What housing “filtering” can and can’t do

http://cityobservatory.org/what-filtering-can-and-cant-do/

by jseliger • 10 years ago

35 26 10 years ago

nedwin3• 10 years ago

Something I suspected was the case but hadn't heard the term - or seen any research on.

In SF the battle is over what will happen in the next 5 to 10 years. In that context it is politically dangerous to support market rate "luxury" housing. On a longer timeline this is the only thing that will make a serious dent.

Instead they are pushing for 25% of all developments to be affordable housing, which will retard the whole market and worsen the problem.

cassieramen• 10 years ago

As long as the absolute number of units in that 75% is large enough, it can still successfully kick start this filtering process.

Fascinating to see actual studies supporting what the free market is already pushing for, more luxury housing.

nedwin3• 10 years ago

More what I was trying to say is that we're focused on short term gains in affordable housing (the 25%) instead of maintaining our current 12% and focusing on total volume of new housing - whether it's luxury or not.

ubernostrum• 10 years ago

I would think the biggest concern is creating a twin bubble of tech startups and housing. Then when the tech bubble pops you get all the real-estate developers soaked by the sudden calamitous drop in the value of the housing units they put up (which assumed a steady supply of people moving in with six-figure incomes).

dbcurtis• 10 years ago

In the case of the Bay Area, where are these new homes for high income buyers supposed to go? There isn't a whole lot of green field space left to develop into new, high-end, homes, so that the old homes can filter down.

Silicon Valley, by-and-large, has always zoned for lots of cheap office space to keep light industrial rents cheap, in order to create jobs and reap the resulting tax revenue. But it has created an imbalance. Really, if you believe the thesis of this article, the only solution is to declare Sili Valley (and the peninsula) "full", or maybe even overflowing. Then rezone some industrial areas, bulldoze them, and build McMansions. Oh wait, industrial rents will go up and companies will move out or start elsewhere. It is hard to have it both ways.

eru2• 10 years ago

The solution is, of course, to build higher.

Eg even the plentiful office zoning could become even more plentiful by building higher.

The new homes for high income buyers could come as part of a tower where there was only a single home earlier.

Density, not McMansions. Rich people, by and large, seem happy enough to live in `luxury condos' stacked on top of each other. (Or at least enough rich people are happy to stack to drive demand.)

mjevans• 10 years ago

//Lots// (flood the market with) of luxury condos and apartments and hotels (for long, medium, and short duration living).

Extensive design validation, solid construction, not cutting corners to badly, generally actually build them to last.

Plan for maintenance to happen during the building's lifetime.

* Have a 'car/dog wash' area in...

* A parking garage with room to actually park cars for families.

* Actually acoustically isolate rooms (even within the same unit) for privacy.

* Design ventilation paths that route 'waste' air away from /all/ residence windows.

* If you aren't going to hard-ban smokers from occupying residence within the building, make sure that there are designated smoking areas on each floor. (A scrubbed exhaust room).

nedwin3• 10 years ago

If we fixed zoning/planning in SF at least you could build new homes / apartments on lots that already have buildings on them. You don't need greenfield space.

More relaxed zoning, including things like the density bonus, could mean turning lots that have 1, 2 or 3 residencies on them into 10++ units.

burfog• 10 years ago

San Francisco owns a big chunk of the bay. They could fill it in. With proper construction, earthquake-induced ground liquification is of no concern. (build like a boat)

If you really want "green field" space, of course there is that too. Golden Gate Park is huge. The Presido is huge.

twelvechairs4• 10 years ago

The real solution for SF of course is that anything within walking distance of shops should be built at > 20 storeys (or so). And 60% of the increase of value derived from this should be captured by government to build public transport, improve streets and parks, etc. to handle the increased density.

ceras5• 10 years ago

20 stories is what a lot of SF residents fear from new construction. "Manhattanization" was a big fear there.

As a political compromise, consider low-rise (~5-7 story) buildings. This is what most of Paris and some of the trendiest Manhattan neighborhoods (West Village, East Village) have, and it feels nothing like what people picture when they think of densities at 80k+ people per sq. mile.

I agree mid- and high-rise buildings are best for transit and commercial hubs, but low-rise in all other walkable areas is sufficient to make a huge difference in SF with less dramatic change in character, sunlight, etc--the usual NIMBY concerns.

stale2002• 10 years ago

What if they picked one small, area, perhaps somewhere in SoMA, and built all the skyscrapers there and not anywhere else? That way the buildings are all centralized and nobody gets gentrified.

techdragon2• 10 years ago

Political compromise is what lead to the mess as it is today. Constantly compromising with residents has lead to a ridiculous situation where there has become a false notion that "they don't have to change".

SF changed already, it changed in ways to find coping mechanisms to deal with the damage being done to its future. The entire city of SF cannot continue to be the tech hub of the world and composed of (excuse my hyperbole I don't have accurate statistics on hand) 90% comprised of historical property that cannot be torn down or changed ever in any way.

mc32• 10 years ago

Exactly this but not only in SF "commercial areas", all along BART and Caltrain and VTA stations. They do it a little at some stations but they need much more density and radius. The 20 min walk radius from the stations should encourage 5-18 (give or take) floor mixed use but mostly residential buildings.

jmspring• 10 years ago

The discussion on "if SF (or wherever) didn't have X, we could..." is amusing. Communities have building regulations for a reason. Despite all the towers going in in SF around SOMA/etc., you can still venture out to the pan handle, the haight, etc. and find houses and neighborhoods that aren't high rises.

Here is Santa Cruz, we have progressives that tell us that we must accommodate every tom, dick, harry, and jane that wants to live here whether or not they can afford to do so. Bullshit.

Companies building and hoping to scale in an area need to take the cost of living, availability of housing, and how that impacts attracting talent into consideration. They shouldn't suddenly demand that blocks of 5 story buildings be replaced with 20+ story buildings.

As a bay area native, what people desiring to live in SF and what they have to pay amuses me. Yes, there is a direct impact on job growth and housing demand, but rather than insisting that a community change and build such housing, maybe the businesses wanting to grow, expand, and hire in said city should fund the development of said housing -- even if it is outside the location of the office. We already have "corporate buses", why not bring back company towns and corporate housing?

Or, maybe, rather than requiring people on-site full time, think about fostering distributed teams.

It's amazing how many companies refuse to even allow a modicum of "work at home" in this day and age. Any engineer is likely to get contacted by recruiters from some of the big bay area companies. Shuttle buses are better than driving solo, but you are still sitting going from point A to point B for 45-60min each way, plus your work day.

techdragon2• 10 years ago

In most functional urban centres there is a balance between commercial and residential tenancy which leads to a "virtuous cycle" where by the growth of one supports the growth of the other, both are allowed to grow and they both contribute to the revenue of the region though appropriate municipal/state government systems such as taxes and fees for essential services.

SF got all kinds of broken by trying to have one without the other... How would increasing the burden on commercial residents help the situation in any way other than reducing demand by driving them away?

Remote work is a possibility I think it's more of a long term cultural shift that is unlikely to solve the current problems without resorting to regulations enforcing remote work. Regulations which would be shifting the burden to commercial residents and relevant that would just be

porterde• 10 years ago

London just "filters" lower incomes out completely...

What housing “filtering” can and can’t do

Related Stories