The Affordable Housing Conundrum
Home to 800,000 people, and the 2nd most dense city in the country, San Francisco has hit the wall. We’re surround by water on 3 sides, and have nowhere else to build. The rapid population growth in the region in the next decades will require new ways of thinking in order to accommodate the legions of new residents. In the next few posts I’d like to introduce a few ideas I’ve had on ways to incorporate new housing without disturbing the neighborhood feel that makes San Francisco the city we love.
This lack of housing is the simple fact that makes it expensive to live here. At the SPUR meeting on Tuesday, July 28, former Planning Director Dean Macris plainly stated what we all know: we can never build ‘enough’ housing. People will always want to live here, no matter the price point. Rent Control makes it affordable for some, along with other government controls. Some rules also make it untenable to provide more living space. Basic market forces are needed to bring down the cost of housing, which equals more supply.
In this city, either we build up, or we build out. It turns out that we need both. The long and expensive process of constructing more residential towers will not make enough housing to be competitive. The only other option is to better use the less populated southern and western areas of the city. Through more generous zoning, and the utilization of in-law apartments, we can easier absorb more people.
Lastly, my favorite topic about putting more housing near transit. I usually focus on areas like The Mission and SOMA for having good access to transportation, but as we’ll see, the southwestern regions served by the KLM lines are ripe for more growth. Naturally plans for Visitacion Valley and Balboa Park will contribute greatly to this goal, but more is needed. Areas with single family detached housing can still be allowed to be more dense than they currently admit.
How does South America relate to San Francisco?
After 3 weeks abroad, I’m now back in my favorite city in the world. The nice thing about traveling is that it makes you notice the small things that you take for granted. Of course you also notice what you might be missing back home as well. While these things might typically be clean water, good beer, or salads, the same theories apply to one’s experience of cities as well. What follow is a short essay on what we should be grateful for, and some ideas that urban designers might want to import.
I spent time in many cities of differing sizes, but the specific ones I wanted to mention are Arequipa, Cuzco and Lima, Peru, and Quito, Ecuador. Of course the first thing you notice is that most cities above a particular size have the same basic language. Once you can reliably figure out what direction you’re facing and have a basic knowledge of the grid, you’re all set. The first city I landed in was Arequipa, which is dominated by a several 19,000′ volcanoes, in case you ever lose North. The first impression I had was that the streets and sidewalks were all very narrow by US standards. This not so subtle code was an easy way of saying that pedestrians were meant to stay along the main plazas and arcades. Combine that with the prevalence of cheap taxis, and you have a town that has been overrun by car use.
Cusco was ruled by it’s topography, and it’s more than 500 year old history. The Incas designed the urban core it in the shape of a Puma, so there’s a long legacy of planning and symbolism. Again the tourists were mainly confined to the historic Plaza de Armas and pedestrian malls as the taxis whizzed around. Similar to San Francisco, most of the grid goes over the hills instead of around, and it was fairly easy to navigate. The busses, as in Arequipa, were along no set routes, making taxis the only real option. The city is also served by one rail line, even if service is rather limited. The main problem was the streets too steep for cars were generally cobblestones stairs, and generally impossible when new to the 11000′ elevation.
I was only in Lima for a few hours, so my experience was very limited. I walked through the main downtown area, El Centro, and along the waterfront. The basic summary is that it’s a lot like LA – historic center, massive sprawl, desert climate & dry riverbed. As was typical, the main plazas and pedestrian areas were very heavily used, but the other streets were rather barren. The waterfront (mostly dry creekbed) had some interesting new development, including an archeological theme park, and new public housing. Then even had a beautiful pedestrian bridge crossing the river and highway. Because of my admittedly low expectations, I was pleasantly surprised with the city, perhaps exactly because I didn’t get that far outside the center.
Quito also has a rather interesting history of urban design. Because of the surrounding mountains, the layout is essentially 5 miles wide, and 30 miles long. The benefit of this is that the 3 BRT lines all ran parallel N-S routes and were always packed. The Old Town, as its affectionately called, is the colonial center. Much better preserved than the rest of the Latin America, I found it very interesting that the historical section is very much still a vital part. Commerce, residences and industry were throughout. The new town, named Le Mariscal (created by white flight in the 50s), is now overrun by tourists and yuppies. The saving grace of the town is the overwhelming natural beauty. Many volcanoes and other hills encompass the region, and Quito contains many parks to take advantage of the topography and rivers.
The one organizing factor that stands out most upon visiting each city is their plazas. Impressive public areas anchored the main areas for commerce, recreation, religion, and employment. These plazas were always bustling with activity, and always seemed safe, both because of design and usage. Their shape might vary from linear, to the traditional square + fountain, but they were omnipresent. They also often linked to large pedestrian malls with bustling shopping zones. San Francisco contains many plazas, almost all of them underused by locals; Union Square, Justin Hermann, Civic Center, Embarcadero Plaza, Portsmouth Square. In my experience our plazas are only used for mid-week lunch breaks, and then everyone heads to the parks in the rest of the city on the weekends. Perhaps our wide sidewalks have become our versions of mini-plazas, where we covet a small portion of exterior public space.
The last comment I’ll make, is that even though we complain about Muni all the time, it’s better than 90% of the public transit services in the world. Most of the transit available in Peru and Ecuador was very shady at best, so I often resorted to taxis. Because of the overall pedestrian unfriendliness of many cities, very few people would walk any distance. Muni’s grid typically gets people where they want to go, whereas the ‘collectivos’ were a very haphazard method of mass transit. The BRT in Quito was nice, but the lines were filled to capacity at all times – which generally means it’s time for light rail. Of course most cities could benefit from much more urban planning, but these are the things you notice when traveling with an injured friend. Sometimes walking just isn’t appropriate!
This is the end of my diversion into foreign affairs. Tomorrow I’ll try to return to my regularly scheduled programming.
