It breaks down if you assume that developers will build affordable housing on their own, or that cities will be able to exert sufficient leverage in order to force them to do so. While the latter approach has had some limited success, I am firmly of the opinion that the law of supply and demand applies just as much to the housing market as it does to every other market.
At some point, though, San Francisco will reach a level of density where the number of residents will outstrip the other infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc). Some would argue that this has already happened, though I would argue that the City of San Francisco has just been deliberately bone-headed in an effort to support their “transit-first” agenda. In any case, when the city reaches maximum (reasonable) density, the price of housing will inevitably rise again, putting us roughly back to the point we are now.
And when that happens, all the tech workers are going to be pissed when the VCs, Russian Oligarchs, and children of the captains of Chinese industry price them out of their trendy apartments and send them fleeing to Oakland, where they will in turn displace the thriving artist community that started forming there in the early 21st century.
Agree that it was a pot-smoking haven for artists. I disagree that the vision of SF as a center of art and culture was anything more than a delusion of the people that lived there.
Certainly SF is no New York, or even LA. We have some good museums here, but nothing like those of NYC. Many individual artists, however have made their start here, and some things have started and blossomed here, e.g. Beat Poetry. I can’t help but think that you just never encountered it for yourself.
What are the criteria for a place being “a center of art and culture”?
Then I’ve got news for you: it’s not housing. Unless it’s designated as affordable housing, it gets snapped up by rich investors, and/or those looking to launder money.
Developers don’t want to build affordable housing when they can profit more on cash-cleaning ventures. They need to be coerced into it. Simply “building more housing” doesn’t open up anything at the bottom or ease prices. Simply put, people can’t afford to live. All you want to do with “build more housing” is create more spaces they can’t do it in.
I agree, and that’s why in my original post I said it had to come from some kind of government mandate (state or federal) and questioned the political will. I think that relocation (not just expansion) of some big tech companies to another part of the country is really the only solution, and if that can’t happen SF is screwed.
I don’t think there’s any remotely plausible and politically acceptable way for an already fairly dense and geographically constrained city like San Francisco to build enough new housing to make it a cheap place to live. And local politics do matter because the city’s residents actually do deserve a rightful say in the planning for their city. Has building a bunch of new housing that EVER worked to make a popular, expensive and geographically constrained city affordable? (That’s an honest question, by the way. I absolutely could be wrong.)
Here’s a good commentary that makes a strong argument for de-emphasizing increasing density in super-large cities in favor of some of this country’s mid-sized cities. One key quote:
“Consider New York City. Sure, building stuff there is hard, but it’s a city that’s basically friendly to high rises—and it has been since the invention of the safety elevator. By American standards, it also has a uniquely effective mass transit system. And yet, New York City is an expensive place to live. It’s been an expensive place to live for the past century.”
Edit to add:
I do think that wealthy cities like S.F. can and should do more such as build public housing or give out subsidies to make housing affordable for some of its most vulnerable and needy residents, and also work to find housing solutions for people who provide vital services in the city, such as teachers. I just don’t think that loosening zoning laws to generally encourage denser housing are likely to achieve that.in any meaningful way.
property is not a divine right. it is defined by and supported with law.
and i’m not just talking about: “no you can’t build a house in a national forest.” i’m talking about titles and deeds, zoning, city and tax boundaries, the nature of money, police, military, citizenship. i mean border disputes are one of the biggest causes of war – and you somehow think that government does not decide where you can live?
what’s this whole damned border wall about if not deciding where you can live?
pretty much i can. within this country, yeah. but, i’m white, and i have some means and connections in the world. just please realize that’s not true for everybody.
moreover, we the people decide the rules. and those rules don’t have to allow a system where some people can think nothing of dropping a million on a house while other people have no roof over their head and are not sure where their next meal is coming from.
we created this system. once a person realizes that, then they realize the system can change. and trust me, it needs to.
I know you’re smarter than that. That’s not what I was talking about, and you damn well know it. I’ll not bother engaging you further on a subject if you’re going to play stupid games.
It will never be cheap. Ever. Too many people want to live there.
The residents of SF simultaneously want affordable housing and no new growth. They are yearning for a rose-colored remembrance of San Francisco that doesn’t exist anymore, and will never exist again.
Well, then, it’s screwed barring a revolution. The Federal Government isn’t going to mess about with the states on business development matters or start demanding that large companies move their entire operations somewhere else; the state isn’t going to start kicking out large tech businesses and startups; neither are the counties; and neither are the other municipalities in the area, which are happy to take in the businesses and leave the housing to someone else (see esp. Cupertino).
My sense is that San Francisco proper will go the way of NYC, adjusting zoning laws so developers can build more luxury condo highrises while enacting Giuliani-style policies to quietly chase the homeless out. If they’re smart they’ll also allow more new rental highrises so that the people who make the city work (teachers, firefighters, cops, sanitation workers, etc.) can live there at relatively affordable rates.
Ultimately the current and near-future problem in the Bay Area, as the original story indicates, is inadequate and balkanised mass transit. That is an area where all levels of government can work together to enact positive change if the political will exists.
Maybe, but even if they did the result would be marginal. The median rent for a 1 bedroom apartment in S.F. is $3.1k, and $3k in NYC. A 4 bedroom apartment in NYC is actually more expensive than it in in S.F. So per my earlier post, I don’t think that copying NYC housing density (even if it were politically possible) will lean to meaningful price reductions.
I agree. As with NYC or any other desirable city where sprawl is constrained by geography or policy, marginal improvements are all SF is going to get on that front – it’s still going to be expensive. I’ll take any improvement, though, as long as the zoning laws aren’t sacrificed completely to the demands of developers.
The real long-term project is finding and building more efficient ways to move people in and out of the city on a daily basis. Yes, it will take time and a lot of taxpayer money, but it’s the only way to preserve SF’s quality of life in the long-run. Corporate shuttle buses for a small subset of privileged residents is a stop-gap solution that, in addition to inconveniencing and enraging city residents who aren’t employees of SV companies, distract from the larger goal of better regional transit for everyone.
That’s fine, but Drum doesn’t offer policies for progressives who want to do that. That’s probably because boosting local culture and scenery and a slower pace of urban life isn’t enough to attract a lot of new residents. For growth to occur a city needs good, well-paying jobs which implies bringing in several large employers (startup culture only gets a city so far); this in turn, at least in contemporary America, means offering all sorts of tax breaks (including tax farming rights) to the “slow AIs”, something Mother Jones readers won’t be cool with for good reason.
