[legitster]

Completely unrelated, but aerial views of San Francisco blow my mind with how under-zoned the city is.

One of the most desirable places on earth to live and it's on a small peninsula. Yet it's a sea of single-family homes as far as the eye can see.

The distance between Sutro Tower and the "Downtown" SF is less than the distance between the Brooklyn Bridge and Central Park. But could you imagine if that space was filled with 2-3 story townhomes?

[Ericson2314]

Lol my first thought too, as a native San Franciscan who now lives in New York.

It's a real travesty.

[bbcc90]

true. See here for a map: https://sfplanninggis.s3.amazonaws.com/hub/BIGmap.pdf

I live in the that space (between tower and the city) and the local neighbourhood group (HANC) is ridiculously NIMBY. rezoning is happening but it's slow going...

[parentheses]

My criticism is aimed at the glacial and mostly mishandled infrastructure projects. That is one of the big reasons for zoning changes taking so long.

I hope the US gets its act together and learns from exemplar infrastructure projects around the world.

[physhster]

And horribly outdated and poorly built single-family homes for the most part...

[cbeach]

> One of the most desirable places on earth to live and it's on a small peninsula. Yet it's a sea of single-family homes as far as the eye can see.

Ever wondered if it’s desirable BECAUSE it’s not a dense urban jungle?

[legitster]

SF is kind of neither though. If you spend any time in the city, it definitely feels overstuffed. The houses may be cute and small but they are stuffed with roommates. The city is stuck in nostalgia and ignoring that it's bursting at the seams. It's like wearing clothes that are too small and pretending you are still skinny.

[Two4]

Kinda makes you wish there was a massive earthquake while everyone was safely tucked away at a Beyonce concert in an earthquake-proof stadium.

[skyyler]

No. It is the good weather capital of the country.

Mild winters, mild summers.

Not too much rain.

No serious threat from tornadoes or hurricanes.

That’s a very big draw and it wouldn’t go away by making more dense housing, even if the rest of the peninsula was developed like Manhattan.

[xipho]

And it lives on a series of incredibly active fault lines. During my undergrad I had multiple geology profs adamantly mention that when not if aspect of this, and on time-scales of 100s of years, not 1000s. YRMV.

[xvedejas]

My friends in the geological sciences have told me there will be a big earthquake, but it will be capped at around magnitude 8.0; the faults here are not capable of a 9.0. Buildings in SF have been constructed or retrofit for modern earthquake safety by law.

[20after4]

An 8.0 would still cause massive devastation. Even if structures mostly survive there is the threat of fire and tsunami. This antenna tower looks like it is likely to survive though.

[skyyler]

A lot of people would take earthquakes over hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, hail, 120f summers, -20f winters, and more.

[twolf910616]

Yeah...it's so close to other beautiful nature. not to mention two world class university near by.

[yieldcrv]

And it should be, given that they built the CBD on landfill which has the specific instructions of “do not shake”, since a seemingly solid foundation turns to liquid during an earthquake

The buildings should go somewhere else, on bedrock

[swayvil]

My first thought, sitting by the bay : Beautiful. Perfect. Now they just need to get rid of all these damn people.

[xvedejas]

Well, I desired and moved to SF exactly because it's the closest thing to a dense urban jungle that I could find in California. I even dream of moving to a denser part of the city one day, once I can reasonably afford it, but those parts are so in demand to be pricier.

[neom]

sidentoe: If you wanna live out a super dense dream/experience on the cheap, go spend 6 months in Seoul, I lived in Manhattan for 10+ years and still found Seoul pretty intense.

[mhh__]

There's a difference between urban jungle and (say) nice 5 story European city buildings.

Londons problem for example is that they tried to be clever and cheap at the same time in the 60s and now we're stuck with it.

[scoofy]

This is why incrementalism is always the best method of development.

Spread out the pain so everyone only suffers a little. Spread out the development across different architectural eras. Spread out density to the point where you have diminishing returns.

The city shouldn't be changed overnight, but the city should be allowed to change an a consistent rate that slowly accelerates. A good example is to allow each building to only double the square footage of the median building within, say, a quarter-mile radius of the property being redeveloped. This means that SFH's can only become duplexes until duplexes are the norm. After that, quad-plexes can be built, and then when that's normal, you start building large, eight-unit, european-style flats.

This allows different areas to grow at different rates, while allowing density to remain generally uniform across neighborhoods. This incentivizes people who very much want low density to have a reasonably, predictably low-density neighborhood to invest in, while giving up the ghost when a piece of land is just to valuable to reasonably keep low density.

It would work, and would work quickly in areas where lots of development is needed.

[hex4def6]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this solves for the problem in which someone wants to put a skyscraper in the middle of suburbia. In other words, based on the assumption that developers will always want to build bigger, but the locals don't want that.

Interesting to imagine what this city would look like. If it spread out evenly, you'd get a strange "bowl", with the original SFHs in the center, and high-rises on the periphery.

I guess in reality you wouldn't have such even growth; high rises would still potentially want to clump together for business districts, etc.

As buildings get torn down, you could do the recalculation; each new building can be x% above or below the local building density "slope". So over time, even the SFH areas could grow upwards, just at a slow pace.

[scoofy]

There are various ways to do it, but I genuinely think uniform is better. Low density residential likely prefers, and naturally supports, low density retail.

[dragonwriter]

> A good example is to allow each building to only double the square footage of the median building within, say, a quarter-mile radius of the property being redeveloped. This means that SFH's can only become duplexes until duplexes are the norm.

No, it doesn't; existing SFHs can, and have when allowed to, become duplexes, triplexes, and sometimes even quadruplexes without changing square footage at all, with doubling, you can go even further. All it takes is remodeling so that each subdivided unit meets minimum habitability standards (separate access, its own restroom, whatever other facilities are mininally required.)

[scoofy]

This is a general argument assuming units being arbitrary. Units should be effectively arbitrary, but every town will have different rules.

[dragonwriter]

> This is a general argument assuming units being arbitrary.

Well, no, it doesn't assume units are arbitrary, it assumes units are fixed square footage, which they are not. Under most regulatory schemes, there is a practical minimum size or a habitable unit, but a pre-existing area zoned for detached single-family units exclusively is unlikely to be comprised of single-family units that happen to also be the minimum square footage for a habitable unit.

[rz2k]

It is easy to argue that Manhattan is far more livable than San Francisco due to the layout and highly convenient zoning, even before taking the obvious transportation advantages into account. San Francisco's advantage is the climate and beautiful natural setting.

Considering the advances in seismic technology made over the past fifty years, it is a shame that much faster upgrades to the real estate have not been encouraged.

[screye]

No? Paris, NYC, Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, London are all dense urban jungles. Doesn't stop them from being desirable.

[tshaddox]

There are lots of places that are not dense urban jungles and are not desirable, so I'm certain your explanation is insufficient.

[nomel]

You're assuming some linear/symmetric relationship, by trying to relate an inverted sign! The more direct question is, are there dense urban jungles that are desirable? A good way to measure that might be comparing where wealthy people live, with the assumption that desire and price are related, locally. Do they live more inner-city, or do they live more in the suburbs at the outskirts?

[kaonwarb]

Yes... but the climate and geography alone would make it highly desirable at, say, 10x density.

[mindwork]

Could it be not desirable because of single-family homes, but rather because all lucrative and high paying jobs are located here? And it's proximity to the Valley? Also there is much more events and gatherings happen than in the Valley.

[gcapu]

Maybe you're right, but we'll never know. It would be great if they allowed some sections to develop so we can test it out. To me it is a desirable location because of the companies, not the lifestyle.

[renewiltord]

Haha, no, it’s desirable because of geography and things to do. This is proven by the fact that large numbers of people are moving into expensive Mission Bay housing which has no single family homes by it.

[Hammershaft]

Bullshit. It's desirable because it's the tech capital of the planet. Is New York undesirable because it's developed density?

[throwaway2037]

I would not say that SF is tech capital of the planet; I would give that label to Silicon Valley. There is a big difference in my mind.

[adamiscool8]

There would be 3-4X the people, yet still the same amount of roads, services, and public utilities. Why is densifying always seen as some unalloyed good? I constantly see this pitched as a plan for housing problems without the basic consideration of whether human beings thrive in such an unnatural environment.

If you're going to force-densify anything, why not actual low-per-capita population areas [0] and develop mass transit, so North America can have the successful China city-tier model [1] with spread-out opportunities instead of cramming everyone together in one place.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_population_map...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_city_tier_system

[legitster]

I would not say that dense city living is not without its downsides. But if people need to work in these cities, they may as well get to live closer. And if you are already living in an apartment, it's not that much different to live in a 6 story apartment building vs a 4 story one.

> There would be 3-4X the people, yet still the same amount of roads, services, and public utilities.

That's the point! Per capita, it should be cheaper to live in cities because infrastructure goes so much further. And if you are arguing for better mass transit, you will have to build many, many more miles if you also want to encourage people to sprawl.

Although I think the strongest case for allowing cities to get dense is it allows greenbelts and less dense areas closer to the city. You can build a big dense city UP and make it easier for people to get out and enjoy nature and farms and etc. Or you can build a city OUT and then it's just desolate city for hours around.

[adamiscool8]

Is it cheaper because the infrastructure is going farther, or because every individual is getting less and less of an overburdened commons?

If you build out instead and everyone gets the SFH white-picket-fence life, the escape to nature is suddenly less important. Even if it's more expensive to connect, in the process we develop ample capacity in the commons.

Maybe it's just not possible with so much cost focus and so many competing incentives in the West. And no superseding body who can make it happen like China.

Converting 4-story to 6-story isn't really what I see pitched either, it's generally rezoning SFH/2/4-plex to 6-story+ with subsidies, which is really a huge remaking of neighborhoods.

[crazygringo]

> Is it cheaper because the infrastructure is going farther

Yes, that's exactly it!

> or because every individual is getting less and less of an overburdened commons?

No, it's not that at all. Why would common services be overburdened? Everyone still gets their water, sewage, electricity, internet, etc., but it's far cheaper to provide per-person.

And with the density you get to build public transit, so people aren't burdened by having to necessarily own a car.

[adamiscool8]

>Why would common services be overburdened?

Water restrictions? Fatbergs? Brownouts? Congestion? Traffic? Breathing room? Not to mention increasing demand on any inelastic local supply will drive up prices. To my initial point, the upscaling of utilities and infrastructure is often magically handwaved alongside the up-zoning demands. There are real negatives to cramming more and more people into one place!

[FredPret]

Fatbergs and brownouts point to underinvestment in utilities (budget problems / many historic, undemolishable buildings)

You need to keep less $ invested in infrastructure per person if everyone lives on top of one another in a condo.

If everyone lives in a white picket fence SFH then you have to build miles of extra roads, pipes, cables. Every trip for every bus, truck, and car is a bit further.

There's a lot to be said for both rural and city life but cities can be much cheaper if there's unrestrained development.

[rangestransform]

It’s not actually handwaved when in a lot of cities, fees are charged to property developers to pay for the necessary infrastructure upgrades

[llm_trw]

The only reason why suburbia is possible is because it is _heavily_ subsidized.

If you had to pay the real bill for road maintenance alone suburbs would no longer be viable.

So the suburbs take from the commons and don't give back in your example.

[adamiscool8]

Would be interested in reading more about this claim, but it is not true for my suburb which raises plenty in development fees and property tax.

Looking at a random SF suburb, "Pleasanton" [0] - it looks like 72% of their budget is funded through taxes and only ~7% is transfer payments.

[0] https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/assets/our-government/fin...

[TylerE]

I’ve been to Atlanta. A hundred miles of suburbia is not an improvement and is actually a dystopia.

[adamiscool8]

Dystopia usually conjures up a neon bright towers of an overwhelming big city. I've been to Atlanta too and I quite liked it. Low density, lots of green space, decent public transit (MARTA). Lots of interesting neighborhood variability.

[TylerE]

Atlanta is beyond overwhelming big. It can literally take 3 hrs to drive across.

[pchristensen]

It is currently being force "low-densified" by restrictions. If those restrictions and force were removed, it would densify itself due to market demands. It would be much, much less forced than the current paradigm.

[FredPret]

I enjoy both low and high density living.

The argument in favour of density is that if you increase density, then you also decrease the average distance that people have to travel until they get somewhere interesting, like a job or a shop.

Vehicle-delivered utilities like garbage collection, package deliveries, and mass transit get more efficient, and the same goes for tunnel-delivered utilities like fiber internet and water.

San Francisco is economically one of the world's most impactful cities; it'd be good for all of us if there was more of it. You get all sorts of interesting multiplier effects when you put lots of a certain kind of person in one place.

- all the theater kids in one town: LA

- all the bankers: NYC, London

- all the computer people: SF

[adamiscool8]

Granted there are economic efficiencies. But I'm not convinced the fully expanded multipliers from one Super SF with 4X the density - turning it into somewhere like Manila - would be better across all metrics (economic and human) than fostering four easily interconnected mini-SFs.

[protocolture]

Mass transit isnt a silver bullet either. Here in Brisbane, they standardized around a narrow gauge designed to pull cart loads of timber down mountains. They duplicate it where they can, but effectively its a city of technical debt. Theres a maximum size of train we are already at, and a maximum number of trains per minute we can sustain.

So we have a decent mass transit system but its not far from peak capacity, and most of what the government has been doing is hacking around that. Trammish busses, cross river rail etc.

So we need to attack the issue from the other side too. We have a weirdly non dense central region, largely due to single issue anti development voters, who dont want apartment buildings right where they should be (on top of mass transit hubs). Instead the inner suburbs are littered with 1950s character homes, battleaxed once for massive profit.

We can take significant load off of a system close to a decade from collapse by simply removing outdated zoning.

And the way the council here operates, utilities and road upgrades necessitated by development are borne by the property developer. So there's really near zero cost in approaching things this way. And they have also used priority approvals, where if a certain amount of floor space of a development is earmarked for light commercial, they can cut a few years off approval time. So theres absolutely no reason not to, as the big residential buildings grow, they grow their own services and utilities.

[m-ee]

Public schools are closing due to lack of enrollment. Transit agencies are cutting back from low ridership and lack of fare revenue. If housing costs were low enough for more people to move in affordably it could be a boon for the city.

[adamiscool8]

Maybe a boon for the city, but is definitively a boon for the people? Or could they be better served by building up another nearby town and connecting it?

[rangestransform]

There are also a lot of nearby towns already connected by somewhat frequent rail service that could also do well to densify

[what]

Public schools are closing because of DILDOs (dual income, little dog owners). If people aren’t having children, there’s no need for the schools.

[slater]

Not because their budgets are being slashed every year?

[what]

Why wouldn’t you slash the budgets when enrollment is decreasing? And when you expect a 15% decrease in enrollment over the next 10 years?

[slater]

Chicken, egg?

[TylerE]

Have you actually checked on those Chinese cities to see how they’re doing? Many are literal vacant ghost towns because it turns out people don’t want to live in the middle of nowhere.

[adamiscool8]

Not saying those don't exist but China also has like 50 tier-3 cities significantly larger than SF. And for the most part, really great transit between them.