[quote=scottinob]You are being very very selfish and just downright mean bearishgurl. Your theory that “If you don’t build it, they won’t come” is simplistic and wrong. (Look at San Francisco, they stopped building and people didn’t stop coming.). . . [/quote]Actually, SF (city and county) had a stagnant (or even declining) population until it began permitting high-rise residential towers in certain (few) districts where the prior zoning (mostly commercial) would lend itself to this type of project (examples: Tenderloin, SoMA). Property owners in Districts which are high up and zoned 95% residential (save for a few mom-pop stores) actually “own” their view easements. Thus, nothing can be built to block their (panoramic) views. Other low-lying districts but situated oceanfront (ex: Richmond) or at the foot of the bridge and protected state parkland (ex: Presidio) are very strictly zoned 1-4 units per bldg, as are many other districts. In addition, much of the land in SF was set aside for parkland nearly 80-100 years ago and that will never change.
The (mostly public/private) partnerships formed during the recession (2007 thru 2011) to create more housing in SF in the form of infill high-rise towers were just getting off the ground then and these towers have been slowly coming online for available rental units since about 2013. The vast majority of these units are only suitable for a single or a roommate situation (2-3 people), are small in square footage and even have pull-down “murphy beds” and “kitchenettes” to save space during the day. A handful of (low and mid-rise) “luxury condo complexes” have also been built there in recent years in those districts (situated lower) which permitted them. These new condo complexes were built on one or more parcels which formerly had 1-4 unit bldgs on them. In other words, in long-zoned residential areas which permitted slight variances for these projects (if done tasteful enough to blend in with the District’s architecture and provided underground parking for its residents).
Any population increase which has occurred in the City of SF in recent years has resulted from the newer residential towers recently built. Sure, people “move there” every day. But the majority of them are moving into a unit which may be up to 100 years old which another tenant just moved out of. Or bought a flat, bldg or SFR to move into the unit which the owner just vacated (also up to 100 yrs old). That isn’t population increase. That is simply replacement and does not affect the population of the city.