their
name).

~~~
timr
_" Do the residents realise the connection between scarcity and price, and
that they are able to do something about it?"_

There's some truth to the parent comment (I've said parts of it myself), but
it's also misleading. Yes, the city could stand to build up in places, but the
people in the tech world are also _totally delusional_ when it comes to
choosing where to live and work. Everyone is trying to cram into the same
three hipster neighborhoods, and ignoring all of the cheaper parts of town.
Price sensitivity is almost completely absent.

Notably, when people here talk about "bungalows" and "three-story buildings",
what they're really talking about is the western half of the city (the part
west of Mount Sutro). It's true that those neighborhoods are really low
density, but it's also true that rents there are _already much lower_ than in
SOMA or the Mission. You can move to the Richmond and save hundreds of dollars
a month in rent, but nobody wants to do that.

There are good reasons for all of this, of course (transit, weather, etc.),
but the point is that it isn't just "zoning laws" that are causing prices to
spike here. There's good deal of irrationality on the demand side, too. You'd
be surprised at the number of tech people who have _never even visited_
neighborhoods like West Portal, even though they're on major transit lines. If
it's not hip in San Francisco, it doesn't exist.

~~~
malandrew

        "Everyone is trying to cram into the same three hipster 
        neighborhoods, and ignoring all of the cheaper parts of 
        town."
    

Those three hipster neighborhoods are probably the way they are because of
their great access to public transit not only for traveling within the city
but getting out of it via BART. No one ones to move to SF and live in a
neighborhood with a suburban lifestyle that requires a car to maximize life's
experiences.

Living in places like the Richmond and the Sunset for example are more
isolating than living in Oakland. Living at the top of most of San Francisco's
hills is relatively isolating as well. Furthermore, hills aren't conducive to
human-powered transportation like biking and skateboarding. Being able to
quickly move around via the power of your own two feet via walking, pedaling
or pushing is one of the draws of all cities. Every relatively flat
neighborhood with great transportation is destined to gentrify.

If you put a BART line under the Geary and California bus routes, all the
neighborhoods in the far west would "hipsterfy" as well

~~~
timr
Yes, as I said, there are reasons that these neighborhoods are popular.
Another reason is the weather: the Mission and SOMA tend to be sunnier than
the rest of the city. These features, in a rational world, demand a certain
price premium. But the outer neighborhoods have nice features, too (e.g. they
have less filth and crime, and more nature), so there's a trade-off.

That said, complaints about being "isolated" in the Sunset is mostly a lot of
butthurt. The entire city of San Francisco is _seven miles wide_. There is
literally _no part_ of this city that could be considered "isolated", unless
your definition of "the city" begins and ends in the Mission. And I say that
as someone who lives without a car -- there are rail lines that run to the
Sunset, West Portal, Glen Park, Ocean View and so on. You're maybe 30 minutes
away from downtown, at most. Still, ask a 20-something coder to consider
living in the Inner Sunset, and you'd think you'd asked him to move to North
Dakota.

No, the real problem is that most of the people flooding into SF are wealthy
20-somethings who will pay _nearly any price_ to live right in the middle of
the hippest entertainment districts in the city. They don't want to live near
icky married people and children, they don't want to travel more than ten
minutes to meet their friends for a drink, and they _definitely_ don't want to
go up or down any hills to get anywhere. There are basically two neighborhoods
in the city that meet these constraints, and in both, rents are skyrocketing.

------
asveikau
What I dislike the most about the anti-techie rhetoric is how they seem to
think every 22 year old kid who takes an offer from Google is basically a
clone of Larry Ellison. This group may have a wage above the average but is
still middle class. That guy's boss's boss's boss's boss is who they should be
more worried about. (But he probably lives in the south bay.)

Then again, I was walking around SoMa with my family one day not too long ago
and found myself stuck on the sidewalk in a large crowd of fratboy types who
might as well have been straight out of the caricatures in a bunch of these
articles... They were talking about working in the south bay and speculating
on real estate. Really annoying kids. I get irritated too.

------
ryanobjc
I find it interesting how the SF's rent control seems to not be well
understood by many.

For example, people quote the ellis act as a frequent way in which people are
evicted, and hold it up as proof that long time renters have no security.

But that's not exactly 100% of the truth. Sure Ellis act can be used to do a
owner-move-in (for a new owner of a rented house for example), and in theory
can be used for condo conversion, BUT San Francisco strictly regulates condo
conversions. Specifically buildings with > 6 units cannot be converted to
condos:

[http://www.andysirkin.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=2](http://www.andysirkin.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=2)

Which means that, for all intents and purposes, renters in a larger building,
are just as secure as any property owner.

There are guys in my building who have lived here since the moon landing. One
was telling me he had to buy a black-and-white TV to watch it! In our
building!

Amazing history here in SF.

~~~
dnr
No, not really. Buildings larger than six units can still be Ellis-ed and
turned into TICs. Even if those TICs can never convert to condos, it's still
often profitable to do that.

(Btw, owner-move-in evictions have nothing to do with the Ellis Act. Separate
laws.)

------
Tossrock
" I don’t have any answers to how to make it better. I’m not even sure it can
be made better. "

Sorry, but isn't the answer just to change the zoning laws preventing
residential buildings over 3 stories from being built in most neighborhoods?
This seems pretty straightforward.

~~~
dredmorbius
There are ultimately other constraints on density. For California, as with
much of the West, water is an ultimate limit. Though the argument that San
Francisco cannot increase housing densities on account of water access is ...
even in this drought year ... likely invalid. Largely as the housing _is_
being constructed elsewhere within the same larger watershed.

There are other constraints. San Francisco traffic, parking, and transit are
all fairly strained as it is, particularly in the the denser core of the City
(downtown, SOMA, Mission). Access from the outer neighborhoods to the core can
be as long or longer than suburban commutes, though bicycles offer a pretty
good year-round alternative.

For San Francisco, biting the bullet and allowing additional housing to be
built, yes, even housing that is primarily marketed to the nouveau riche and
upscale, would likely relieve much of the pressure for the rest of the
community.

Another solution, of course, would be to provide more housing and more
attractive housing throughout the rest of the region. As Geoffrey Nunberg
recently commented icily, Palo Alto is a wonderful place to raise a car (and
PA is positively urban compared to much of the greater, or should I say,
worser, Silicon Valley). While much of SF is limited to heights of 3 stories,
the Valley is, with very, very few scattered exceptions, one. Accepting that
it is in fact part of a larger megapolis and acting like it would be a net
benefit.

Too would be for employers to locate to other locations accessible via
transit. Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, and other stops along BART have the
benefit of a commute system with high levels of service and a broad collection
region. And yet the bulk of tech jobs continue to be located either along the
101 corridor (a hellhole), in the South Bay, or, increasingly, in San
Francisco. With the exception of the last, transit is a barely viable option,
and even within SF, unless you're in the dense cores (again: downtown, SOMA,
Mission), access to what transit there _is_ down the Peninsula is highly
limited. The dedicated company shuttles are an extremely appropriate response
to the situation, and the outrage against them wholly misplaced.

Is this a bubble? Probably. Are some of the new arrivals annoying and socially
maladroit? Quite. Does that change any of my commentary? No.

San Francisco isn't the only region faced with high housing costs: New York,
London, and Mumbai all have similar (and arguably worse) challenges. There are
many parts of the world, and numerous of those within the US, which would love
to have these problems. Addressing the situation rationally, unfortunately,
seems difficult to impossible, and sadly many of the tantrum-throwing children
(on all sides of the issue) draw the most attention. Shame on the media for
that.

------
lambdaphage
I'm pretty confused about how shuttle buses became the preferred metonymy for
corporate evil. As if replacing each bus with twenty cars would make SF a
better place for anyone?

~~~
patio11
My theory for this is that Google is essentially a functioning welfare state
which is geographically co-located with a dysfunctioning welfare state. If it
weren't the Google bus it would be the Google food kitchens, the Google social
insurance, the Google healthcare, the Google subsidized apartments, the Google
free education, etc etc.

Nothing so frustrating to hear that your dream polity has been realized in
your town and you're not invited.

~~~
ahomescu1
I'm not sure I'd call Google a "welfare state". They're not really tolerant of
slackers, if you stop pulling your weight then you're out in the street.

~~~
patio11
Among the type of people who think "'welfare state' describes the kind of
society I wish to live in", welfare state does not mean "we pay people to be
slackers", it means "we have fairly robust systems for preventing the vagaries
of life from materially impacting our citizens."

n.b. Not to infringe upon the HN politics rule but, for avoidance of doubt,
the above does not describe my personal politics.

------
cllns
> It is a free country, right? People are still free to live anywhere they can
> pay the rent, right?

That's true, if you're white.

[http://www.propublica.org/series/living-
apart](http://www.propublica.org/series/living-apart)

[http://www.urban.org/publications/410821.html](http://www.urban.org/publications/410821.html)

------
mooreds
Cached version for those who are getting a database connection error:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:S1lWjQ6...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:S1lWjQ6p8wQJ:alexcastle.net/2014/01/17/san-
francisco-is-eating-itself/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

------
ps4fanboy
As a foreigner rent control seems like a bizarre concept in a capitalist
country even more bizarre that its america.

------
Semiapies
Maybe tech companies don't have to live in overpriced, overhyped coastal
cities.

~~~
lolwutf
Fun fact: San Francisco is one of the few places where it's cheaper to live
near the ocean, than it is to live inland!

That is, 'coastal' is irrelevant to your point.

~~~
Semiapies
Not going by any of the prices I can find for San Fran.

~~~
bmelton
[http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/San_Francisco,CA/37.719154916...](http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/San_Francisco,CA/37.719154916262774,37.78823846382069,-122.5297457519531,-122.38640850219724_xy/13_zm/map_v/)

Looking at that, the adage seems to hold true -- prices appear to fall off as
you radiate away from the heart of the city. There's even a 1BR/1BA near the
ocean by the USS San Francisco Memorial for $425k.

~~~
Semiapies
So we're pretending moving a few miles inland is not living on the two major
US coasts.

~~~
lolwutf
Based on the urban layout and population distribution within the city, yes,
those are two distinct regions.

------
blazespin
" They’re just individual people that learned a very _boring_ but high-paying
skill," Wait, what?

~~~
ahomescu1
Programming probably seems boring to the author; it's sad he/she generalizes
like this (the article link didn't work for me, so I don't know who wrote it).

~~~
peferron
From the sidebar: "ALEX CASTLE is a writer, musician, filmmaker, editor,
husband, father, and hand model based in Brooklyn."

Given his profile I'm not suprised he's not interested in programming, but the
jump to suggesting that the activity itself is inherently boring is hilarious.

------
imsofuture
This whole debate sounds as if they'd just invented gentrification. I'm having
a hard time mustering outrage for anyone involved.

------
aspensmonster
And now we are at #111 on page four. Slow clap.

------
calcsam
1400 for a 2br in Glen Park? Good luck getting that for 2000 today...

~~~
raldi
Glen Park doesn't really _have_ apartments; 99% of its residential buildings
are houses.

If someone's advertising an apartment as "Glen Park" it's almost certainly
going to turn out to actually be in Sunnyside or Diamond Heights.

