There seems to be a never-ending supply of people who want to move into the city,yet there’s virtually no place to put them. A number of aggressive housing-interest groups have formed — some are lobbying to block future development completely, and others want to fast-track it in any way possible.
A New York Times article highlighted the actions of BARF (the Bay Area Renters’ Federation), a group that falls into the second category. Their stance: we need more housing for incoming tech-industry workers, and we need it fast.
But Manhattanizing San Francisco is not going over well. Beyond interest groups, affordable-housing advocates, politicians, environmental orgs and voters are all questioning the consequences of rapid luxury growth and whether or not it’s alienating everyone who isn’t a rich tech worker. There are a lot of potential problems, both logistic and cultural, that come with what BARF is suggesting. And we shouldn’t ignore them.
Transit
A rapidly growing city needs a reliable, efficient transit system, both within the city and regionally.Our current transit system is old, strained and unreliable.
“The city has not kept up,” said Howard Wong, cofounder of an interest group called SaveMUNI. “On the one hand, the city has been promoting development at a rapid pace and really is not increasing the transit systems or the streets to accommodate that growth,” he added. Wong is an architect and San Francisco native. He’s lived in San Francisco his entire life and cofounded SaveMUNI as a “think tank” to help research what, exactly, the problems are with our transit system and how we can fix it.
Visit any one of Muni’s Yelp pages to witness the frustrations of the people who ride this city’s transit. Unsurprisingly, Muni has a comparatively low ridership per capita. Ridership has increased, as Muni likes to point out, but not in correspondence to the rise in the city’s population. “Transit modal share” is a term used to gauge the percentage of people taking transit versus other means of transportation (like cars). San Francisco sits at 25 percent, while cities with extremely successful transit systems, like Zurich and Paris, have modal shares of 60 percent. “That 25% has hardly moved in decades. In fact, it used to be higher in the ’50s and ’60s when not as many people owned cars,” Wong said.
The problems with Muni are rooted in bad decision making and misguided budget allocation over the years, in combination with San Francisco’s rapid, unpredictable growth. Many believe the problem is just that we are in need of a subway rather than an above-ground bus system — but that’s not entirely the case. In fact, many cities have very successful bus rapid transit systems and high modal shares.
Almost half the people in the city still use cars as their main form of transportation, which is problematic since our traffic is the third-worst in the country. The fact that San Franciscans prefer heavy traffic to public transit hints at systematic problems in the reliability and effectiveness of our system. Muni riders know that lengthy waits for busses are common, as is witnessing two busses of the same line arriving in succession. By SFMTA’s own estimations, Muni arrives at the time it’s supposed to only 60 percent of the time.
Another deterrent: Muni is basically designed to get people from various parts of the city to downtown. To use Muni as your main form of transit — to go grocery-shopping, drop kids off, pick up dry cleaning — is difficult. While Muni’s design is not uncommon, other cities — such as New York City — have higher percentages of walkers and bikers, whereas San Francisco very much remains a driving city.
Furthermore, San Francisco is decades behind in investing in overall bus rapid transit systems that other cities already have. We’re just now starting to see the red bus lanes that allow Muni’s busses to bypass traffic.
Beyond Muni, there are serious issues involved in getting people in and out of the city. We like to complain about tech busses that shuttle workers to Silicon Valley, but if you were to take public transit from the Financial District to Google’s headquarters, it would take you over two hours, involve four buses/trains and cost $14. And that’s just one way. Regional transit doesn’t connect smoothly to local transit. The Transbay Terminal is aimed at helping to solve that issue, but it’s currently experiencing some budget issues.
And then there’s BART, the literally deteriorating, overcrowded system that transports people to and from the East Bay. “As it stands today, we’re at capacity. It’s packed every single day,” said Taylor Huckaby, the BART communications officer who achieved Internet stardom with his very candid tweets concerning wait times and BART’s infrastructure. A realistic target date for building new tunnels is 2050.
Future transit budgets need to go toward projects that yield real results instead of going toward politically motivated projects like the Central Subway, a 1.6 billion-dollar project to build 1.7 miles of underground line that will connect SOMA to Chinatown. While that line will benefit people riding along those 1.7 miles, the already existing 500-mile system needs serious upgrades in order to become a functional transit system that everyone in the city can use. Future budgets need to go toward high-quality, fast and frequent busses with dedicated lanes and synchronized traffic lights. “More reliability, better on-time performance, a larger percentage of transit modal share and higher per capita ridership — unless you see growth in those areas, the money, in a way, is wasted, as it has been for the last few decades,” Wong said.
A growing city needs a reliable, efficient transit system. In our case, a bus rapid transit that will help relieve our already congested streets. How can we expect to accommodate a rapidly growing city without that?
Environmental Impact
Between the Pacific and the San Francisco Bay, whales migrate through our waters, and sea lions suntan on our shores. Many large luxury development projects along the waterfront have been challenged out of fear that they will block some residents’ ocean views. It may seem minor, but the thought of a solid wall of waterfront development blocking bay views for commoners doesn’t sit well with voters.
In 2013, residents voted down proposed legislation that would allow a luxury condo complex at 8 Washington to build up to 136 feet (the height limit is 84 feet at that location). The height increase was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, but volunteers gathered enough signatures to petition the measure. It was added as a ballot referendum and then vetoed by voters. This set the stage for Proposition B in 2014, giving voters the right to weigh in on the issue of waiving height restrictions for developers in the future. Some argue that giving that power to the people will halt the development the city so desperately needs, as the public isn’t informed enough about the market to make such decisions.The Sierra Club disagrees and had a strong influence on both the passing of Prop B and the vetoing of 8 Washington.
“It’s the job of environmentalists and affordable-housing and good-government advocates to look at every proposal really carefully and to demand the best for the people of San Francisco who live here now and for future generations,” said Sue Vaughan, Sierra Club’s San Francisco representative.
The Sierra Club hasn’t fought against all high-rise developments. They supported the Transbay Terminal project, slated to have 35 percent of its units earmarked for affordable housing; yet they opposed development at 1481 Post Street because of fossil-fuel overuse and an overabundance of parking spots (which discourages sustainable transit use) — and the fact that the building, which is 176 feet over the regulated height, would cast shadows on public parks.
The overabundance of parking is a big deal, both from an environmental and a traffic standpoint. More cars means more gridlock and emissions. When luxury developments replace rent-controlled housing, displaced low-income families are often kicked out to the suburbs, which results in longer commutes and more emissions. Both cars and tech buses create emissions. Tech buses use city transit stops or stop in random places and block traffic, creating more gridlock. As frustrating and inefficient as it is, mass transit needs to be at the core of a rapidly growing, sustainable city.
Will It Make a Difference?
Beyond the politics behind environmental concerns and citizens’ ability to enjoy their unique environment, there is the question of effectiveness. If we waive height restrictions, build up, build fast and build luxury units,will it even make a difference?If we lose views of the bay, change the culture of the city, create gridlock and literally live in the shadows, will we really achieve lower rents? Will the market then go back to normalcy and allow lower- and middle-class families to stay in their neighborhoods?
“You would have to double the size of San Francisco to actually have an impact on supply. It’s not going to happen. You’re not going to build to the level that you need to in order to have an effect,” said San Francisco supervisor David Campos.
Likewise, increasing the supply of luxury pads that incoming techies demand doesn’t do anything for the housing that the middle and lower classes so desperately need.
“It’s not just that you build, but what you build that matters. Build more — but build more affordable housing, because that’s what we are lacking,” Campos said.
According to Campos, a shocking93 percent of all new developments in the Mission as of last year have been luxury developments.It makes sense from a developer’s standpoint: build what you will make the most profit from. It’s the city government’s job to protect people of all incomes.
Preserving Our Unique Culture
Once a haven for hippies, nudists, weirdos, artists and musicians, the city now teems with tech busses and white guys in start-up shirts repulsed by the sight of our city’s homeless. If you’re a longtime resident, it’s hard not to be a little bitter. The end result of the decades-long gentrification of the Mission was 10,000 displaced residents, 8,000 of whom are Mexican. Indeed, many feel that the tech crowd has a general lack of care for the city and its culture — especially since their migration has quickly shifted that culture.
Aside from cultural diversity, there is socioeconomic diversity to consider. San Francisco is quickly shedding lower-income and middle-class residents. As depressing rent prices soar (currently $3,100 for a one-bedroom according to Trulia), those without high salaries or rent control cannot afford to live here anymore.This city (and all cities) need workers of all income levels to properly function— teachers, shore operators, plumbers, firefighters, hairdressers, shop attendants, cops, PG&E workers, etc.
“It changes the character of the city. It changes who we are, who we have been. We have been a progressive, avant-garde, artistic, cultural city because of the people who have come here. Because of the artists. Because of the teachers. If those artists and teachers cannot afford to live here anymore, than we’re no longer the city that we were. We’re losing that,” said Supervisor Campos.
