It’s been almost two years since we first plugged our readers in to San Francisco’s Housing Element Report. As we wrote at the time, San Francisco’s big picture (click to enlarge) housing pipeline was as so:
∙ 156 projects with 6,510 housing units are currently under construction
∙ 168 projects representing 2,850 units have received a building permit
∙ 316 projects representing 4,480 units have applied for a building permit
∙ 92 projects representing 6,200 units have been approved by the Planning Department
∙ 130 projects representing 34,750 units have filed for Planning Department approval
In total, 54,790 new housing units were under construction, on the boards or under consideration to be built in San Francisco over the long-term.
The challenge, an estimated 31,000 new units, “60% of which should be suitable for housing for the extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households,” will be needed in San Francisco to meet projected demand in the nearer-term.
The evening at 6pm San Francisco’s Planning Commission will review and vote on the adoption of the report’s objectives and policies, a report which is a treasure trove of San Francisco facts and figures for the real estate obsessed.
Oh, and did somebody say density?
San Francisco’s Housing Pipeline And 2009 Housing Element Report [SocketSite]
∙ San Francisco Housing Element: Data and Needs Analysis | Objectives and Policies
The Next Era In San Francisco’s Development: It’s All About Density [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by joe

    only 100 units in the outer sunset.

  2. Posted by redseca2

    I wonder how much was spent in developing a map that is broken up into strange new districts that bear no relation ship to either the well known real estate listing districts, resident’s sense of place names, or common sense?

  3. Posted by Fishchum

    Does anyone notice Pacific Heights is absent? I didn’t know the Marina ran all the way to Western Addition.

  4. Posted by Delancey

    Poor SOMA–appears to be chopped into 6 pieces, 7 if you count the piers on the east side of Embarcadero. You have West SOMA, and East SOMA, and SOMA proper which is in 3 or 4 discontiguous parts. And approximately half of West SOMA is east of a good third of East SOMA. Major WTF.
    If these were voting district boundaries they wouldn’t pass the laugh test.

  5. Posted by sfrenegade

    Meanwhile, if we’re really to have density, we’ll need to merge lots and take down many SFRs/2-4 unit buildings (and maybe even a 5-unit building in the case of 457 Oak) to create multifamily housing.

  6. Posted by sfrenegade

    Actual quote from Part I:
    “The current Discretionary Review process does not produce consistent or fair results, makes the development process more lengthy and costly for all involved, and takes time away from the Commission to address larger planning issues.”
    That’s an understatement, although SocketSite has highlighted some good recommendations lately.

  7. Posted by stucco-sux

    The Planning Department is not your friend. At best, its your frenemy, but more likely, its your absolute worst nightmare.

  8. Posted by Dan

    The 60% affordable housing figure is used by the anti-development folks to try to stop the construction of market rate housing, though the fees from market rate housing funds affordable housing. At $500,000 unit, a typical cost per unit, it would cost over $9 billion to construct the target amount of affordable housing. Now that we’re not getting Twitter’s stock options, how is SF supposed to come up with $9 billion dollars?

  9. Posted by spencer

    does this mean that socketsite is going to bring back the CII? complete inventory index..

  10. Posted by Alai

    There’s a LOT that could be done well before any taking down of SFRs. Simply expediting/encouraging projects that develop existing large lots– the failed Haight Whole Foods, the outer Richmond Safeway– would yield a lot of units if they could be built without years of bureaucratic wrangling.

  11. Posted by kevin

    3100 in Rincon Hill…Whoa.

  12. Posted by M. Rojo

    Your map is almost 11 years old!
    [Editor’s Note: While a bit hard to read, the map date is 2009 not 2000. That being said, it looks like a paragraph was dropped from our piece above, so look for an update soon.]

  13. Posted by Jamie

    All of this housing planned with little to no attention to transportation needs that go along with adding dwelling units. In SoMa, the SFMTA’s negligence in prioritizing the movement of vehicles over the safety of the 40,000 residents (up from around 11,000 in 1990) is killing people. Shouldn’t transportation be part of all neighborhood plans (not just Western SoMa)?

  14. Posted by sfrenegade

    Jamie — will you describe your specific concerns in prioritizing the movement of vehicles over safety, as you claim? What specific things would you recommend? Keep in mind that last I checked, there was an enormous bridge there…

  15. Posted by MCM

    As others have noted, why is all the development in already jammed areas? If this plan was really about developing livable areas and using density as a method, then the Sunset & the Richmond and Pacific Heights would have more units being built. This is really the devlopers’ wet dream. They get to build “luxury” condos with “below market” units in less desirable neighborhoods, then, getting permission to not build those less profitable units at all.
    SF had added between 10,000 and 18,000 new units /year since 1990, not we’re supposed to add another 30,000 to 54,000 and yet our quality of life is supposed to be better and housing prices are supposed to become more affordable? Like the tax breaks for giant corporations to “stimulate” our economy, this plan is another burden on residents and the last vestiges of Frisco’s middle class. You know, the working stiffs who have to pay for all the services that keep getting cut.

  16. Posted by sparky-b

    “getting permission to not build those less profitable units at all.”
    When does that happen? There is a big difference between get permission to not build it and pay a large fee to not build it

  17. Posted by lol

    MCM,
    I suspect the grouping of PH and the Marina is to hide the fact that PH will probably have nothing built on them.
    PH has a lot of empty mansions, that’s for sure. Maybe the 65M Broadway white elephant could be subdivided into 20 to 30 smaller apartments? The bones are there.
    Cost of land is an issue there, as well as who possesses it. For the south-east areas with many new projects, it’s either a government authority or a speculator/long term owner who wants to better utilize an sleeping asset. For the people in wealthy areas, 1) they don’t need the money and 2) you do not touch a way of life. Adding middle-class housing in an upper class zone is like peeing in the pool. There’s a known rule that you just don’t do it even though you know you can…

  18. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    sfrenegade – Jamie knows the area really well so I’d like to hear his views too. One thing that would help would be to simply restore some of the crosswalks that were removed.

  19. Posted by sfrenegade

    “sfrenegade – Jamie knows the area really well so I’d like to hear his views too. One thing that would help would be to simply restore some of the crosswalks that were removed.”
    Right, that was my impression as well, and I would like to hear Jamie’s views on this specifically. That’s why I asked. Plenty of people offer random bitching without actual solutions here, but I do believe Jamie will provide a solution if asked based on prior conduct.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *