These sentiments were palpable on April 1 when a couple dozen residents lined the sidewalk in front of the comparatively quaint Marina Safeway’s parking lot to protest the proposal to level the 67-year-old grocery store and build the 25-story behemoth, which would graze the state’s height limit.
Prominent local developer Align Real Estate is sponsoring the redevelopment. Through a partnership with Safeway, it aims to bring 790 apartments, retail and an underground parking garage to the affluent waterfront neighborhood. The project recently cleared an important hurdle when the city deemed it eligible for streamlined approval amid a statewide housing affordability crisis. The city has to make a final decision on the development by August.
[...]
Safeway has made an aggressive push into real estate in the last several months after being previously reluctant to build out its valuable land holdings. A past attempt by Safeway to develop housing alongside a new grocery store in the Outer Mission failed.
[...]
In San Francisco alone, Align has introduced plans to build nearly 3,500 units of housing in the Marina, Bernal Heights, the Outer Richmond and the Fillmore District. To the south in San Mateo, Align submitted plans in early March to transform a Safeway along El Camino Real into a seven-story building with nearly 400 units of housing.
[...]
When the city of San Mateo identified a Safeway at 1655 S. El Camino Real as a potential location for new housing, Lisa Taner of Concerned Citizens of San Mateo never imagined it would actually be developed. But in March, Align filed an application to build a new ground-floor Safeway store, 396 multifamily residential units on the top floors and 643 parking spaces at the location. Some 55 of the units would be designated as affordable.
Fortunately, any increase in housing supply empirically reduces area rents. This benefits low-income residents by reducing competition for existing affordable housing units: Inclusionary zoning...
Fortunately, any increase in housing supply empirically reduces area rents. This benefits low-income residents by reducing competition for existing affordable housing units:
Building more housing—both throughout a metropolitan area and in a particular neighborhood—keeps rent growth lower overall, but it takes the most pressure off of older, less-expensive housing, essentially mitigating the competitive process just described.
Inclusionary zoning and voluntary affordability designations (like those 55 units) are helpful in minimizing local displacement, but additional supply of any type seems to make more of a difference in the data. Greater supply and by extension lower rents also reduce homelessness.
I can't speak to every objection raised in the article, but in a city as geographically capacity-constrained as San Francisco, building more housing outright on a given parcel is directionally correct.
Good to hear. More affordable housing would also lower rents even more, but the market gets what the market wants and the market wants "luxury" apartments.
Good to hear. More affordable housing would also lower rents even more, but the market gets what the market wants and the market wants cheap "luxury" apartments.
I'm genuinely not sure that's true. This article from Brookings talks about how it's generally much more difficult and expensive to build subsidized/affordable housing. It doesn't quite apply to...
More affordable housing would also lower rents even more
I'm genuinely not sure that's true. This article from Brookings talks about how it's generally much more difficult and expensive to build subsidized/affordable housing. It doesn't quite apply to the idea of just building cheap housing wholly for commercial reasons, but generally when people say affordable housing they're talking about with government intervention, so I'm assuming that's what you meant.
As @Atvelonis pointed out, the most proven way of reducing rents is to get more units in the market. And the fastest way to do that is to make it easy for companies to build. So paradoxically, it likely lowers rents more to let builders go nuts with luxury apartments than it does to make them build a smaller number of affordable units. (In theory building a large number of affordable units would be better, I suppose, but in this regulatory environment that's not actually possible.)
I honestly have a really hard time understanding why people are opposing this project. It sounds like a dream to live in an apartment over a grocery store. Imagine not needing to store huge...
I honestly have a really hard time understanding why people are opposing this project. It sounds like a dream to live in an apartment over a grocery store. Imagine not needing to store huge batches of food and if you need something, just take the elevator downstairs! Safeway is not a discount grocer by any stretch of the imagination but they aren't a luxury one either. Mixed use buildings are such a commonsense improvement on the high density urban ideal that it seems pointless to build anything else. So many more people will have places to live in the city and contribute to the community, potentially without needing to own and operate an appliance that is actively destroying the environment and is directly involved in countless human deaths - the automobile.
I do get that people will be upset about the temporary loss of the grocery store, and that is a real problem, but it seems like it's not the main reason why people are upset. It seems like I'm missing out on a good deal of context here.
Opponents to housing development all have their own reasons, but consistent through-lines include: Aesthetic preference for a different architectural style or building height Fear of traffic...
Opponents to housing development all have their own reasons, but consistent through-lines include:
Aesthetic preference for a different architectural style or building height
Fear of traffic congestion and more competitive on-street parking induced by new residents
Concern about bringing the "wrong people" into the neighborhood (whether gentrifiers or criminals)
Desire for property values/rents to continue increasing at a high rate, or not decrease
It's common to see these reasons justified with arguments about environmental impact, political oversight, poor building standards, labor practices, etc., but those are mostly not from first principles. They might decide these things earnestly, or they might contrive arguments they don't believe. Some of this language is coded.
Your position on cars is not a belief held by most people, even though it's justified in urban contexts. The idea of human-centric design is not natural to a culture accustomed to personal motor vehicles!
This comes down to a series of philosophical differences and knowledge gaps. The narrative and cultural appeal of New Urbanism is subjective. Not everyone believes in systemic decision-making or cares about economic equality. I think that's short-sighted, but it's not an inconceivable worldview.
People who bought their homes cheaply in the 70s and have lived in a static environment all that time hate the idea of change, and so they'd rather San Francisco do nothing and stagnate rather...
People who bought their homes cheaply in the 70s and have lived in a static environment all that time hate the idea of change, and so they'd rather San Francisco do nothing and stagnate rather than allow new construction and possibly have their back yard get more shade.
Yeah, just to gather all the specific complaints mentioned in the article and look at them closer together... It seems the scale, and the specific type of housing is what is being given prominence...
Yeah, just to gather all the specific complaints mentioned in the article and look at them closer together...
The possibility of these projects coming to fruition is causing anxiety among residents, who are concerned the proposals are outsized and out of step with their surrounding neighborhoods.
Neighbors like Erin Roach, the vice president of the Marina Community Association, are worried about the environmental impacts of such a high-density project, given known hazards in the area such as a liquefaction zone, toxic soil and already failing infrastructure. She is troubled by the lack of oversight that’s coming as a result of the state’s pressure on cities to fast-track many new housing projects.
“What we’re asking them [Align and Safeway] to do is just scale this down,” Roach, who has lived in the Marina for 35 years, said in a phone interview with SFGATE. She also takes issue with it being a luxury building. “It’s like if people are hungry in San Francisco and someone comes to them with wagon loads of wagyu beef ... and some people can qualify for getting that beef, but by and large, most people can’t either afford it or they won’t qualify for it.”
“The jig is up,” Taner told SFGATE in a phone interview. “The state of California is railroading multiuse, and we’re all getting the shaft. ... Our quality of life is going down the drain.”
Roach of the Marina pointed out that it’s unfortunate that the conversation around building housing has become “so black and white.”
“Either you’re for every kind of housing, no matter what… or you’re just anti-housing,” she said. “It’s just silly.”
It seems the scale, and the specific type of housing is what is being given prominence in this article, at least by the people they quoted (and the two people they quoted who have concerns seem to represent groups of people that have concerns, so presumably the views are somewhat representative of more than just two individuals). There was a specific address mentioned in the article in San Mateo and when I pulled up a satellite image of that location, it looked like it was predominantly surrounded by single family homes. I guess the most I can draw from that while somewhat reading between the lines seems to be that they probably think it will devalue their homes to add that many units in the area. Possibly also worried about additional population density (though perhaps a bit strange given the area, but I guess all areas have their limits, especially when it comes to NIMBYism) and congestion because of more people living in the area.
I lived in the East Bay for awhile, and had to leave because I couldn't afford to live there on my salary (without a very long commute or multiple roommates). I don't know what the rent control...
I lived in the East Bay for awhile, and had to leave because I couldn't afford to live there on my salary (without a very long commute or multiple roommates). I don't know what the rent control laws are exactly, but SF proper always had better affordability than my corner of the East Bay, and the San Mateo area wasn't that bonkers, either. (Relatively speaking.). I think more housing is almost certainly a good thing, but I fear that the locations of where the Safeway housing is going to be implemented are likely already in the less stupid neighbourhoods, whereas the stupid neighbourhoods will continue to be stupid. (I.e., my commute still would be unworkable.). I do hope they try to make good units, though, the city in general could definitely use them!
That surprises me because I’ve always assumed San Francisco is more expensive. For example: Why Are Oakland Rents Suddenly So Much Cheaper Than SF’s? (KQED)
That surprises me because I’ve always assumed San Francisco is more expensive. For example:
Amid a ballooning rental housing market across the Bay Area, Oakland rents are mostly staying flat. Today, the median San Francisco rent for a one-bedroom home is about 70% higher than in Oakland. While Oakland often trails the city’s rental market, the gap is now far larger than in recent history.
From the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
I guess 55 is more than 0...
Fortunately, any increase in housing supply empirically reduces area rents. This benefits low-income residents by reducing competition for existing affordable housing units:
Inclusionary zoning and voluntary affordability designations (like those 55 units) are helpful in minimizing local displacement, but additional supply of any type seems to make more of a difference in the data. Greater supply and by extension lower rents also reduce homelessness.
I can't speak to every objection raised in the article, but in a city as geographically capacity-constrained as San Francisco, building more housing outright on a given parcel is directionally correct.
Good to hear. More affordable housing would also lower rents even more, but the market gets what the market wants and the market wants
cheap"luxury" apartments.I'm genuinely not sure that's true. This article from Brookings talks about how it's generally much more difficult and expensive to build subsidized/affordable housing. It doesn't quite apply to the idea of just building cheap housing wholly for commercial reasons, but generally when people say affordable housing they're talking about with government intervention, so I'm assuming that's what you meant.
As @Atvelonis pointed out, the most proven way of reducing rents is to get more units in the market. And the fastest way to do that is to make it easy for companies to build. So paradoxically, it likely lowers rents more to let builders go nuts with luxury apartments than it does to make them build a smaller number of affordable units. (In theory building a large number of affordable units would be better, I suppose, but in this regulatory environment that's not actually possible.)
I honestly have a really hard time understanding why people are opposing this project. It sounds like a dream to live in an apartment over a grocery store. Imagine not needing to store huge batches of food and if you need something, just take the elevator downstairs! Safeway is not a discount grocer by any stretch of the imagination but they aren't a luxury one either. Mixed use buildings are such a commonsense improvement on the high density urban ideal that it seems pointless to build anything else. So many more people will have places to live in the city and contribute to the community, potentially without needing to own and operate an appliance that is actively destroying the environment and is directly involved in countless human deaths - the automobile.
I do get that people will be upset about the temporary loss of the grocery store, and that is a real problem, but it seems like it's not the main reason why people are upset. It seems like I'm missing out on a good deal of context here.
Opponents to housing development all have their own reasons, but consistent through-lines include:
It's common to see these reasons justified with arguments about environmental impact, political oversight, poor building standards, labor practices, etc., but those are mostly not from first principles. They might decide these things earnestly, or they might contrive arguments they don't believe. Some of this language is coded.
Your position on cars is not a belief held by most people, even though it's justified in urban contexts. The idea of human-centric design is not natural to a culture accustomed to personal motor vehicles!
This comes down to a series of philosophical differences and knowledge gaps. The narrative and cultural appeal of New Urbanism is subjective. Not everyone believes in systemic decision-making or cares about economic equality. I think that's short-sighted, but it's not an inconceivable worldview.
People who bought their homes cheaply in the 70s and have lived in a static environment all that time hate the idea of change, and so they'd rather San Francisco do nothing and stagnate rather than allow new construction and possibly have their back yard get more shade.
Yeah, just to gather all the specific complaints mentioned in the article and look at them closer together...
It seems the scale, and the specific type of housing is what is being given prominence in this article, at least by the people they quoted (and the two people they quoted who have concerns seem to represent groups of people that have concerns, so presumably the views are somewhat representative of more than just two individuals). There was a specific address mentioned in the article in San Mateo and when I pulled up a satellite image of that location, it looked like it was predominantly surrounded by single family homes. I guess the most I can draw from that while somewhat reading between the lines seems to be that they probably think it will devalue their homes to add that many units in the area. Possibly also worried about additional population density (though perhaps a bit strange given the area, but I guess all areas have their limits, especially when it comes to NIMBYism) and congestion because of more people living in the area.
I lived in the East Bay for awhile, and had to leave because I couldn't afford to live there on my salary (without a very long commute or multiple roommates). I don't know what the rent control laws are exactly, but SF proper always had better affordability than my corner of the East Bay, and the San Mateo area wasn't that bonkers, either. (Relatively speaking.). I think more housing is almost certainly a good thing, but I fear that the locations of where the Safeway housing is going to be implemented are likely already in the less stupid neighbourhoods, whereas the stupid neighbourhoods will continue to be stupid. (I.e., my commute still would be unworkable.). I do hope they try to make good units, though, the city in general could definitely use them!
That surprises me because I’ve always assumed San Francisco is more expensive. For example:
Why Are Oakland Rents Suddenly So Much Cheaper Than SF’s? (KQED)
I wouldn't be surprised if Oakland was cheaper than SF, but SF was cheaper than the three cities closest to my place of work :)