San Francisco zoning: Needs more density and tall buildings

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/11/san_francisco_zoning_needs_more_density_and_tall_buildings.html

by brown9-2 • 13 years ago

67 93 13 years ago

hack_edu2• 13 years ago

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...

asdfdsa12343• 13 years ago

Can you explain why the city getting more tax revenue and its demographics becoming more affluent are a problem for it to keep up with?

bradleyjg2• 13 years ago

Rich people tend to be more effective NIMBY-ites.

hack_edu2• 13 years ago

I won't admit to being an expert, but public policy is a balancing act that doesn't seem to be keeping pace with the residential and business demographic shifts. Giuliani did an impecable job at it in New York, but its hard to see how his plans could be applied in such a different city and context.

rayiner12• 13 years ago

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.

wilfra2• 13 years ago

A lot of people like San Francisco the way it is. Razing half the city and building skyscrapers is their worst nightmare. Especially if doing so would just be a way to temporarily house more tech workers in the middle of what may be another bubble.

After people flooded the city and drove up rents during the dot com boom and then fled the city when the bubble burst, real San Franciscans were still there. And if it happens again, they'll still be there afterward. And in 50 or 100 years, they and their families will still be there. How many coders working at startups in the city today can say the same? Who do you think should have more say in the future of the city? Those who care deeply about it's past, present and future - or those who are only looking out for their own short and medium term housing needs?

The old guard - who have the power - wont allow your suggestion to happen in our lifetime. The best you can hope for is slow, methodical babysteps in that direction.

rdouble3• 13 years ago

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.

rdl5• 13 years ago

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.

joeblau• 13 years ago

I was in a cab of someone that has lived in SF for 30+ years and he said that's how the TL got like that. People got displaced fromt their respective neighborhoods and all ended up there.

That area is prime real estate though. It's crazy to think that it's adjacent to down town.

rdl5• 13 years ago

The issue is the SROs, which are legally protected as housing for the semi-homeless/insane.

I don't think there's an inherent right/need for people to live in a specific area of the city. I'd far prefer to see the land used for market-rate developments and then some of the profits taken as fees to fund programs to de-fuck these people somewhere else.

cmbaus• 13 years ago

I wouldn't call the Richmond suburban. Given better transit on Geary, which has been planned for something like 50 years, the area could support a lot more housing. Similar areas in Brooklyn are being Zoned for 15 story buildings. I don't see why Geary couldn't be zoned similarly.

tomsaffell2• 13 years ago

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.

rdl5• 13 years ago

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.

juiceandjuice2• 13 years ago

The Geary and California lines have upwards of 80,000 riders a day. It's absolutely insane. There's a lot of plans for Geary BRT, but really it seems like they should have done something about a subway for Geary. Geary itself is the most ridden muni line, rail or bus, in SF.

If you captured most of those riders for a subway (which should have been done instead of this central subway mess) that patched into the current MUNI system, that line alone would be the 8th most ridden light rail system in the US, and put SF to the top of light rail usage in the US.

CarlosT• 13 years ago

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...

raverbashing4• 13 years ago

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.

minimax• 13 years ago

"Why more density? What will that accomplish?"

The general idea is that more housing supply should drive the cost of housing down.

jkubicek• 13 years ago

Is there any evidence this wouldn't be temporary? I don't know of any US cities with high density cheap housing.

ajross4• 13 years ago

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.

sageikosa• 13 years ago

> The idea that "density" is "miserable" is a uniquely post-war american one.

Right, once Americans were able to afford cars and could physically remove themselves from urban density, they did, and it became part of the "American Dream". More so on the East Coast, where farm-land for development was cheap and relatively accessible to urban centers of business. On the West Coast where cities are either crammed between mountains and coast, or stuck in the middle of a desert, owning property required paying the higher prices driven by high demand and little supply.

> It really doesn't work that way.

It works that way for anyone who doesn't want to live in dense urban environments.

raverbashing4• 13 years ago

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...

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.

bradleyjg2• 13 years ago

If you like the medium size, medium density city experience why don't you move instead of blocking progress? The US has lots of cities like that, and only one large, high density city. We could desperately use a few more.

spenrose2• 13 years ago

It would accomplish a huge amount. Density makes us richer and smarter: http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_o...

... and it is our best hope against climate change: http://www.alexsteffen.com/carbon-zero-2/

rayiner12• 13 years ago

Density can be miserable, but San Francisco is far away from the levels at which it becomes miserable. Midtown Manhattan is probably approaching 100,000 people per square mile, but it seems much denser than that because Manhattan more than doubles in size during the day so the daytime density is probably approaching 200,000 people per square mile (for reference, china town in SF has a nighttime density of 75,000 per square mile).

100,000 per square mile is not at all miserably crowded. I was working here right after Hurricane Sandy when all the commuters were staying home, and it was not crowded at all. My neighborhood in Chicago, which is probably around 50,000 nighttime density, feels positively empty on the weekends.

You could double the density of most parts of San Francisco and still not even be approaching "uncomfortably dense" (that would take the CBD to ~100,000 and areas like the mission to ~50,000).

geogra42• 13 years ago

Agree completely. Density can be wonderful (see paris) or miserable (see kowloon walled city)

Like anything else, it just has to be done well.

freehunter• 13 years ago

Does it make sense to scale horizontally just because you have extra space in the next rack over? Or maybe the servers in the other rack need room to breathe and cool themselves, so scaling vertically might make sense for the servers that can handle it.

Doesn't it make sense to keep cities confined to relatively small areas? It helps eliminate the need to travel long distances, waiting in traffic jams.

lubujackson• 13 years ago

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.

iamwil• 13 years ago

I came in to say your second point. For a given area, people often complain about parking, and jump to having more parking structures as a solution. But when you have more parking structures, you'll need wider roads.

rayiner12• 13 years ago

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.

juiceandjuice2• 13 years ago

The tenderloin is 72,000 sq/mi.

kansface• 13 years ago

Renters rights play a comparatively small role in limiting supply. Last year, the city built something like 400 new units and removed something like 200. IE, the city could only accommodate something like 400 new residents last year. More than that number moved into the city. Quite a few of the new residents are also paid 6 figure salaries.

rdouble3• 13 years ago

People compare the densities of SF and Manhattan because SF is the 2nd densest city outside of New York.

eweise2• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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

eweise2• 13 years ago

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.

jamespitts5• 13 years ago

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.

rayiner12• 13 years ago

> 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• 13 years ago

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

scarmig• 13 years ago

I agree, but I wonder if you explain the lack of density as because of the municipal zoning boards or as because of the people deciding.

dbrian• 13 years ago

Aren't the zoning boards appointed by elected officials?

jamespitts5• 13 years ago

Yes, and it isn't just zoning boards. The planning process on all levels is often skewed toward following strong "visionaries", benefitting large real estate developers, and mollifying certain interest groups. These factors silence a lot of peoples' concerns. Look at what happened in the 1960s in just about every big city.

Worse, deeper thoughts about the future of "the city" and what projects make sense for the greater community to invest in are both crowded out.

This is happening on a smaller scale where I am right now in Ann Arbor. In our case, density is briskly proceeding downtown without enough thought toward things that people living downtown need such as parks and social services for the homeless.

temp453463343• 13 years ago

"America needs more dense cities like NYC, for economic, national-strategic, and environmental reasons. "

Not sure what you mean by national-strategic, but sure cramming people in like sardines makes it easier to make things efficient - but it's very realistic to make less dense populations efficient/sustainable too. Urban developement isn't some kind of ecological optimization problem. There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the community and the nation as a whole, cultural value generated etc.

The culture and appeal of SF are contingent on it staying small.

jamespitts5• 13 years ago

Well I think that the United States will simply be eclipsed on the world stage if it does not develop more mega-cities.

However, I am not saying that we should promote massive growth of concentrated centers without addressing the social, psy, and enviro impact! Because the purpose of a great city is not to build buildings but to create the best conditions for people to cooperate and concentrate their efforts.

Also, I am not saying that a place like San Fran has to or even should make the sacrifice. Because going big is a huge sacrifice that destroys a lot of wonderful things.

So, as a former resident of LA: "I choose Los Angeles to be sacrificed for the betterment of the nation" LOL.

jamespitts5• 13 years ago

I do sometimes wonder if mega-cities are no longer necessary due to tech advances, and whether medium-dense places (not sure if this is the right term) like San Fran are actually ideal.

afreak• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

spenrose2• 13 years ago

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/

bluedino• 13 years ago

> 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.

rayiner12• 13 years ago

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.

milesskorpen• 13 years ago

... or build more BART stations & increase the number of trains. More density == more resources for infrastructure improvements.

That said, as SF gets more expensive the Peninsula will slowly become more attractive, and I suppose things will work themselves out.

crapshoot101• 13 years ago

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.

dgbsco• 13 years ago

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

amitparikh• 13 years ago

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_...).

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...) 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.

brown9-2• 13 years ago

He has also written a book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO...

rayiner12• 13 years ago

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.

ctdonath• 13 years ago

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.

mikk0j2• 13 years ago

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.

superbeefy• 13 years ago

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.

Androsynth2• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

Androsynth2• 13 years ago

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

exue• 13 years ago

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...

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

rcirka• 13 years ago

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.

ryguytilidie• 13 years ago

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"

San Francisco zoning: Needs more density and tall buildings

Related Stories