With the number of newly proposed units of housing to be built in San Francisco having outpaced the number of units that recently finished up construction for the fourth quarter in a row, the overall pipeline of apartments and condos under development in San Francisco increased by nearly a thousand (960) in the third quarter of 2018 to a record 70,580, which is 7,275 more units than at the same time last year.

And for the third quarter in a row, the number of units in approved developments which have already broken ground and should be ready for occupancy within the next year or two has increased, from 7,100 in the second quarter to 7,500 at the end of September, which is still 15 percent below the current cycle peak of 8,800 set in the third quarter of 2015 but 31 percent above average over the past ten years.

At the same time, the number of net-new units of housing for which building permits have either been issued, approved or requested has dropped by 1,700 to 14,100 while the number of units in projects that have already been approved but not yet permitted (which includes the majority of the 10,500 units by Candlestick, 7,800 units on Treasure Island and 5,680 units at Parkmerced, projects which have overall timelines measured in decades, not years) has increased by 2,400 to 32,400.

And with proposals for another 16,570 units of housing currently under review by the City’s Planning Department, which has been bolstered by the anticipated passage of San Francisco’s proposed Central SoMa Plan, San Francisco’s Housing Pipeline now totals a record 70,580, including 11,250 units of “affordable housing” which are to be offered at below market rates, according to our latest accounting of Planning’s database as newly mapped above.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by E. Gonsalves

    Oakland has at least as many units of housing under construction as SF with about half the population.

    • Posted by AlamedaRenter

      Yeah, some greater Bay Area statistics would be cool to see. Lots and lots of construction and approved projects in Alameda (about a 1000 to come to the west end in the next couple years). Plus Pleasanton and Dublin is a one giant construction zone.

    • Posted by jimbo

      thats great. would be happy to see more folks moving to the suburbs tp spread the housing demand. and oakland is half the price due to distance from SF, crime, lack of walkability, etc.

      • Posted by E. Gonsalves

        Oakland is the 9th most walkable city in the country. And considering the climate, nine BART stops and the accommodating topography, should be ranked much higher.

      • Posted by E. Gonsalves

        Oakland is more than “half the price of SF” and SF has more than 2x the number of yearly crimes.

        • Posted by Some Guy

          I submit to SocketSite that it should consider censuring E. Gonsalves for various grades of persistent fake-news’ing. The reason everyone doesn’t yet love Oakland is that it still retains the reputational stain of decades of self-neglect. Maybe in another 5-10 years the lower half of Oakland will’ve become minimally respectable, till then it’s criminally disingenuous to represent it as other than what it remains — still a gritty, not-very-pleasant place to live.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Everything I’ve stated is factual. It’s not cheerleading these are facts. Oakland doesn’t deserve the misrepresentations and denigration that it too frequently receives here on this comment section by a few misguided posters with agendas.

          • Posted by justin

            While I can agree with you regarding the cheerleading of E. Gonsalves, I take offense to referring to Oakland as a gritty, not-very-pleasant place to live. Many people rather enjoy living in Oakland.

          • Posted by pablito

            Sure parts of Oakland are bad – but some parts of San Francisco are equally bad.
            If you live in the Tenderloin or Hunters Point you have a very different experience of SF than if you live the Marina or the Castro. It’s not “fake-news’ing” to speak your personal experience in life, with the places you live. If anything – it is disingenuous to try to get someone censored just because they don’t agree with you.
            Maya said it best “We are only as blind as we want to be.”

          • Posted by Dave

            People who continue to dis Oakland more oft than not don’t live in Oakland thus have no basis for their misguided opinions except for what they have come to perceive from past news accounts. And of course, the news usually only reports the bad and not the good.

          • Posted by Sabbie

            I’ve had a few friends move from SF to Oakland. Decent parts too, Montclair and Rockridge. I think without exception they all posted on Facebook within the first week that either their home was burglarized and/or car stolen out of driveway. Actually one guy came out to find car on blocks and all four wheels gone.

            Keep in mind current crime stats should see a dip as we are in a booming economy, and anyone who wants to work can work. But during the next recession they’ll probably be back up and worse. I don’t remember seeing all these tent cities in 2008-2011 and there’s plenty in Oakland too.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            I can’t believe people put up this type of misinformation about Oakland on this site.

        • Posted by jenofla

          According to the FBI website, it says SF and Oakland have very similar property crime rates (~6000/100K people) and that Oakland has twice the violent crime rate (1500/100K people) vs. SF (710/100K). So unless you are using absolute vs relative numbers, which is misleading, I believe you are incorrect about crimes.

          Also, living in Oakland is useless for those who have at least one family member work on the Peninsula/SJ. SF, believe it or not, esp in the southern neighborhoods, is an option for those who work in the Peninsula and have been priced out of the Peninsula. Crossing the bridge is a dealbreaker.

          That said, Oakland/East Bay is awesome. It doesn’t need fake facts. It just needs more jobs and companies to move over there or very close to a BART station. It’ll get there, things are getting unsustainable over here in Peninsula/SF.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Those FBI violent crime stats are old. Oakland’s violent crime rate per 100,000 residents has come down in the last 3 years. Oakland and SF have about the same number of total violent crimes. They are both around 6,000 violent crimes. SF has more violent crimes per square mile while Oakland has more Per Capita.

            The more accurate way to determine crime, is measuring crime in a certain designated area not by how many people live in an area. In real estate, crime is evaluated by the number of crimes near a property, not the percapita crime rate of a street or neighborhood.

            For over all crime, SF averages nearly 60,000 crimes per year while Oakland will record about 27,000 crimes in 2018.

          • Posted by SocketSite

            Actually, per capita is the more accurate measurement and the standard when comparing properties/neighborhoods/cities. And now back to the development pipeline(s) and topic at hand…

          • Posted by jenofla

            2017 is old? Well, according the Oakland PD, their 2018 year to date violent crime for Oakland is 5594 total, which is a little higher than the FBI’s (and OPD’s) 2017 value of 5521. Two weeks to go!

            With your logic, if 1 out of 144 people (6100/880K) in SF suffer violent crime, but 1 out of 77 people (5500/425K) in Oakland suffer violent crime in a year…but somehow, because Oakland has more square mileage than SF, I’m not really going to more likely suffer crime or something? I will grant you that property crime per capita appears worse for SF.

            Okay, back to the development pipeline…numbers look good. Hope it helps satisfy demand. Just demanding units to be built ignores the fact that it’s expensive and difficult to build in SF and so prices are just insane out the gate, unless it’s designated affordable (basically subsidized by other units). Will never know but would be curious to know how much developments actually make. That Ocean Park development on Sloat is finally open for sales, after so many delays, and current softening prices, end-of-Muni location, wonder if that’s actually going to pencil out.

        • Posted by jimbo

          violent crime is 3x per capita in oakland.

          SF does have a lot of petty crime, such as smashed and garb from parked cars.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            That’s not true. SF has more violent crime than Oskland. Over 6,000 violent crimes in SF compared to under 6,000 in Oakland. How is that equates to “3x per capita in Oakland.” Not sure how some of my factual comments are censored while clearly false commentary meant to falsely denigrate Oakland is allowed to stand.

            [Editor’s Note:> Facts are great. Belligerence, not so much.]

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            You don’t know what per capita means?

            Oakland 2018 is projected to be above 6000.
            That’s way more than SF, per capita.

            Because Oakland has half as many people.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            You will keep moving the goal posts on and on, won’t you? Your point was violent crime and the context was per capita.

            Now you’re changing it to crimes per square mile.

            True or false: Oakland is geographically quite large compared to San Francisco?

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            False. SF is 49 square miles while Oakland is 57 square miles. Oakland is slightly larger than SF.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            Come on. Now, instead of moving the goal posts, you’re going straight up Donald Trump with totally made up statistics.

            Oakland is 77 square miles. Oakland also has a similar amount of parkland as SF. So subtract those acreages from both.

            If I wanted to cherry pick down and remove smash and grab car break ins from SF and Oakland, or subtract only a few neighborhoods from SF and Oakland, the differences would be off the charts. Oakland has way more of a crime problem than SF, period.

            And I love Oakland. And I spend a lot of time there.

            You, however, are totally full of it.

          • Posted by Notcom

            “including 55.8 square miles (145 km2) of land and 22.2 square miles (57 km2) (28.48 percent) of water.”
            Oh, the perils of including a link. (And to spare us all another round-trip to nowhere regarding SF: “The mainland within the city limits roughly forms a “seven-by-seven-mile square”, a common local colloquialism referring to the city’s shape, though its total area, including water, is nearly 232 square miles (600 km2).”)

          • Posted by Outoftown

            Whatever the true area is, crime statistics are done on a per capita basis, which allows you to compare the safety of Phoenix to that of Manhattan.

            Oakland and SF both have too much crime IMO as do many large cities in the US (my own hometown included). There are more violent crime in Oakland than SF, but that doesn’t mean that SF couldn’t do better.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            We can’t include water area when talking about real estate and crime. SF is actually closer to 47 square miles of land while Oakland is just under 56 square miles of land.

          • Posted by Brisket

            Why stop at water. What about trees? Not a lot of crime happening in the treetops. Since Oakland has a lot more trees than SF, if you deduct them from your square mile calculation SF actually has twice the crime rate of Oakland.

            I go to Oakland for work several times a month and for dinner at least once a month from SF and am a fan. It has some great architecture, charming neighborhoods, my favorite restaurants and great weather. There is no reason to make up your own statistical methods to defend Oakland, it just lessens the credibility of your argument.

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            Why stop at a simple understanding? You know, Oakland is a larger land mass, with half the people? Why not insert water and cloud the issue? Because after all, it’s more important to parse for maximum gotcha effect than anything else. OK OK my fault for not including the Farallons. Next time I will remember to do so.

      • Posted by Jeffrey W. Baker

        There’s no reason to troll. Much of Oakland is closer in terms of travel time to SF, larceny/theft rate per capita is double in SF what it is in Oakland, etc. I know E.’s cheerleading is over-the-top, but it doesn’t seem like being counterfactual helps.

        • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

          San Francisco is a great town to break into cars and take stuff. Even if you get caught, it’s no big deal.

          The cops give up. The DA claims no ability. Don’t leave it out where someone will see it!

          • Posted by AlamedaRenter

            SF is definitely a better place to live if you have unlimited funds and work in the city.

            But there are certainly some really good things about the Oakland/core East Bay. The weather for one. Also, the violent crime is basically contained to two areas with some random in between, much like SF. Stay away from East Oakland from 35th out to San Leandro between International and Brancroft and you’ll avoid 70% of the violence.

            One thing that is noticeablely different is the levels of homeless. If there was a measure of ‘desperation level’ for homeless then SF would be multiple times higher. I have never once seen a person slumped over with a needle hanging out of their leg or arm while I’m downtown Oakland. Yet I see that almost very single time I’m in SF.

        • Posted by Wahrheit macht frei

          I think more people should move to Oakland. I mean, I would never do it in a million years, but more people should.
          As for the housing pipeline in SF, it’s pathetic how the western two-thirds of map is almost entirely light blue. And those are the areas with the oldest rental stock, i.e., subject to RENT CONTROL. Coincidence? I think not.

          • Posted by Jeffrey W. Baker

            I think “0-299” is a very, very generous assessment of the western neighborhoods. There should be a different color for 0.

          • Posted by jimbo

            regarding the western neighborhoods, it takes 45 minutes to get to downtown. you can get to downtown quicker from peninsula, oakland, berkely, etc. without good transportation. my wife travels from 6th and california, and even though its inner inner richmond, its 40 mins on the bus. and if she takes the 38 geary, it passes by 3x before there is space, so it takes much longer. hard to build too far west without a transportation option. on the other hand, areas like balboa park, glen park, outer mission, even daly city near bart stations need to massively upzone (they are <15 mins from downtown)

    • Posted by guest

      Post stats or links please? I certainly can’t tell just by looking around Oakland — there’s construction going on, but not a lot. Perhaps all those run down homes in West/East Oakland being rebuilt or rehabbed?

      • Posted by AlamedaRenter

        You could drive down Broadway and Telegraph and see 1000s of units currently under construction or count the 11 cranes.

      • Posted by Notcom

        Honestly: google, click and you’re done. 1 minute at most.

        I would add, tho, that the ‘per capita’ remark is meaningless: the populace doesn’t build these, so it should get no credit /blame for what does(or doesn’t)… vacant land is a far more meaningful metric.

      • Posted by curmudgeon

        Oakland Housing Pipeline [which totals 19,671 units, not including those attached to the A’s BIG plans for a new waterfront development]:
        7,715 units under construction
        8,564 units approved
        3,392 units under review

        Clearly Oakland is building a lot right now, with cranes dotting downtown, and action in Fruitvale, MacArthur BART, West Oakland, etc. Oakland still does not have the deep bench of projects in the pipeline that San Francisco has (Treasure Island, Hunters Point, etc), but has the capacity to continue to deliver lot of units in infill areas as long as the economy keeps humming.

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          What about the 3600 homes at Brooklyn Basin and the 900+ homes in the former Oak Knoll Naval Hospital site? We also have another 600 homes planned for the College of Arts and Crafts in the Rockridge Neighborhoods. Also, I’d put up the Oakland neighborhoods of Rockridge, Montclair, Crocker Highlands, Piedmont Avenue, Ridgemont with any SF neighborhoods for quality of life.

          • Posted by SocketSite

            As outlined above, the pipeline total for Oakland includes the units “under construction,” “approved” and “under review” (which includes the entirety of the Brooklyn Basin and Oak Knoll projects).

    • Posted by Anonymous

      This ranting is in no way related to the SF housing pipeline and construction status.

      It’s a good thing that housing stock is ticking up in SF. That doesn’t take anything away from Oakland or slight it in any way. Please stop pretending that it does.

    • Posted by E. Gonsalves

      Actually, Oakland has 8,641 units currently under construction according to the East Bay Express. So little talked about Oakland is actually the leading Bay Area boom town in regards to residential construction. Amazing how much Oakland is marginalized and ignored in SF-centric circles.

  2. Posted by jimbo

    we should be building three or four 10-12 story building near Glen Park and Balboa Park BART stations

  3. Posted by Socket My Eye

    Nearly 20% of those in the pipeline are planned for the “Hub” because it is a transit center…makes me laugh. Building Hub Monsters with no parking so no cars, that is the logic. How are those uber trips working for you transit planners?

    • Posted by Wahrheit macht frei

      People don’t ride Uber because they don’t own a car. They ride it primarily for two reasons: (1) Parking is difficult and/or expensive at their destination, (2) Muni is a pathetic excuse for a mass transit network.

      • Posted by jimbo

        according to scott weiner, the scooter will fix all of our problems

        • Posted by SFRealist

          When did Scott Weiner say this?

          • Posted by another anon

            Run a search please. On December 8th.

          • Posted by SFRealist

            I looked, and I can’t find where he said scooters would fix all of our problems. Do you have a link?

      • Posted by Ohlone Californio

        Lots of people take Uber or Lyft because they know they’ll be drinking alcohol.

      • Posted by Pablito

        3) they are getting drunk at the club.
        Srsly. I think we see the demand on the east side because people enjoy the social life.

    • Posted by SFRealist

      The Hub is literally on top of both BART and Muni. There’s nowhere in SF that would be better to live without a car. Why should those buildings have parking?

  4. Posted by Miraloma Man

    If only we could build a unified, first world mass transit system similar to what’s available in just about any major European or East Asian country, we would be so much better off. With said system we could go much higher and denser throughout much of the Bay Area, obviating the need for soul-killing and air-poisoning car commuting and epic Central Valley sprawl. But, sadly, this is America, where government actions of scale are frustrated by both incompetence and lack of authority/scope. But if the Bay Area is to beat back the quickly growing tendrils of Dystopia, it must happen. As they are fond of saying around here: Build It!

Add a Comment

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