by incadenza on 4/1/21, 9:25 PM
I remember when I lived there everyone was so against the “manhattanization” of the city, so it was a big uproar every time a new building went in. I never quite understood how to square that view with the desire to keep housing affordable
by payne92 on 4/1/21, 9:43 PM
This is true in many, many places: as zoning, safety, access, and environmental rules evolve most older buildings become not buildable under current rules.
Our national housing stock is FULL of places with narrow winding stairs, lead paint, full flow toilets and shower heads, untempered glass, single pane windows, uninsulated walls or ceilings, ungrounded outlets, undersized plumbing, sketchy chimneys, springy floors, etc.
I'm surprised the number isn't closer to 80-90%, especially with the recent energy efficiency rules.
by Robelius on 4/1/21, 9:32 PM
Reading *Golden Gates* by Conor Dougherty right now! If anyone is deciding on a book to read about the history of housing policies, then I recommend it to anyone in California over *The Color of Law* (which is also a great book).
Does a great job of painting how decades of decision making led to this point despite decades of warnings.
by Nelkins on 4/1/21, 9:43 PM
by scrooched_moose on 4/1/21, 9:41 PM
I'd be shocked if this wasn't true in just about every city proper (not suburbs).
For fun one time, some friends and I checked the modern basic lot requirements against our homes, and every single one of us failed some check.
Almost everyone had issues with setback, some were footprint to lotsize ratios, and one minimum lot size.
The city just found a massive plot of undeveloped land (hugedefunct corporate campus is being developed) and we're all kinda curious how different those homes are going to look, being the first major development of new homes in the city in quite some time.
by ed25519FUUU on 4/1/21, 9:23 PM
It's amazing how much we let city governments get away with zoning restrictions. Almost universally city governments will say they're "pro affordable housing", yet they will never budge an inch and give away some of their zoning power.
by umeshunni on 4/1/21, 9:56 PM
by qwerty456127 on 4/1/21, 10:41 PM
It always baffled me how people make expensiveness mandatory by law so nobody can get a home without at least some decades of mortgage. Some times I envy primitive people who would just build a hut when and where they need from what they find around and no authorities would come after them and say "you must buy a landed spaceship to live in and spend the rest of your life paying for it".
by oh_sigh on 4/1/21, 9:52 PM
Since 65-70% of SF residents are renters from what I can gather, how/why exactly do these laws keep passing that restrict housing and increase home prices and rent?
by balozi on 4/1/21, 9:59 PM
Remember that the people that create and enforce these rules are the same people in charge of all the other rules
that govern San Franciscans' lives. Look carefully and you'll see the same designs in transportation, education , policing, etc. It doesn't stop at housing.
by neolog on 4/1/21, 9:17 PM
That's probably true everywhere. If you build for certain requirements, your building won't meet a different set of requirements.
by gumby on 4/1/21, 9:41 PM
So what? Changes to building codes and such always grandparent in existing construction so this statistic is likely true everywhere.
by dirtyid on 4/1/21, 11:03 PM
80% of Toronto basement units are illegal as well. Gov looks away because housing supply more pressing. Sometimes I envy Japan, enough disasters like earth quakes and hurricanes for urban resets. Urban environments are just like forests, sometimes you need a controlled burn to rebalance ecosystem. Entrenched bad forestry and urban policies lead to bad environments. Sometimes you just need an act of god to shake things up.
by mdoms on 4/1/21, 9:34 PM
You'll find similar statistics in almost any city.
by antattack on 4/1/21, 10:20 PM
"These days, many people who don't have explicitly racist motivations support zoning laws because they like the status quo, even though the status quo bans the construction of affordable housing in most of the city."
I don't think status quo is the only reason. Property values near more dense development are likely to suffer.
by lopatin on 4/1/21, 9:53 PM
Why is it that our Chicago buildings that keep collapsing?
by m1117 on 4/1/21, 9:59 PM
The best looking ones probably
by rdtwo on 4/1/21, 9:59 PM
I’m surprised it’s not 100%
by antattack on 4/1/21, 9:29 PM
Moving to 1200sqft minimum lot size seems reasonable but 500sqft lot is tight, with little if any outdoor space. Plus 500sqft would not be friendly to older people or people with bad knees because of stairs.