[quote=Myriad][quote=bearishgurl]
We just had a new poster post on this thread last night (scottinob) who believes, as a millenial, that he should be able to buy or rent in the area where he grew up in. Essentially, he feels he should be able to live near extended family.
[end of rant][/quote]
Scott’s quote said he “would like” to stay near family. No where does he say he expects or should.
I think Scott makes a valid point about SF. Just because no new housing is built doesn’t mean people don’t move in. Prices just go up for long time residents, locals, seniors, new residents, etc.
Then people want rent control which is entirely the wrong answer. The correct answer is to build more supply.
It probably won’t be SFR, but it makes sense to build more dense multi-family with good mass transit options. Just look at Asia, where many shopping areas, and restaurants, have residential mixed in.
The problem with not doing anything is that eventually prices become extremely expensive for both renters and owners, and traffic becomes terrible. So yeah, people that are still here have their homes, but the overall society is worse.[/quote]Myriad, SF still has rent control in a handful of districts. Those affected tenants haven’t seen any significant rent increases (or any at all) in decades. Some for ~25 years. Only when a building is sold does the new owner have the option of retaining the rent control and retaining the existing tenants and is often tasked with the lengthy and laborious process of offering “buyouts” to existing holdout tenants to compel them to vacate if they want possession of all of the bldg for themselves (to convert to an SFR or remodel it for market-rate tenants and perhaps occupy one unit themselves). Rent-controlled tenants have more stringent protections than do market-rate tenants under their municipal code.
SF isn’t meant to house the masses. It is an “exclusive collection of rocks” unto itself. There is no other place on earth just like it and certainly no other city compares to it in the US. Those who can’t afford to live there (or didn’t get in early under rent control and never moved) don’t typically move there.
Scott posted that SF was “growing.” It’s only grown marginally in the past few years due to high-rise multifamily projects built as infill in the low-lying districts which permitted them. Aside from those new projects which created a few thousand units, SF’s population has been stagnant and is not affected by ordinary replacements (move-ins to replace move-outs). Because SF’s dwellings are just 6″ to 4 feet apart in many districts, there are a LOT of homeowners and residents who must be informed if a small spec developer even wants to obtain permits to gut remodel ONE or TWO bldgs (on adjacent parcels). This time-consuming procedure of getting homeowner input and going through multiple public hearings to listen to community testimony could increase the permit time from 1.5 years to as much as 4 years for a typical 1-4 unit dwelling. Completing the permitting process for a high-rise residential project in SF could take up to 15 yrs, depending on the amount of surrounding neighbors, the district and what is proposed to be built.
Asia (China?) has many grossly OVERbuilt cities and its planning was virtually non-existent with horrific consequences … including fouling their own air to the point that city residents and workers wear face masks just to walk to/from work to the train and do their errands. Even today, there are many towers in Chinese cities which have only been framed in metal and are still sitting there unfinished after breaking ground over a dozen years ago. Cities in China, in particular are NOT good examples for US cities to follow. They have permanently ruined their own quality of life for their citizens in the name of creating massive industry … which they consider “progress.”
OTOH, San Franciscans, like longtime residents of many other CA coastal communities, don’t want more density in their districts. And rightly so. There is already limited street parking on a street full of typical 3-4 unit dwellings there. The streets are too steep and the lots too narrow, in many cases, to build parking garages under the living units. SF’s residents who have been living there for decades like it the way it is. There are good reasons why homeowners who own properties situated in higher-up districts have overhead easements to protect their views and thus mid-rise and high-rise buildings will never be allowed there.
I’m grateful to SF past and present leadership who have elected to preserve their districts and parkland in keeping with each of their unique architectural styles, local ambiance and open spaces. I don’t think we’ll see that city sell out to Big Development anytime soon … and very likely never.
