SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[peanut gallery]

There are a lot of exciting elements to that 5M (ie: 5th and Mission) proposal, not the least of which is a rooftop public space on the old Chronicle Building. I wish the tallest buildings weren't relegated to phase 2, but it's probably prudent to start small and gauge demand, costs, etc.

[Gordo]

Love the plan overall, but man, that's a long construction timeline. I understand the reasons, and I get it, but to me all that it means is that a portion of that block is going to be under continual construction for 15 years (best case) or that a portion of the plan never happens (worst case) or that construction is on-again/off-again for decades (most likely).

I just don't much care for the modern large-infill zone method of creating near-permanent or at least multi-decade long construction zones to make sure that stuff isn't built too fast to keep demand high. Looking at you, Mission Bay.

[minesweeper]

Originally Posted by NOPA

Just a question, but with the dozens of projects going on in the city (and more in the next few years). Does anybody have an idea how many total new housing units will hit the market by 2020? Are there estimates as to the total city population by 2020?

The 2012 estimate by the census is 812,826; I don't see why this couldn't hit 825,000 by 2020. Thoughts? Sorry if this is off topic. And for "only" being the 14th largest city in the U.S. San Francisco punches WAY above its weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

The CA Dept. of Finance released a 50 year population estimate just a week ago. They project that SF will have a population of 852K in 2020:

• 2020: 852,788
• 2030: 877,847
• 2040: 891,607
• 2050: 907,443
• 2060: 926,555

Source (PDF)

[Jerry of San Fran]

minsweeper - thanks for the update. We are getting a lot of "low" income housing in the neighborhood so I think the reduction of below market rate units is alright as housing is tight right now.

[fimiak]

Population density is everything in my opinion. SF will reach New York pop. density levels if it reaches 1 million residents. I am encouraged that it will be 907k by 2050, but I think encouraging even further growth is a good policy to have for the region for the next 50 years. Who knows how many new residents the STEM degree-green card clause in the new immigration bill may bring to the bay area.

[easy as pie]

it seems hard for me to believe that in ~40 years sf's population will only have grown by 100k, but that's actually a number than assumes a pretty aggressive (for sf) development agenda. which i think is right, as we seem to have passed a tipping point into a major period of growth. basically, the demand has been so high for so long that we've major projects in the works in lake merced, hunter's point/candlestick point, the bayview, treasure island, and the mission bay/china basin build-out, not to mention planned further intensification of the entire soma and continued infill throughout the hayes valley and central market (55 laguna, come on baby!), we could be adding 2000k units/year by 2015, if the market cooperates. by 2030 (gives me vertigo even writing that number) then, sf could easily have 25k more units that it does today, with probably double that many new residents - exactly in line with the prediction.

[NOPA]

I think the best thing growth-wise for the city would be to build the Geary subway out through The Richmond and upzone the area for a substantial more amount of density. Of course none of that will likely happen.

Speaking of all the growth on upper/mid Market street. Are there any plans for the redevelopment of the Safeway at Market and Church? What is the zoning there?

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by fimiak

Population density is everything in my opinion. SF will reach New York pop. density levels if it reaches 1 million residents. I am encouraged that it will be 907k by 2050, but I think encouraging even further growth is a good policy to have for the region for the next 50 years. Who knows how many new residents the STEM degree-green card clause in the new immigration bill may bring to the bay area.

I don't want to play city vs city but DC has added 32,000 people since 2010. At this rate, this would be doubling our population by 2050, adding another 600,000 residents.

[fflint]

There is no place for this crap in a San Francisco-specific thread.

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

I don't want to play city vs city but DC has added 32,000 people since 2010. At this rate, this would be doubling our population by 2050, adding another 600,000 residents.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by fflint

There is no place for this crap in a San Francisco-specific thread.

I specifically said I don't want to have a city vs.city debate but when the discussion is about population growth, how can some comparative context hurt? If you only want to focus on development, then the entire discussion about residential population growth should be take to another forum.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

I specifically said I don't want to have a city vs.city debate but when the discussion is about population growth, how can some comparative context hurt? If you only want to focus on development, then the entire discussion about residential population growth should be take to another forum.

The discussion already *has* a context--how the ongoing residential developments we are discussing in this thread will affect this city's population, which is currently at an all-time high.

Your introduction--apropos of nothing--of the recent growth rate of some city thousand of miles away which is still 25% less populous than it was at its peak in 1950, is not a "context" for anything in this thread. Period.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by fflint

The discussion already *has* a context--how the ongoing residential developments we are discussing in this thread will affect this city's population, which is currently at an all-time high.

Your introduction--apropos of nothing--of the recent growth rate of some city thousand of miles away which is still 25% less populous than it was at its peak in 1950, is not a "context" for anything in this thread. Period.

A little defensive? It provides a lot of context for the discussion of growing from 812K residents to 825K in eight years.

[northbay]

Context with DC is not needed. It's like one kid saying "I grew an inch last year" then another kid (who's insecure), "Well, I grew 2 inches." SF and DC are two entirely different beasts. The comparison to DC is irrelevant to the current topic.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by northbay

Context with DC is not needed. It's like one kid saying "I grew an inch last year" then another kid (who's insecure), "Well, I grew 2 inches." SF and DC are two entirely different beasts. The comparison to DC is irrelevant to the current topic.

It absolutely does provide context. Just this week, an article was posted noting that the Mission Rock development will have housing for 2,000 new residents. Excluding all of this, then for the next eight years, San Francisco will grow by about 1/5 of one percent per year. Sometimes it helps to establish and use benchmarks, as just about every successful business does. Again, I am not trying to have a city vs city debate, I am just trying to provide some context.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

It provides a lot of context for the discussion of growing from 812K residents to 825K in eight years.

DC is currently a city of 632,323 that grew by 5.2% between 2000 and 2010, but is--still--a city with 169,855 fewer residents people than at its 1950 peak. DC is growing, but is still 21% less populous than it once was.

SF is currently a city of 812,826 that grew by 3.7% between 2000 and 2010, and is a city with 37,469 (4.6%) more residents than it has ever had.

One city must increase its population by another 21% just to get back to where it once was. The other has set new population records in both of the last two censuses. Even when just focusing on population statistics, Washington DC does not provide any obvious context for a discussion about San Francisco residential projects and the population increase they will bring. Why do you claim it does?

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by fflint

DC is currently a city of 632,323 that grew by 5.2% between 2000 and 2010, but is--still--a city with 169,855 fewer residents people than at its 1950 peak. DC is growing, but is still 21% less populous than it once was.

SF is currently a city of 812,826 that grew by 3.7% between 2000 and 2010, and is a city with 37,469 (4.6%) more residents than it has ever had.

One city must increase its population by another 21% just to get back to where it once was. The other has set new population records in both of the last two censuses. Even when just focusing on population statistics, Washington DC does not provide any obvious context for a discussion about San Francisco residential projects and the population increase they will bring. Why do you claim it does?

Fine, regardless of which city you choose, don't you think that San Francisco can do better than 1/5 of one percent annual population growth for the rest of the decade? If people here care about affordable housing and sustainable development, I would certainly hope they would expect SF to have better residential growth than this.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Fine, regardless of which city you choose, don't you think that San Francisco can do better than 1/5 of one percent annual population growth for the rest of the decade? If people here care about affordable housing and sustainable development, I would certainly hope they would expect SF to have better residential growth than this.

Are you just pulling this 0.2% annual growth rate out of your ass?

The only reliable estimate we have for post-2010 growth in San Francisco comes from the Census Bureau. Between 2010 and 2011, San Francisco grew by 0.9%.

Constructing new housing in a built-out city at its all-time peak population is not merely a matter of forumers "caring" or "doing better." I don't know what could possibly be expected of regular people when discussing the sort of high-rise construction that only big banks and megamillionaires can actually bring about. And your hometown's growth rate has absolutely nothing to do with it, either.

[1977]

Brochure for 50 Hawthorne (part of the 680 Folsom development):

http://thecacgroup.com/assets/listings/pdf_brochure/135/50_hawthorne.pdf?1357688045

Also, a street-scape rendering of 680 Foslom:


Source: http://deals.tmgpartners.com/

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by fflint

Are you just pulling this 0.2% annual growth rate out of your ass?

The only reliable estimate we have for post-2010 growth in San Francisco comes from the Census Bureau. Between 2010 and 2011, San Francisco grew by 0.9%.

Constructing new housing in a built-out city at its all-time peak population is not merely a matter of forumers "caring" or "doing better." I don't know what could possibly be expected of regular people when discussing the sort of high-rise construction that only big banks and megamillionaires can actually bring about. And your hometown's growth rate has absolutely nothing to do with it, either.

On the previous page, someone said SF's population in 2012 was 812K and in the same post said that a population by 2020 of 825,000 was a reasonable estimate. This is about 1500-1600 people per year, or .2%. As I said in my original post, excluding the Mission Rock development posted the other day, this would be about 1600 new residents each year for the rest of the decade. I understand enough about statistics to know that when you start with a larger number, it is more difficult to have larger percentage increases than you would have if you started with a much smaller base.

NOPA:
"Just a question, but with the dozens of projects going on in the city (and more in the next few years). Does anybody have an idea how many total new housing units will hit the market by 2020? Are there estimates as to the total city population by 2020?

The 2012 estimate by the census is 812,826; I don't see why this couldn't hit 825,000 by 2020. Thoughts? Sorry if this is off topic. And for "only" being the 14th largest city in the U.S. San Francisco punches WAY above its weight."

[202_Cyclist]

Fflint:
"I don't know what could possibly be expected of regular people when discussing the sort of high-rise construction that only big banks and megamillionaires can actually bring about."

1) Support and campaign for local politicians who favor pro-growth policies that would expand the housing supply.
2) Grass-roots advocacy to build support for infill development and counter NIMBY opposition.
3) Advocate and campaign for transportation investments that will accommodate residential growth.