There's plenty of new housing in Mission Bay. That said, I'm totally in favor of selling and dozing the entirety of Golden Gate Park. More a glorified community college campus + burglary playground than a proper "park," and the Presidio is next door anyway. Doesn't matter - the city is doomed to be the next Detroit.
There's plenty of new housing in Mission Bay. That said, I'm totally in favor of selling and dozing the entirety of Golden Gate Park. More a glorified community college campus + burglary playground than a proper "park," and the Presidio is next door anyway. Doesn't matter - the city is doomed to be the next Detroit.
ItтАЩs still expensive. And all the new housing in SoMa (east cut as they try to call it) is freaking luxury condos a la Lumina and Mira. Yet the streets are full of homeless people with no prospects.
That's my point. The vague assertion that "if only SF would let builders come in, it would fix everything" is contradicted by the fact that there's lots of new builds and they didn't fix anything.
Price is a reflection of demand-relative supply. No, Mission Bay didn't make a dent in demand - how could it, when almost no construction was taking place in Peninsula / East Bay at the same time. Aside from a tiny blip of development in Emeryville, you have to go all the way out to Dublin or Gilroy to find some recently-squandered farmland to put a family on. In absolute terms, Mission Bay added a lot of units on its own and more than any closer satellite counties have managed to. SF's housing problem is not a reflection of SF's density, which is actually already incredibly high, but the lack of peripheral footprint.
"then how can one say "there is plenty of housing"?"
How can one say it's impossible to build in SF?
I'll grant the southern stretch of Outer Sunset, the pockets of unoccupied mansions in Pacific Heights and Sea Cliff, and of course the quasi-skid rows of Bayview as low density.
I'm not making a case for regulation, I'm just arguing that using SF as a poster child is easily contradicted by a five minute walk.
There's plenty of new housing in Mission Bay. That said, I'm totally in favor of selling and dozing the entirety of Golden Gate Park. More a glorified community college campus + burglary playground than a proper "park," and the Presidio is next door anyway. Doesn't matter - the city is doomed to be the next Detroit.
there really isn't. it costs what, 1000 ft2 even subsidized? 1500? more?
if there is "plenty" of housing, why would it be that expensive?
ItтАЩs still expensive. And all the new housing in SoMa (east cut as they try to call it) is freaking luxury condos a la Lumina and Mira. Yet the streets are full of homeless people with no prospects.
That oxymoron will explode one day just as it has in Paris, Detroit, Memphis and several other once proud cities.
That's my point. The vague assertion that "if only SF would let builders come in, it would fix everything" is contradicted by the fact that there's lots of new builds and they didn't fix anything.
Price is a reflection of demand-relative supply. No, Mission Bay didn't make a dent in demand - how could it, when almost no construction was taking place in Peninsula / East Bay at the same time. Aside from a tiny blip of development in Emeryville, you have to go all the way out to Dublin or Gilroy to find some recently-squandered farmland to put a family on. In absolute terms, Mission Bay added a lot of units on its own and more than any closer satellite counties have managed to. SF's housing problem is not a reflection of SF's density, which is actually already incredibly high, but the lack of peripheral footprint.
then how can one say "there is plenty of housing"?
in absolute terms, it did not make a dent.
none of it has. i used to live in SOMA before it had any tall buildings. if supply had kept up with demand, prices would not be up so much.
and an awful lot of SF is still quite low density. richmond, sunset, marina, mission, etc.
if there were any real will to build, it could easily be a lot more populous.
space is not the limiter.
"then how can one say "there is plenty of housing"?"
How can one say it's impossible to build in SF?
I'll grant the southern stretch of Outer Sunset, the pockets of unoccupied mansions in Pacific Heights and Sea Cliff, and of course the quasi-skid rows of Bayview as low density.
I'm not making a case for regulation, I'm just arguing that using SF as a poster child is easily contradicted by a five minute walk.