I lived from San Francisco from 06-08, so this issue is close to me personally. I’d argue that NIMBYism was and has been the biggest problem within California, and the Bay Area ramps that up due...
I lived from San Francisco from 06-08, so this issue is close to me personally. I’d argue that NIMBYism was and has been the biggest problem within California, and the Bay Area ramps that up due to the geographical constraints of the bay. I remember when I lived there there was a law that said that apartment buildings couldn’t be larger than ~5 stories. The argument was that the residents didn’t want the city to become the next Manhattan and lose its “charm.” Of course we all knew it was just landowners who wanted to keep their home values sky high. There is a solution that would relieve a lot of their issues: build higher, don’t listen to NIMBY groups, and probably the most controversial take — strip city councils of their right to make laws prohibiting residential buildings ( oftentimes city council members in California have houses and are super corrupt).
It was interesting to live there when the iPhone came out, because there was always talk about how big tech workers were driving up costs, but then it got even more exasperated when the App Store came out and more mobile-oriented companies set up shop.
I hope the NIMBY groups lose their influence and the state government overrides city governments to get residential buildings built, and have the commercial real estate converted into residential apartments, those two things I’ll help San Francisco recover. It was such a great city with amazing people and a great culture.
Those factors may impact QOL in SF, but it doesn't impact this much at all, it would seem. SF population is down maybe ~8%, but the metropolitan area is unchanged. SF housing is greater than or...
Those factors may impact QOL in SF, but it doesn't impact this much at all, it would seem.
SF population is down maybe ~8%, but the metropolitan area is unchanged.
SF housing is greater than or equal to what it was.
Jobs in the SF Metro area have increased.
If the housing increased faster or the crime was better handled, SF could grow, but the decline isn't explained by lack of new housing or people leaving the city because of the conditions.
Shh. The solution is always build up without any consideration to upgrading infrastructure and public services to accommodate denser populations. "If you build it, they will come" is the mentality...
Shh. The solution is always build up without any consideration to upgrading infrastructure and public services to accommodate denser populations. "If you build it, they will come" is the mentality of any progressive forum.
I'm sure the above commenters (and many progressives) would agree with expanding infrastructure and public services. That is an obvious extension of housing development (i.e. transit-oriented...
I'm sure the above commenters (and many progressives) would agree with expanding infrastructure and public services. That is an obvious extension of housing development (i.e. transit-oriented development). I'd be surprised to find a progressive against this and am curious where you encountered them?
My old local city subreddit was full of them. Our housing crisis is particularly bad. Southern California, huge demand, pay not raising to match. It was full of Builder propaganda. Slap a high...
My old local city subreddit was full of them. Our housing crisis is particularly bad. Southern California, huge demand, pay not raising to match.
It was full of Builder propaganda. Slap a high density building in the middle of single family neighborhoods. Anyone who objected was buried as a NIMBY. Any question on how the street/parking/sewer/electric would support such reckless rezoning was dismissed by a hand wave of "roundabouts and a culture change to biking will solve everything"
Edit - to clarify, you are right that they would also turn to public transit as a solution to "fix" the problems that would arise from throwing high density housing everywhere.
My point is that none of those solutions are ever even half baked when talks of approving/protesting actual proposals to rezoning to high density housing.
That's where the tongue in cheek "if you build it, they will come" quote comes from. Dont think ahead. Build now, create a huge mess with zero plans up front, and stitch together a reactionary fix after the inevitable massive clusterfuck is reality.
Ah, so you are just repeating NIMBY talking points. Got it. No one is actually opposing the needed infrastructure improvements, but the need for infrastructure improvements should not be used to...
Ah, so you are just repeating NIMBY talking points. Got it.
No one is actually opposing the needed infrastructure improvements, but the need for infrastructure improvements should not be used to block development indefinitely.
You haven't actually provided any examples of the bad effects of what you claim to be worried about. Developers generally want their buildings to be connected to electric and sewer lines, so...
You haven't actually provided any examples of the bad effects of what you claim to be worried about. Developers generally want their buildings to be connected to electric and sewer lines, so they're going to ensure they can be connected.
Complaining about "reckless zoning" is just a NIMBY dogwhistle. You're not "doing city planning", you're just opposing development.
In my comment I should have talked about upgrading infrastructure as it is indeed and natural part of expanding housing, then you for mentioning that. To be as charitable as possible, maybe the...
In my comment I should have talked about upgrading infrastructure as it is indeed and natural part of expanding housing, then you for mentioning that. To be as charitable as possible, maybe the posters are confused with typical NIMBYs they’ve interacted with. Many NIMBY group members see themselves as progressive socially, but are misguided when it comes to expansion. San Francisco has the foundation with some decent infrastructure ( the Bart, which is their subway, bus lines, and even their cable cars). I’d argue that they’re better off than 80% off the other big cities, with obviously not coming close to New York or other east coast cities. I think the hurdles I mentioned would naturally lend themselves to infrastructure expansion. When I lived in San Francisco I didn’t have a car for about 6 months and I was able to manage to get around as needed very easily. I tried to same in Austin Texas, Salt Lake City, and Kansas City with a lot worse results.
I think by stripping NIMBYs groups of their power would go a long way. I saw a comment poking fun and mentioning the field of dreams quote, “ if you build it, they will come.” What they seem to lack to understand if that….. they’re already there, and they need to catch up. The San Francisco Bay Area has always been one of the most desired places to live in within the United States even before big tech came into the scene: it’s close to the ocean, close to the redwoods forests, just south of the Sonoma county which has amazing vineyards, and has one of the most temperate climates all year around. What’s held San Francisco back is NIMBY groups ( who oftentimes think they’re progressive) who use “spirit/soul” or “character” of the city to prevent any type of building or expansion . What most people forget of that it’s possible to keep those things while expanding upwards. Whether people like it or not, the demand to live there exists, so the supply needs to follow. The city council of San Francisco is run by people who think they’re progressive, but in reality are hurting the working class.
I don't have a lot to add to this, other than nodding along in agreement, but I absolutely hate the term "catch and release" in reference to people. That's what you do with feral cats when spaying...
I don't have a lot to add to this, other than nodding along in agreement, but I absolutely hate the term "catch and release" in reference to people. That's what you do with feral cats when spaying and neutering them. It's dehumanizing and disgusting. I really wish we could "catch and release" the cops and politicians that made this an acceptable phrase to use on the homeless as if their very presence on the streets was a crime.
What term would you use for someone who is repeatedly arrested for some violent crime and then immediately let out only for the cycle to repeat next week? This seems to be a pretty major problem...
What term would you use for someone who is repeatedly arrested for some violent crime and then immediately let out only for the cycle to repeat next week?
This seems to be a pretty major problem in the US where police resources are wasted repeatedly chasing down the exact same people for the same crimes. Having no effect on crimes committed since the offenders are not removed.
I would argue many of these people need more help than the police can provide and jailing them over and over is not the answer. We can either start using the bloated police budgets on training to...
I would argue many of these people need more help than the police can provide and jailing them over and over is not the answer.
We can either start using the bloated police budgets on training to actually help these people or we can use it to start funding social services to help the people who keep getting arrested to help them actually get clean/better/decrease recidivism.
@Octofox didn't ask how you would solve the problem; they asked you what term you would use to describe the situation of criminals being caught-and-then-released over and over again.
@Octofox didn't ask how you would solve the problem; they asked you what term you would use to describe the situation of criminals being caught-and-then-released over and over again.
Believe me, no one in SF is being arrested for smoking weed lol. Not now or for a while. If you go to mission park or something, in between the families playing and people chilling there's people...
Believe me, no one in SF is being arrested for smoking weed lol. Not now or for a while.
If you go to mission park or something, in between the families playing and people chilling there's people with carts loudly advertising weed cookies and magic mushrooms that you can just go up to and buy (with card now) from. And that's technically still illegal, since you need a license, but no one cares.
A lot of people started working at home full-time due to the pandemic, so that’s COVID as the cause again, at least with respect to the timing. Maybe it would have happened anyway, but more...
A lot of people started working at home full-time due to the pandemic, so that’s COVID as the cause again, at least with respect to the timing. Maybe it would have happened anyway, but more gradually?
It seems like the conditions for a decline were there for a long time without it actually happening?
It feels like there’s a commonality between failing downtowns (remote work - less office and hotel traffic) and malls (online shopping, non-brick and motor brand popularity). Previously these...
It feels like there’s a commonality between failing downtowns (remote work - less office and hotel traffic) and malls (online shopping, non-brick and motor brand popularity). Previously these areas succeeded because of a captive audience - you want a mattress and jeans go to the mall, you have an office job you’re headed downtown. These areas are now having a reconning of drawing people in not because they have to go, but because they want to go.
You know what gets people downtown in my mid-size city? Art installations and galleries, farmers markets, world class music, beautiful and unique parks, great restaurants, easy and accessible alternatives to driving and parking.
This article focuses so much on the lost traffic to offices and waves of major retailers closing, and obviously because the city was built around this type of traffic it’s going to be a major initial hit. But this was a failure of design, companies acted like their office real estate investment was a golden goose perpetually and that dinosaur retailers like Old Navy and Macy’s would never be upset by more fashionable or eco-friendly competitors.
I fully expect San Francisco to bounce back eventually, likely not anywhere close to the level of foot traffic previously recorded, but to an area forced to allow for more affordable spaces and housing to rebuild the culture and community that helped create it’s popularity before the tech boom.
CRE firms are waiting to see who blinks first in spending the capital to change the use for their downtown properties, assuming they haven't already divested themselves of them. Of course,...
CRE firms are waiting to see who blinks first in spending the capital to change the use for their downtown properties, assuming they haven't already divested themselves of them. Of course, interest rates will have to come down for them to find that investment worthwhile.
Of course, that's a catch-22: there's a perception money cannot be made on these properties unless they evolve with market demands, but those demands move faster than the availability of easy capital; so here we wait while these places remain dormant.
Or just upzone more of the city like literally everyone has been telling the SF city government, including direct confrontations with the Governor of California. There has been much written about...
Or just upzone more of the city like literally everyone has been telling the SF city government, including direct confrontations with the Governor of California. There has been much written about the difficulties of converting offices to residential quarters while still fullfilling living standard regulations, but for SF in particular, so little of the city is zoned for commercial business that it wouldn't even be that many units.
Upzone the city so that just some of the vast majority of the city, tiny, single family homes, can be turned into just duplexes, let alone larger housing structures, and you'd vastly increase the housing supply.
Honestly I don’t think you can save SF by just upzoning. You need to upzone and introduce mixed use development throughout the valley to really make a dent in the demand for housing near urban...
Honestly I don’t think you can save SF by just upzoning. You need to upzone and introduce mixed use development throughout the valley to really make a dent in the demand for housing near urban amenities.
The cost to reform office space to residential is not insubstantial. In some cases, its cheaper to demolish and rebuild. Having said that, there is absolutely no excuse as to why these costs...
The cost to reform office space to residential is not insubstantial. In some cases, its cheaper to demolish and rebuild.
Having said that, there is absolutely no excuse as to why these costs couldn't be subsidized by date and federal government's..... Except they don't want to.
according to the article, this is already happening: San Francisco, AFAIK, is not currently offering that sort of direct tax subsidies, but is trying to make it more affordable in other ways. from...
there is absolutely no excuse as to why these costs couldn't be subsidized by date and federal government's..... Except they don't want to.
according to the article, this is already happening:
Real estate experts also point to office-to-housing conversions as a potential lifeline. Cities such as New York and Pittsburgh are offering sizeable tax breaks for developers to spur such conversions.
On Tuesday, the mayor submitted legislation to the Board of Supervisors designed to change an old planning code to make it easier and less expensive to convert vacant commercial spaces into residential spaces. Supervisor Peskin worked with the mayor for the past month on this legislation.
but, I can think of some good reasons why cities shouldn't be offering that sort of tax breaks.
this is the typical "privatize profits, socialize losses" pattern of capitalism.
the owners of commercial real estate have made money for years, sometimes decades, of renting out these buildings.
every investment carries risk. one of the risks of owning commercial real estate was "the demand for high-end office space might drop because of something like a global pandemic".
that risk was realized, and now those buildings are worth less than they used to be.
and, as seems to always happen, that investment losing value is now a collective problem and they want the government to bail them out.
why should taxpayers foot the bill for improvements to these privately owned buildings? is that really the best use for government spending?
after the conversion is done, the landlords are going to turn right around and start making money renting them out as apartments. can't they pay for the renovations themselves? (or, if they don't want to deal with it, sell the building to someone who will)
The thing is a lot of people are pushing for large buildings like office towers to be converted into residential housing. That is largely not feasible (or at least, cost-prohibitive). Smaller...
The thing is a lot of people are pushing for large buildings like office towers to be converted into residential housing. That is largely not feasible (or at least, cost-prohibitive). Smaller commercial buildings (low rises, strip malls) are much better targets for this, you'd find a lot more of that somewhere like Pittsburgh (and NYC just has... a lot of everything, so there are opportunities).
Commercial towers are largely built with a square-ish footprint to maximize office space, with plumbing run through every floor at the same location. This means that you usually have a large area on each floor with windows around the perimeter, but if you start breaking up the space into rooms, you can't as easily make use of the central parts because no windows means no bedrooms. Additionally, in most office buildings except really old ones, you usually can't open the windows. You also won't have plumbing run through for every apartment, so you'd have to complete redo the plumbing in the building at great expense. Then you'd also have to worry about wiring, and you'd have new concerns re: egress, the list goes on. You could make great big huge open-concept apartments to solve the windows issue but then you're using a large office building for an increasingly small number of housing units... when that building COULD be demolished to build residential buildings that suit that purpose much better.
Office buildings tend to be build in more square shapes, whereas residential buildings use "cereal box" shapes to make them better suited for divvying up among residents -- more access to windows (for both light and cooling if they don't have central air -- redoing ductwork would be another huge expense for an office building), the possibility for balconies for each unit (something an office building wouldn't offer).
Can you show some data on that? I'm not disagreeing, but I am curious as to the facts behind the statement. Edit: Now I see JuDGe3690's post below... looking into that.
Can you show some data on that? I'm not disagreeing, but I am curious as to the facts behind the statement.
Edit: Now I see JuDGe3690's post below... looking into that.
There was a recent discussion here where this idea was raised. People responded to explain that unless you are creating penthouses that the footprint of the typical office building makes this...
There was a recent discussion here where this idea was raised. People responded to explain that unless you are creating penthouses that the footprint of the typical office building makes this difficult without scrapping needed safety regulations. Dwelling units are currently required to have a window for fire access. Apartment high rises are typically wide but shallow for this reason. I suppose you could create inner courtyards with apartments around the perimeter?
I forget where I saw it (it was a gift link), but someone posted this interactive NYTimes piece about the challenges of converting office spaces to residential.
I forget where I saw it (it was a gift link), but someone posted this interactive NYTimes piece about the challenges of converting office spaces to residential.
Maybe central downtowns in the traditional sense as we knew them are no longer needed anymore - just like offices with people stuffed in cubicles and grueling commutes aren’t necessary for many...
Maybe central downtowns in the traditional sense as we knew them are no longer needed anymore - just like offices with people stuffed in cubicles and grueling commutes aren’t necessary for many professions anymore. People’s quality of life improved and it’s already proven it doesn’t cost the company anything to allow flexibility of where they work, in fact it saved them millions on real estate. The world evolves… no point in clinging to things of the past and trying to ‘fix’ something that is simply in a state of change.
City centers in the US went through this cycle once already, with flights to the suburbs followed later by urban revival in many places (though not all). Downtowns will still be there. It seems...
City centers in the US went through this cycle once already, with flights to the suburbs followed later by urban revival in many places (though not all). Downtowns will still be there. It seems likely that something will be done with them? Perhaps after rents fall, some will be “gentrified” again by a new generation?
Or perhaps this is just a short-term economic decline like a recession?
Or perhaps something weirder will happen, who knows?
"People’s quality of life improved" I find these sentiments weird. I like living in downtown here. Theres things happening. Lots of shops. And I never have to get in a car to do any of it. Compare...
"People’s quality of life improved"
I find these sentiments weird. I like living in downtown here. Theres things happening. Lots of shops. And I never have to get in a car to do any of it. Compare that to one afternoon trying to park at a target in suburbia and I pick the city any day of the week.
People leave because it's expensive I assume. And some people hate the city. But most people I talk to in my downtown Bangkok love it. The few I've known who moved away regret it.
It's really subjective but different cities and countries can have much different dynamics and sentiments. Here in the USA, in general, downtowns are not somewhere desirable to actually live. They...
It's really subjective but different cities and countries can have much different dynamics and sentiments. Here in the USA, in general, downtowns are not somewhere desirable to actually live. They are business centers, where people come to work, or shop (in some cases not so much anymore, per this article) and then leave to go home. Having space, being close to nature and different cultures, is prized in SF in particular. Of course, there are plenty who love metro/dense city living too. When the pandemic hit, people flocked from the city to the suburbs and most do not regret it here. Again, different dynamics.
Suburban living is heavily subsidized in the United States, though. Meanwhile, living in denser areas is artificially expensive, due to a severe supply shortage. Obviously more people would choose...
Suburban living is heavily subsidized in the United States, though. Meanwhile, living in denser areas is artificially expensive, due to a severe supply shortage. Obviously more people would choose suburbs under those circumstances, but that isn't an argument against denser development. It's a reason we need to stop subsidizing suburbia and to take power away from NIMBYs.
Really, the traditional downtown is primed to be some great living conditions. Tall buildings with the design and facilities to handle larger populations. Transit to easily get to other parts of...
Really, the traditional downtown is primed to be some great living conditions. Tall buildings with the design and facilities to handle larger populations. Transit to easily get to other parts of the cities. Common areas with artistic flair. A good mix of commercial and residential, assuming a good chunk is converted.
San Francisco has become the prime example of what downtowns shouldn't look like: vacant, crime-ridden and in various stages of decay. But in truth, it's just one of many cities across the U.S. whose downtowns are reckoning with a post-pandemic wake-up call: diversify or die.
As the pandemic bore down in early 2020, it drove people out of city centers and boosted shopping and dining in residential neighborhoods and nearby suburbs as workers stayed closer to home. Those habits seem poised to stay.
…
Data bears out that San Francisco’s downtown is having a harder time than most. A study of 63 North American downtowns by the University of Toronto ranked the city dead last in a return to pre-pandemic activity, garnering only 32% of its 2019 traffic.
Hotel revenues are stuck at 73% of pre-pandemic levels, weekly office attendance remains below 50% and commuter rail travel to downtown is at 33%, according to a recent economic report by the city.
Office vacancy rates in San Francisco were 24.8% in the first quarter, more than five times higher than pre-pandemic levels and well above the average rate of 18.5% for the nation’s top 10 cities, according to CBRE, a commercial real estate services company.
SF is just a poorly designed city for modern challenges, and doesn't seem to want to do much about it. It's just not worth getting into the SF downtown compared to the alternatives. I am a prime...
SF is just a poorly designed city for modern challenges, and doesn't seem to want to do much about it. It's just not worth getting into the SF downtown compared to the alternatives.
I am a prime example, really. I live about 15 miles away from my office and don't even consider going in. Traffic, parking.. The cost and time being saved is huge. It'd be like 300 hours a year saved (which is way better than it was "back in the day") and like $2k+ in parking (assuming monthly rates) and another $2k in gas (although I'd have to probably get another car and convert at least some of that to electricity), not to mention extra for wear and tear and insurance on the car. Of course, I could always add another 130 or so hours to my commute to make that $1k in gas and less than 1k in parking, but that's like $16/hr for my time... And then there's the cost of lunch...
Anyway, I am better off and my company is better off with me not going into downtown San Francisco.
I'm not sure how to save it or if it's worth saving. I like not having to travel for work anymore or go into a main office with 30 others just to talk on teams anyway. That also means restaurants...
I'm not sure how to save it or if it's worth saving. I like not having to travel for work anymore or go into a main office with 30 others just to talk on teams anyway. That also means restaurants and downtown attractions will go away as well but maybe that will be a good thing if we can overcome the downside for that?
Will it? Probably louder, less private, and more expensive than other options outside of the city. The pandemic really hurt the value proposition of American cities. Office traffic was holding up...
Will it? Probably louder, less private, and more expensive than other options outside of the city.
The pandemic really hurt the value proposition of American cities. Office traffic was holding up a significant portion of the tax base and economic opportunity.
Some people just like living in a place where they can walk or cheap taxi to whatever they want. I grew up in the suburbs, but lived in cities, and I'm back in the suburbs, but there's absolutely...
Some people just like living in a place where they can walk or cheap taxi to whatever they want. I grew up in the suburbs, but lived in cities, and I'm back in the suburbs, but there's absolutely something great about city life, especially in your 20s and 30s. There's convenience, but it also can be a community that expands your horizons so much more than what you get in the sprawl. Sure, it's not for everyone, but I think everyone should experience it, honestly.
I get that, but I don't know if it's accurate for many cities. My local city has very limited grocery options and is far less convenient to go grocery shopping for example. Most businesses and...
I get that, but I don't know if it's accurate for many cities. My local city has very limited grocery options and is far less convenient to go grocery shopping for example. Most businesses and restaurants also seem to close around 3-4pm.
I live outside the city now but I am within walking distance of a large park. Within ~5 minutes of my home I have a hospital, multiple grocery stores, a nature center/preserve, multiple restaurants of varying quality. My local community gets together for a neighborhood party 1-2x a year (COVID kind of stopped this for awhile). Maybe my local city is just poorly designed, but the benefits don't really seem to materialize when I do an actual comparison. With WFH I almost never drive. My household is going from 2 gas cars to 1 electric car in the next year as result.
But presumably the reason there are no grocery options or restaurants that are open in the evenings is because the entire area downtown is business-focused. Little point in being open for dinner...
But presumably the reason there are no grocery options or restaurants that are open in the evenings is because the entire area downtown is business-focused. Little point in being open for dinner if everyone's gone home for dinner. One would imagine that if there were more residents in the downtown core, it becomes worth it for those businesses and restaurants to stay open longer, and for grocery options to become more plentiful.
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, of course, and it requires that the city government work to make sure that both sides are being satisfied at the same time, but just because it's not accurate for your local city now doesn't mean it can't work later.
The environmental benefits aren’t really my primary purchase reason. Never going to a gas station again and being able to charge the vehicle with solar panels is.
The environmental benefits aren’t really my primary purchase reason. Never going to a gas station again and being able to charge the vehicle with solar panels is.
Housing, medical aid, food, plumbing, and childcare should be human rights. Taking those things away from people because they don't have enough money or can't work is barbaric.
Housing, medical aid, food, plumbing, and childcare should be human rights. Taking those things away from people because they don't have enough money or can't work is barbaric.
converting business space to living space is easier said than done. living space has particular code requirements that office buildings are not built for. office space needs much much less...
converting business space to living space is easier said than done. living space has particular code requirements that office buildings are not built for. office space needs much much less plumbing and sewer needs per capita than living space does. retroactively adding that office space is varying amounts of difficult and expensive.
You are right. But commercial real estate is down by some crazy amount. At some point it must become reasonable to repurpose those buildings, especially with the cost and difficulty of building...
You are right. But commercial real estate is down by some crazy amount. At some point it must become reasonable to repurpose those buildings, especially with the cost and difficulty of building new buildings on a peninsula.
I spent a week in a hotel that had been converted to office space, was not an enjoyable stay. Half the room was this pod that had been assembled inside containing the shower, toilet etc. and I...
I spent a week in a hotel that had been converted to office space, was not an enjoyable stay. Half the room was this pod that had been assembled inside containing the shower, toilet etc. and I think it had a tiny hot water heater in there somewhere as well. The walls were thin, the plumbing was loud the water and pressure was low. I wouldn’t want to move into a place with a fit out like that.
I lived from San Francisco from 06-08, so this issue is close to me personally. I’d argue that NIMBYism was and has been the biggest problem within California, and the Bay Area ramps that up due to the geographical constraints of the bay. I remember when I lived there there was a law that said that apartment buildings couldn’t be larger than ~5 stories. The argument was that the residents didn’t want the city to become the next Manhattan and lose its “charm.” Of course we all knew it was just landowners who wanted to keep their home values sky high. There is a solution that would relieve a lot of their issues: build higher, don’t listen to NIMBY groups, and probably the most controversial take — strip city councils of their right to make laws prohibiting residential buildings ( oftentimes city council members in California have houses and are super corrupt).
It was interesting to live there when the iPhone came out, because there was always talk about how big tech workers were driving up costs, but then it got even more exasperated when the App Store came out and more mobile-oriented companies set up shop.
I hope the NIMBY groups lose their influence and the state government overrides city governments to get residential buildings built, and have the commercial real estate converted into residential apartments, those two things I’ll help San Francisco recover. It was such a great city with amazing people and a great culture.
Those factors may impact QOL in SF, but it doesn't impact this much at all, it would seem.
SF population is down maybe ~8%, but the metropolitan area is unchanged.
SF housing is greater than or equal to what it was.
Jobs in the SF Metro area have increased.
If the housing increased faster or the crime was better handled, SF could grow, but the decline isn't explained by lack of new housing or people leaving the city because of the conditions.
Shh. The solution is always build up without any consideration to upgrading infrastructure and public services to accommodate denser populations. "If you build it, they will come" is the mentality of any progressive forum.
I'm sure the above commenters (and many progressives) would agree with expanding infrastructure and public services. That is an obvious extension of housing development (i.e. transit-oriented development). I'd be surprised to find a progressive against this and am curious where you encountered them?
My old local city subreddit was full of them. Our housing crisis is particularly bad. Southern California, huge demand, pay not raising to match.
It was full of Builder propaganda. Slap a high density building in the middle of single family neighborhoods. Anyone who objected was buried as a NIMBY. Any question on how the street/parking/sewer/electric would support such reckless rezoning was dismissed by a hand wave of "roundabouts and a culture change to biking will solve everything"
Edit - to clarify, you are right that they would also turn to public transit as a solution to "fix" the problems that would arise from throwing high density housing everywhere.
My point is that none of those solutions are ever even half baked when talks of approving/protesting actual proposals to rezoning to high density housing.
That's where the tongue in cheek "if you build it, they will come" quote comes from. Dont think ahead. Build now, create a huge mess with zero plans up front, and stitch together a reactionary fix after the inevitable massive clusterfuck is reality.
Ah, so you are just repeating NIMBY talking points. Got it.
No one is actually opposing the needed infrastructure improvements, but the need for infrastructure improvements should not be used to block development indefinitely.
Yes. Actually looking ahead and doing city planning before you create a giant unsolvable mess is being a NIMBY.
You haven't actually provided any examples of the bad effects of what you claim to be worried about. Developers generally want their buildings to be connected to electric and sewer lines, so they're going to ensure they can be connected.
Complaining about "reckless zoning" is just a NIMBY dogwhistle. You're not "doing city planning", you're just opposing development.
In my comment I should have talked about upgrading infrastructure as it is indeed and natural part of expanding housing, then you for mentioning that. To be as charitable as possible, maybe the posters are confused with typical NIMBYs they’ve interacted with. Many NIMBY group members see themselves as progressive socially, but are misguided when it comes to expansion. San Francisco has the foundation with some decent infrastructure ( the Bart, which is their subway, bus lines, and even their cable cars). I’d argue that they’re better off than 80% off the other big cities, with obviously not coming close to New York or other east coast cities. I think the hurdles I mentioned would naturally lend themselves to infrastructure expansion. When I lived in San Francisco I didn’t have a car for about 6 months and I was able to manage to get around as needed very easily. I tried to same in Austin Texas, Salt Lake City, and Kansas City with a lot worse results.
I think by stripping NIMBYs groups of their power would go a long way. I saw a comment poking fun and mentioning the field of dreams quote, “ if you build it, they will come.” What they seem to lack to understand if that….. they’re already there, and they need to catch up. The San Francisco Bay Area has always been one of the most desired places to live in within the United States even before big tech came into the scene: it’s close to the ocean, close to the redwoods forests, just south of the Sonoma county which has amazing vineyards, and has one of the most temperate climates all year around. What’s held San Francisco back is NIMBY groups ( who oftentimes think they’re progressive) who use “spirit/soul” or “character” of the city to prevent any type of building or expansion . What most people forget of that it’s possible to keep those things while expanding upwards. Whether people like it or not, the demand to live there exists, so the supply needs to follow. The city council of San Francisco is run by people who think they’re progressive, but in reality are hurting the working class.
Sounds like good old free market economics to me!
I don't have a lot to add to this, other than nodding along in agreement, but I absolutely hate the term "catch and release" in reference to people. That's what you do with feral cats when spaying and neutering them. It's dehumanizing and disgusting. I really wish we could "catch and release" the cops and politicians that made this an acceptable phrase to use on the homeless as if their very presence on the streets was a crime.
What term would you use for someone who is repeatedly arrested for some violent crime and then immediately let out only for the cycle to repeat next week?
This seems to be a pretty major problem in the US where police resources are wasted repeatedly chasing down the exact same people for the same crimes. Having no effect on crimes committed since the offenders are not removed.
I would argue many of these people need more help than the police can provide and jailing them over and over is not the answer.
We can either start using the bloated police budgets on training to actually help these people or we can use it to start funding social services to help the people who keep getting arrested to help them actually get clean/better/decrease recidivism.
@Octofox didn't ask how you would solve the problem; they asked you what term you would use to describe the situation of criminals being caught-and-then-released over and over again.
Ah, I misread then, thanks. I don't know what I would call it, but catch and release is not it. maybe nuisance arrests?
Well, we can't let all the non-violent pot smokers out to wreak havoc on the ..(checks notes)..ordering with UberEats or fridges, can we?
Believe me, no one in SF is being arrested for smoking weed lol. Not now or for a while.
If you go to mission park or something, in between the families playing and people chilling there's people with carts loudly advertising weed cookies and magic mushrooms that you can just go up to and buy (with card now) from. And that's technically still illegal, since you need a license, but no one cares.
I've heard "catch and release" used more often to apply to violent criminals who are below the age of majority. Not just the unhoused.
It's still dehumanizing and kind of gross tbh.
A lot of people started working at home full-time due to the pandemic, so that’s COVID as the cause again, at least with respect to the timing. Maybe it would have happened anyway, but more gradually?
It seems like the conditions for a decline were there for a long time without it actually happening?
Similar effects are taking place due to the same reasons in Vancouver.
It feels like there’s a commonality between failing downtowns (remote work - less office and hotel traffic) and malls (online shopping, non-brick and motor brand popularity). Previously these areas succeeded because of a captive audience - you want a mattress and jeans go to the mall, you have an office job you’re headed downtown. These areas are now having a reconning of drawing people in not because they have to go, but because they want to go.
You know what gets people downtown in my mid-size city? Art installations and galleries, farmers markets, world class music, beautiful and unique parks, great restaurants, easy and accessible alternatives to driving and parking.
This article focuses so much on the lost traffic to offices and waves of major retailers closing, and obviously because the city was built around this type of traffic it’s going to be a major initial hit. But this was a failure of design, companies acted like their office real estate investment was a golden goose perpetually and that dinosaur retailers like Old Navy and Macy’s would never be upset by more fashionable or eco-friendly competitors.
I fully expect San Francisco to bounce back eventually, likely not anywhere close to the level of foot traffic previously recorded, but to an area forced to allow for more affordable spaces and housing to rebuild the culture and community that helped create it’s popularity before the tech boom.
CRE firms are waiting to see who blinks first in spending the capital to change the use for their downtown properties, assuming they haven't already divested themselves of them. Of course, interest rates will have to come down for them to find that investment worthwhile.
Of course, that's a catch-22: there's a perception money cannot be made on these properties unless they evolve with market demands, but those demands move faster than the availability of easy capital; so here we wait while these places remain dormant.
Convert offices to residential and I bet the problem will improve
Or just upzone more of the city like literally everyone has been telling the SF city government, including direct confrontations with the Governor of California. There has been much written about the difficulties of converting offices to residential quarters while still fullfilling living standard regulations, but for SF in particular, so little of the city is zoned for commercial business that it wouldn't even be that many units.
Upzone the city so that just some of the vast majority of the city, tiny, single family homes, can be turned into just duplexes, let alone larger housing structures, and you'd vastly increase the housing supply.
Honestly I don’t think you can save SF by just upzoning. You need to upzone and introduce mixed use development throughout the valley to really make a dent in the demand for housing near urban amenities.
Yep. Turn some of those unused office buildings into affordable housing and BOOM you have people downtown again.
The cost to reform office space to residential is not insubstantial. In some cases, its cheaper to demolish and rebuild.
Having said that, there is absolutely no excuse as to why these costs couldn't be subsidized by date and federal government's..... Except they don't want to.
according to the article, this is already happening:
San Francisco, AFAIK, is not currently offering that sort of direct tax subsidies, but is trying to make it more affordable in other ways. from April: San Francisco officials introduce plan to convert vacant downtown offices into housing
but, I can think of some good reasons why cities shouldn't be offering that sort of tax breaks.
this is the typical "privatize profits, socialize losses" pattern of capitalism.
the owners of commercial real estate have made money for years, sometimes decades, of renting out these buildings.
every investment carries risk. one of the risks of owning commercial real estate was "the demand for high-end office space might drop because of something like a global pandemic".
that risk was realized, and now those buildings are worth less than they used to be.
and, as seems to always happen, that investment losing value is now a collective problem and they want the government to bail them out.
why should taxpayers foot the bill for improvements to these privately owned buildings? is that really the best use for government spending?
after the conversion is done, the landlords are going to turn right around and start making money renting them out as apartments. can't they pay for the renovations themselves? (or, if they don't want to deal with it, sell the building to someone who will)
The thing is a lot of people are pushing for large buildings like office towers to be converted into residential housing. That is largely not feasible (or at least, cost-prohibitive). Smaller commercial buildings (low rises, strip malls) are much better targets for this, you'd find a lot more of that somewhere like Pittsburgh (and NYC just has... a lot of everything, so there are opportunities).
Commercial towers are largely built with a square-ish footprint to maximize office space, with plumbing run through every floor at the same location. This means that you usually have a large area on each floor with windows around the perimeter, but if you start breaking up the space into rooms, you can't as easily make use of the central parts because no windows means no bedrooms. Additionally, in most office buildings except really old ones, you usually can't open the windows. You also won't have plumbing run through for every apartment, so you'd have to complete redo the plumbing in the building at great expense. Then you'd also have to worry about wiring, and you'd have new concerns re: egress, the list goes on. You could make great big huge open-concept apartments to solve the windows issue but then you're using a large office building for an increasingly small number of housing units... when that building COULD be demolished to build residential buildings that suit that purpose much better.
Office buildings tend to be build in more square shapes, whereas residential buildings use "cereal box" shapes to make them better suited for divvying up among residents -- more access to windows (for both light and cooling if they don't have central air -- redoing ductwork would be another huge expense for an office building), the possibility for balconies for each unit (something an office building wouldn't offer).
Can you show some data on that? I'm not disagreeing, but I am curious as to the facts behind the statement.
Edit: Now I see JuDGe3690's post below... looking into that.
There was a recent discussion here where this idea was raised. People responded to explain that unless you are creating penthouses that the footprint of the typical office building makes this difficult without scrapping needed safety regulations. Dwelling units are currently required to have a window for fire access. Apartment high rises are typically wide but shallow for this reason. I suppose you could create inner courtyards with apartments around the perimeter?
I forget where I saw it (it was a gift link), but someone posted this interactive NYTimes piece about the challenges of converting office spaces to residential.
That is a fantastic piece - thank you for sharing it.
Maybe central downtowns in the traditional sense as we knew them are no longer needed anymore - just like offices with people stuffed in cubicles and grueling commutes aren’t necessary for many professions anymore. People’s quality of life improved and it’s already proven it doesn’t cost the company anything to allow flexibility of where they work, in fact it saved them millions on real estate. The world evolves… no point in clinging to things of the past and trying to ‘fix’ something that is simply in a state of change.
City centers in the US went through this cycle once already, with flights to the suburbs followed later by urban revival in many places (though not all). Downtowns will still be there. It seems likely that something will be done with them? Perhaps after rents fall, some will be “gentrified” again by a new generation?
Or perhaps this is just a short-term economic decline like a recession?
Or perhaps something weirder will happen, who knows?
"People’s quality of life improved"
I find these sentiments weird. I like living in downtown here. Theres things happening. Lots of shops. And I never have to get in a car to do any of it. Compare that to one afternoon trying to park at a target in suburbia and I pick the city any day of the week.
People leave because it's expensive I assume. And some people hate the city. But most people I talk to in my downtown Bangkok love it. The few I've known who moved away regret it.
It's really subjective but different cities and countries can have much different dynamics and sentiments. Here in the USA, in general, downtowns are not somewhere desirable to actually live. They are business centers, where people come to work, or shop (in some cases not so much anymore, per this article) and then leave to go home. Having space, being close to nature and different cultures, is prized in SF in particular. Of course, there are plenty who love metro/dense city living too. When the pandemic hit, people flocked from the city to the suburbs and most do not regret it here. Again, different dynamics.
Suburban living is heavily subsidized in the United States, though. Meanwhile, living in denser areas is artificially expensive, due to a severe supply shortage. Obviously more people would choose suburbs under those circumstances, but that isn't an argument against denser development. It's a reason we need to stop subsidizing suburbia and to take power away from NIMBYs.
I’m guessing you are young. By my thirties basically everyone has left the city and i don’t know a single one that regrets it.
Really, the traditional downtown is primed to be some great living conditions. Tall buildings with the design and facilities to handle larger populations. Transit to easily get to other parts of the cities. Common areas with artistic flair. A good mix of commercial and residential, assuming a good chunk is converted.
From the article:
…
SF is just a poorly designed city for modern challenges, and doesn't seem to want to do much about it. It's just not worth getting into the SF downtown compared to the alternatives.
I am a prime example, really. I live about 15 miles away from my office and don't even consider going in. Traffic, parking.. The cost and time being saved is huge. It'd be like 300 hours a year saved (which is way better than it was "back in the day") and like $2k+ in parking (assuming monthly rates) and another $2k in gas (although I'd have to probably get another car and convert at least some of that to electricity), not to mention extra for wear and tear and insurance on the car. Of course, I could always add another 130 or so hours to my commute to make that $1k in gas and less than 1k in parking, but that's like $16/hr for my time... And then there's the cost of lunch...
Anyway, I am better off and my company is better off with me not going into downtown San Francisco.
I'm not sure how to save it or if it's worth saving. I like not having to travel for work anymore or go into a main office with 30 others just to talk on teams anyway. That also means restaurants and downtown attractions will go away as well but maybe that will be a good thing if we can overcome the downside for that?
Transforming unused office buildings into affordable housing would bring people back to downtown.
Will it? Probably louder, less private, and more expensive than other options outside of the city.
The pandemic really hurt the value proposition of American cities. Office traffic was holding up a significant portion of the tax base and economic opportunity.
Some people just like living in a place where they can walk or cheap taxi to whatever they want. I grew up in the suburbs, but lived in cities, and I'm back in the suburbs, but there's absolutely something great about city life, especially in your 20s and 30s. There's convenience, but it also can be a community that expands your horizons so much more than what you get in the sprawl. Sure, it's not for everyone, but I think everyone should experience it, honestly.
I get that, but I don't know if it's accurate for many cities. My local city has very limited grocery options and is far less convenient to go grocery shopping for example. Most businesses and restaurants also seem to close around 3-4pm.
I live outside the city now but I am within walking distance of a large park. Within ~5 minutes of my home I have a hospital, multiple grocery stores, a nature center/preserve, multiple restaurants of varying quality. My local community gets together for a neighborhood party 1-2x a year (COVID kind of stopped this for awhile). Maybe my local city is just poorly designed, but the benefits don't really seem to materialize when I do an actual comparison. With WFH I almost never drive. My household is going from 2 gas cars to 1 electric car in the next year as result.
But presumably the reason there are no grocery options or restaurants that are open in the evenings is because the entire area downtown is business-focused. Little point in being open for dinner if everyone's gone home for dinner. One would imagine that if there were more residents in the downtown core, it becomes worth it for those businesses and restaurants to stay open longer, and for grocery options to become more plentiful.
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, of course, and it requires that the city government work to make sure that both sides are being satisfied at the same time, but just because it's not accurate for your local city now doesn't mean it can't work later.
Aren't gas cars both more useful and environmentally friendly if you almost never drive?
The environmental benefits aren’t really my primary purchase reason. Never going to a gas station again and being able to charge the vehicle with solar panels is.
Housing, medical aid, food, plumbing, and childcare should be human rights. Taking those things away from people because they don't have enough money or can't work is barbaric.
converting business space to living space is easier said than done. living space has particular code requirements that office buildings are not built for. office space needs much much less plumbing and sewer needs per capita than living space does. retroactively adding that office space is varying amounts of difficult and expensive.
You are right. But commercial real estate is down by some crazy amount. At some point it must become reasonable to repurpose those buildings, especially with the cost and difficulty of building new buildings on a peninsula.
It’s probably more practical to just stop building new offices and let the gradual demand build up make these buildings useful again.
I spent a week in a hotel that had been converted to office space, was not an enjoyable stay. Half the room was this pod that had been assembled inside containing the shower, toilet etc. and I think it had a tiny hot water heater in there somewhere as well. The walls were thin, the plumbing was loud the water and pressure was low. I wouldn’t want to move into a place with a fit out like that.