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

[fflint]

Oakland, especially downtown and adjacent areas but also Fruitvale and MacArthur, is ripe for densification--high demand, fantastic BART access, walkable, pedestrian- and bike-friendly, all the urban amenities, and that rare "cool" factor--but for some reason, developers have not been terribly active in Oaktown. I guess it's the riots.

[Jerry of San Fran]

c33f - An amazing collection of pictures. Your view from the Embarcadero of Rincon Hill was one I had contemplated often.

[simms3_redux]

More on SFBARF - now this is an interesting organization! I was so energized and refreshed reading this. Dialogue...starts...now

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci....html?page=all

Some snippets:

Trauss, 33, is the founder the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, or SFBARF, an activist group that advocates for maximum density for proposed projects, no matter how expensive the apartments are.

...

Although she admires the city's skyline, Trauss has never been able to afford to live in San Francisco. Four years ago, she moved to the Bay Area from Philadelphia. Unable to find suitable apartments in the city, Trauss ended up living in El Cerrito. She wanted to move to the Mission, but her potential roommates were evicted. Now, she lives in West Oakland.

As a native of Philadelphia, a city that lost more than 500,000 residents between 1950 and 2000, Trauss is concerned about San Francisco's ability to remain a destination for new arrivals, and its capacity to handle a population that is expected to grow rapidly in coming decades. The city's reliance on tech is also a concern. “We're more like St. Louis and Detroit — will it grow to a diverse base?" she said.

Trauss didn't plan on becoming an activist, but has found the process invigorating.

...

SFBARF's eyebrow-raising acronym has helped it catch attention and convince many that it really is a grassroots movement. "Everyone thinks I'm some PR plant, but then they see the name and they say, 'No, it's some crazy person,' " Trauss said.

...

Just prior to the first City Planning public hearing on Balboa Park Reservoir last week, SFBARF plastered fliers around the city that advocated for 6,000 apartment units on the site and also posted a rendering of a potential design. Although such density is unlikely to be approved, Trauss said it was important to bring to the conversation what was technologically possible on the site. "We are in a crisis," she said.

SFBARF has succeeded in aiding development at 2051 Third Street, a 92-apartment rental development in Dogpatch. Trauss contacted Laguna Niguel-based developer Raintree Partners and testified at public hearings in favor of the project in 2014. "At our hearing in June, I did feel (SFBARF) did impact it positively," said Richard Price, development associate at Raintree Partners.

...

SFBARF has attracted members such as Chris Nicholson, a former New York Times editor who now oversees communications at investment advisor startup FutureAdvisor.

Nicholson moved to the city in 2013 and slept in a bunk in a start-up hostel for a year because he couldn't find a suitable apartment. He now lives in Oakland. “San Francisco has got some very deep problems," said Nicholson. “They have not succeeded to build the density that a real city has."

...

“She's really captured something," said Tim Colen, executive director of the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition. “The people she gets to meetings are articulate and reasonable. They're not angry like some of the neighborhood."

[tech12]

I agree with them, but what the hell is this:

...said Nicholson. “They have not succeeded to build the density that a real city has."

I guess aside from NYC, literally nowhere in America is a "real city", according to this guy. Last I checked SF has density in the farthest-out neighborhoods that surpasses the density in even the core/downtown areas of 90% of American cities, and density in the core of SF is pretty much at the top of the pile, after NYC (with central LA, Philly, Boston, and Chicago roughly in the same place or a little lower).

[simms3_redux]

^^^He's a New Yorker. He probably has his bagels shipped cross country like most New Yorkers do. He has a fair point that SF hasn't built the density it needs to sustain itself along certain lines (such as employment-housing balance, affordability, etc), however, I think his native New Yorkerness got the best of him otherwise. People in both cities have sometimes impossibly high standards about certain things (and people in both cities are hard to call "down to earth" as a result).

[tech12]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

^^^He's a New Yorker. He probably has his bagels shipped cross country like most New Yorkers do. He has a fair point that SF hasn't built the density it needs to sustain itself along certain lines (such as employment-housing balance, affordability, etc), however, I think his native New Yorkerness got the best of him otherwise.

haha, yeah i figured as much. Not that it matters, it's just kind of annoying to have a high-profile advocate for development in SF that has such a biased viewpoint about what a "real city" is. Whatever, we need as many people supporting an increased housing supply as we can get...and the more we resemble NYC in certain parts of the Bay Area (knock on wood), the better.

[jpdivola]

In all fairness, US cities are pretty under built by international standards. When compared to apartment building dominated cities in Europe, Asia and Latin America, his remark on SF's density makes a little more sense.

[simms3_redux]

^^^Compared to some European cities, yes. Compared to others, no. Not all European cities are created with the same density.

Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Vienna, Naples, and Brussels come to mind as dense. In some cases, approaching Manhattan density (though not exceeding).

Other cities not so much. Take London - pretty uniformly 20-30,000 ppsm (and without insane peaks - such as the 100,000+ peaks in SF), similar to several American cities, just more expansive and larger. There are other European cities with less density than London (some German cities, other UK cities, northern European cities, etc)

I guess while the guy is right, SF's density amongst western cities in developed countries isn't really that below average. In fact, between all of America and all of Europe, it's certainly above average.

[hruski]

Originally Posted by tech12

I agree with them, but what the hell is this:



I guess aside from NYC, literally nowhere in America is a "real city", according to this guy. Last I checked SF has density in the farthest-out neighborhoods that surpasses the density in even the core/downtown areas of 90% of American cities, and density in the core of SF is pretty much at the top of the pile, after NYC (with central LA, Philly, Boston, and Chicago roughly in the same place or a little lower).

And your point is?

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by hruski

And your point is?

His point is that we are a real city by many definitions and standards. We are also beloved the world over.

[mt_climber13]

Oh God,
Anytime I hear the "but we're San Francisco and we're so awesome and loved.. Right?? Right??" It reeks of inferiority complex and insecurity. I don't hear this from any other place but SF, and it is muy obnoxioso.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Oh God,
Anytime I hear the "but we're San Francisco and we're so awesome and loved.. Right?? Right??" It reeks of inferiority complex and insecurity. I don't hear this from any other place but SF, and it is muy obnoxioso.

I don't think an inferiority complex or sense of insecurity have anything to do with it; if anything, we have a superiority complex in this city! I've am fortunate to have exposure to people from all over the world; just within the past week, two people at the top of their professions and internationally known spoke elegantly and sincerely about San Francisco and the Bay Area, one even holding his hand over his heart.

The point is, there are many ways to define a great city. We are certainly regarded as one of them, situated in one of the most beautiful regions on Earth. We just need to figure out how to enable more people to be here without ruining what makes this place so special, and (as fflint observed) to be able to move everyone around efficiently on a vastly enhanced transportation system.

.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by hruski

And your point is?

I thought my point was pretty obvious. This is my point: what that guy said is dumb.

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Oh God,
Anytime I hear the "but we're San Francisco and we're so awesome and loved.. Right?? Right??" It reeks of inferiority complex and insecurity. I don't hear this from any other place but SF, and it is muy obnoxioso.

Well...we are loved and considered awesome by quite a few people. Are you debating that? Just because someone mentions that SF is "awesome and loved" doesn't mean they're simultaneously denying that anyone dislikes this place. A ton of people also hate SF to some degree or are indifferent to it, and i think most people realize that unless they've been living under a rock. And it's hilarious that you think no one feels that other cities are "awesome and loved".

As for inferiority complexes...I don't have one for the most part, I love this place. I'm probably closer to having a superiority complex when it comes to most aspects of the Bay Area/SF. But I do get kind of jealous when I see that unlike SF, that many other cities don't allow NIMBYs to have such a strong say in what gets done, and consequently get more stuff built and have an adequate hosing supply and less insane housing prices (and because I'm a nerd who thinks high rises are cool), not to mention more varied/innovative modern architecture. Also, I get jealous that some cities have proper metro systems but SF doesn't

[dboakland]

Originally Posted by fflint

Oakland, especially downtown and adjacent areas but also Fruitvale and MacArthur, is ripe for densification--high demand, fantastic BART access, walkable, pedestrian- and bike-friendly, all the urban amenities, and that rare "cool" factor--but for some reason, developers have not been terribly active in Oaktown. I guess it's the riots.

Don't worry my friend. There's a ton of development in the pipeline, especially west of Lake Merritt.

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/gr.../oak049918.pdf

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I don't think an inferiority complex or sense of insecurity have anything to do with it; if anything, we have a superiority complex in this city! I've am fortunate to have exposure to people from all over the world; just within the past week, two people at the top of their professions and internationally known spoke elegantly and sincerely about San Francisco and the Bay Area, one even holding his hand over his heart.

The point is, there are many ways to define a great city. We are certainly regarded as one of them, situated in one of the most beautiful regions on Earth. We just need to figure out how to enable more people to be here without ruining what makes this place so special, and (as fflint observed) to be able to move everyone around efficiently on a vastly enhanced transportation system.

.

Well it had nothing to do with any topic being discussed.. you just blurted out "we're so beloved" and it was completely out of context, that is my point. The topic was NY being judged as the only real city in America according to one man's opinion. Now if you had some facts to bring to the table as to why this wasn't true, cool. But by saying "yeah but we're so cool!" is where the inferiority complex comes into play. It is always brought out when any of SF's weaknesses are exhibited- I see it a lot when the crime rate, homelessness, poverty, and failed progressive politics are put into focus. And every time LA or NY are brought up. "But we're so beautiful." Yeah, in a postcard setting. But the biggest thing that tourists notice is the homelessness and human decay littering the streets, which is well documented in the tourist media. SF loves to ignore its problems and sweep it all under the rug and claim it's "beloved, beautiful, exceptional." Well it's not even the #1 tourist destination in the state of California, so, calm your enthusiasm there, and accept some humble pie.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by dboakland

Don't worry my friend. There's a ton of development in the pipeline, especially west of Lake Merritt.

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/gr.../oak049918.pdf

So according to that pdf, around 400 units were under construction as of November 2014. It should be 4,000--no, make that 8,000. I know successful people in their fields heading to LA and Seattle because they are priced out and tapped out--Oakland should have completed enough housing units to provide those people an affordable place to land within the Bay Area. Seriously--what a tremendous waste of potential during an historic wave of funding and construction frenzy everywhere else in the Bay Area.

Hey Oakland--what's up? "I'm here so I won't get fined."

[simms3_redux]

^^^The problem is that Oakland regulations/costs are about the same as SF, and yet rents are substantially lower than in SF. Which is only an indicator how out of whack COSTS are in SF even despite the constraints/natural big city increases. To put it simply, throughout the Bay Area, we really are wayyyy overly regulated and have a wayyyy too high cost structure for new development irrespective of "barriers", "constrains", labor shortages, etc that we NEED those insane insane rents to justify the returns, and Oakland, while it does have high rents (I mean it's not like Oakland isn't still more expensive than most any city in the country outside of NYC/SF/Boston, lol), they just aren't high enough to spur a wave of construction.

Hopefully the new mayor will be a real leader and strike gold before the dust settles.

[mt_climber13]

I'm sure this is a reason nobody wants to develop in Oakland:

http://youtu.be/MNorfx_-pwE

[pizzaguy]

Sega's leaving the city.

I'm gonna miss seeing that logo.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Sega's leaving the city.

I'm gonna miss seeing that logo.

So disappointed in this news! Why didn't Sega reinvent itself like Nintendo did? No need for a major office when just focusing on digital content for phones and PCs.