Thank you for your analysis of upzoning. Quite comprehensive and very troubling. I went to Vancouver last summer and found it mystifying why the government was continuing to pursue a failed strategy. Nice place for the wealthy, particularly those with homes around the world, and particularly those who may need a possible escape plan from authoritarian regimes to reside in Canada. For current residents of Canada and Vancouver who aren't wealthy, upzoning is just contributing to greater income inequality.
Couldn't agree more. One need only look to the platonic ideal of such a policy, Manhattan, to see that more market rate housing does not magically create an affordable city for everyone. The en vogue example people cling to today is Austin, Texas. However, a city that built tons of housing fast, but that people no longer want to move to as much, isn't the flex they think it is. In SF's case, you're spot on that the few developers with the capital and connections necessary to build in California would never invest against their own self interest. So the result would be a couple more luxury towers in a few years, and slightly more expensive housing citywide.
On the positive side, there's plenty of innovation around creating lower cost new housing. Pre-fab ADUs on suburban lots, and low-construction office conversions in cities have a lot of potential to create housing that is more affordable. Time will tell how much of an impact these relatively new methods will have. Ideally, city and state governments won't need to hold a monopoly on affordable housing - freeing up the budget for other essential services.
Good points. There are many ways we could make housing more affordable, including all the ways you cite. But all those are politically "hard" in a sense - office conversions probably require some subsidy to pencil out, pre-fab creates union issues, re-investing in affordable and missing middle housing also requires subsidy. Politicians, in my experience, default to the easy answer. And right now that is the "Abundance-Trickle Down" mantra.
Thank you for your analysis of upzoning. Quite comprehensive and very troubling. I went to Vancouver last summer and found it mystifying why the government was continuing to pursue a failed strategy. Nice place for the wealthy, particularly those with homes around the world, and particularly those who may need a possible escape plan from authoritarian regimes to reside in Canada. For current residents of Canada and Vancouver who aren't wealthy, upzoning is just contributing to greater income inequality.
"The findings suggest that not allowing more homes to be built—even for high-income residents—pushes up all rents, making it harder for low-income tenants to remain in their neighborhoods," read up https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2025/07/31/new-housing-slows-rent-growth-most-for-older-more-affordable-units
it's been a while since i've seen a post about SF housing that's this blinkered and selective and out of touch with what's been going on. but since you've been part of the problem, i guess this is not surprising? i mean you could do better if you wanted to. https://thefrisc.com/building-more-homes-makes-housing-more-affordable-the-evidence-is-growing-stronger-each-year-9e7426487383/
yeah you're weaponizing research like Freemark's and he's written about how this is not right https://thefrisc.com/housing-arguments-over-sb-50-distort-my-upzoning-study-heres-how-to-get-zoning-changes-right/
Couldn't agree more. One need only look to the platonic ideal of such a policy, Manhattan, to see that more market rate housing does not magically create an affordable city for everyone. The en vogue example people cling to today is Austin, Texas. However, a city that built tons of housing fast, but that people no longer want to move to as much, isn't the flex they think it is. In SF's case, you're spot on that the few developers with the capital and connections necessary to build in California would never invest against their own self interest. So the result would be a couple more luxury towers in a few years, and slightly more expensive housing citywide.
On the positive side, there's plenty of innovation around creating lower cost new housing. Pre-fab ADUs on suburban lots, and low-construction office conversions in cities have a lot of potential to create housing that is more affordable. Time will tell how much of an impact these relatively new methods will have. Ideally, city and state governments won't need to hold a monopoly on affordable housing - freeing up the budget for other essential services.
Good points. There are many ways we could make housing more affordable, including all the ways you cite. But all those are politically "hard" in a sense - office conversions probably require some subsidy to pencil out, pre-fab creates union issues, re-investing in affordable and missing middle housing also requires subsidy. Politicians, in my experience, default to the easy answer. And right now that is the "Abundance-Trickle Down" mantra.
no one reads https://thefrisc.com/sorry-but-sfs-empty-office-towers-won-t-turn-easily-into-housing-c61310a4d826/