SF to legalize prison-sized apartments

[Ravenman]

@slaphead

There is no rent control in London, and yet housing is incredibly expensive.

I’ve lived in London, too, and everything is expensive there. It’s crazy! I looked for an apples to apples comparison of housing costs, and I found that people in London spend an average of 26.2% of their income on housing, whereas people in San Francisco spend an average of 39% of their income on housing. Not to minimize London’s problems, but this is a huge difference.

@PBear42

Ravenman, mostly I posted to point out an importance nuance (new units aren’t rent controlled in SF) which seems to have been overlooked in the thread. … Meanwhile, I have long felt the fundamental problem we have is that it’s so difficult to get anything built here.

I totally acknowledge your first point, which is totally related to the second point. However, San Francisco is the second most dense major city in the US, behind Manhattan. New development isn’t a bad thing, it’s just going to be diminishing returns, and there’s one other factor I’ll mention in a moment…

The uncontrolled market in SF is already pretty big, albeit today mostly focused on the high end.

Honest question: for rentals being put on the market (that is, not the prices paid by current tenants) are you aware of a substantial difference between the cost of a rent-controlled apartment and a non-rent controlled apartment?

@gatorslap

And it has been for decades. Since before rent stabilization was enacted… And it has been for decades. Since before rent stabilization was enacted… Arguable, but some would say it has been for decades. Since before rent stabilization was enacted.

It is pretty clear that things are getting worse. The percentage of income paid for rent has increased for everyone but the poor since 1990. Note that the rich have had the least increase, while the middle classes shouldered the burden. The housing problem has gotten worse.

Reducing supply is what raises prices. You keep phrasing it as rent control raises prices (by some unstated means) and reduces supply (which further raises prices). This is not true, or at the very least you need to elaborate.

If I’m following your argument correctly, you are saying that it isn’t a 300 foot fall that kills someone, it is the sudden stop at the end. Then reduction in supply due to rent control is the 300 foot drop, the sudden stop at the end is increase in prices. Are we agreed now?

That’s a lovely sentiment, but it does not answer my question. Why do you believe it’s good policy in the first place to mandate apartment size the way it currently is in SF?

The only reason the change is being proposed is because housing is in short supply and too expensive in San Francisco. Read the articles about it. There’s nobody in the SF government who seems to be adopting a principled, libertarian stance of “we should allow people to live how they see fit and can afford, whether it is a mansion or a windowless cement shack, or anything in between!” No, the argument is that these apartments will help the housing situation. I’m attacking that argument, and I’m not concerned with floor plans or construction codes in general.

As someone who happily lives in a <300 sq ft studio apartment, I strongly take exception to the statement that my home is some kind of gimmick.

Just like discussing health care reform is not a personal attack on your own physician, discussing housing policy is not an attack on your apartment. There’s no need for you to take offense, I’ve made no statement about you personally.

@Stoneburg

Successful urban enviroments depend primarily on two factors*: Density and diversity, the denser and more diverse the better.

This is really an incredible statement. There’s no limit on density? Should San Francisco aim to be more dense than Manhattan? As PBear mentioned above, SF’s public transportation system… well, it ain’t exactly tops. I’m not sure what the utility infrastructure is like (e.g., whether sewage treatment is a concern if there’s further population growth) but I’m not sure anyone in San Francisco would really be called “pro-growth.”

Also, the current housing market is making San Francisco LESS diverse: link.

From a conservative ideological viewpoint you can support it since it is a deregulation and good for business if for no other reason (although many conservatives care about the other two reasons as well)…
This is not by any definition a “conservative” policy.

Just to be clear, I’m not conservative by any stretch.

(I think I may have screwed up some of the multiquotes as far as attributing the quotes to different posters. If I did, I apologize in advance, it was not intentional, and I did my best to correct the errors… but I’m not sure I got all of it correct.)

[Stoneburg]

@Ravenman

This is really an incredible statement. There’s no limit on density? Should San Francisco aim to be more dense than Manhattan? As PBear mentioned above, SF’s public transportation system… well, it ain’t exactly tops. I’m not sure what the utility infrastructure is like (e.g., whether sewage treatment is a concern if there’s further population growth) but I’m not sure anyone in San Francisco would really be called “pro-growth.”

It guess may seem like an incredible statement, but it really isn’t.

As I said, density+diversity=good. This is easily understood by looking at the opposite, segregated and dispersed communities. Suburbia is extremely segregated and moderatly dispersed, rural areas are moderately segregated and extremely dispersed.

I also pointed out that there may well be a limit where additional density becomes a negative overall influence, but we haven’t seen that yet. Manhattan, that you mention. is the densest urban area in the US, and also the most successful. It’s one of the most productive and attractive urban enviroments in the world. Yet it often pops up in these discussions as an example of how density is negative, which really makes no sense when you think about it.

There are urban areas in the world with far higher density than Manhattan, and they are also thriving. Singapore, Tokyo etc. The correlation between density and prosperity is very strong. And I am not only talking about productivity, but such factors as life expectancy and reported well being. The idea that people are happier in less dense, usually rural, areas is simply a myth and not supported by facts or statistics. Of course the ultra-urban lifestyle isn’t for everyone, just like the rural one isn’t, but it is apparent that there is a demand for it that is not being met (which causes soaring real estate prices in a deregulated market).

@Ravenman

Also, the current housing market is making San Francisco LESS diverse: link.

This is a well known effect called gentrification. Unfortunately most attempts to counter this are unsuccessful, or worse, counter productive. Different forms of consumer price regulation is the most common, and I agree with you that those policies should be reformed or removed.

The real solution to gentrification however is obvious, but unfortunately most policies actually work against it.

Gentrification happens when an urban area becomes successful from a combination of diversity and density, causing the value of it to rise to an extent where it destroys the diversity. Now the obvious solution is to allow for more areas to densify and diversify, thus increasing supply. But most policies and incentives work toward the opposite end of the spectrum, trying to keep down density. Usually by restricting building heights or other rules leading to sub-optimal land use, but also by zoning laws that prohibit different functions from being close to eachother or integrated in the living enviroments.

In the pre-industrial era cities were planned by creating structures that promoted both diversification and density. This was economically motivated since transportation was so expensive that nearness was essential. The result is that pre-industrially planned city centers are today the most effective, enviromentally friendly AND attractive urban areas we have.

If you go to Europe on a vacation, you’re probably going to visit, and love, the city centers of Paris, Barcelona, Venice etc. These are super-dense and super-diverse enviroments. Barcelona has a part of the city with 77.000 people living per km2. That’s roughly three times as dense as Manhattan.

@Ravenman

Just to be clear, I’m not conservative by any stretch.

I didn’t think you were conservative, it was that you pointed to the policy if smaller apartments as a conservative standpoint that made me point out the political aspect.

[stpauler]

My first apartment on my own was garden level with the view of a car’s bumper and 165 square feet. My bed was in the kitchen and I could wash my hands in the sink without getting out from under the covers if needed.

That was back in my early 20s and I spent more time out of the apartment hanging out with friends than in there which was primarily used just for sleeping. If it had a Murphy-style bed it would’ve been even better.

I was in the heart of downtown St Paul, 3 block walk to work, wonderful restaurants, museums, theater, co-op grocery store, and easy highway access. It was perfect for my lifestyle then.

I fail to see how this is a problem to have in San Francisco which offers even more. It’s not like it’s capsule hotel style living quarters.

[slaphead]

@Ravenman

I’ve lived in London, too, and everything is expensive there. It’s crazy! I looked for an apples to apples comparison of housing costs, and I found that people in London spend an average of 26.2% of their income on housing, whereas people in San Francisco spend an average of 39% of their income on housing. Not to minimize London’s problems, but this is a huge difference.

Note that article is quoting flatshare affordability - so 26.2% of multiple incomes. It’s also not clear what definitions of ‘London’ and ‘San Francisco’ are in use, and whether or not this is only for private sector rents or includes social housing, and indeed how incomes are defined. Or indeed, what counts as ‘habitable’ - people are forever trying to get minimum standards introduced in London.

I think Shelter released a report last year showing that in two-thirds of London boroughs, median rents exceeded 50% of median local incomes - but these sort of comparisons are incredibly hard to make since you have single people, single and double income families, with and without kids, etc.

But my point still stands - London, San Francisco, Paris, New York, Shanghai, Hong Kong - they are all going to range from “Expensive” to “Auction your Kidneys” with most settling at ‘robbery’ - and yet people are still happy to move to large cities. If you want cheap housing, try central Detroit.

[PBear42]

@Ravenman

Honest question: for rentals being put on the market (that is, not the prices paid by current tenants) are you aware of a substantial difference between the cost of a rent-controlled apartment and a non-rent controlled apartment?

If there’s been a good study on that question, I’m not aware of it. Anecdotally, though, yes, friends I know will pay more for a rent-stabilized apartment than for one that isn’t, if they plan to stay there for more than a few years, because they recognize the difference in exposure to future rent increases, not to mention the other protections rent control provides.

[even_sven]

Again, San Francisco has a special relationship with its neighbor cities that affects the situation. DC, for example, has places like Bethesda and Silver Spring on the outskirts, which are great for families but of limited attraction to the young and the hip. Young single people are going to really want to be in city limits. San Francisco, on the other hand, has Oakland and Berkeley, both of which are very cool cities in their own right and much more affordable than San Francisco.

There are multiple options for the young and the hip in the area who do not want to pay San Francisco rents, but there will always be a small percentage who will pay basically anything to live in San Francisco itself. So those looking for cheaper rent don’t even try, leaving only the “San Francisco or bust” crowd competing.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hyperelastic

So is employer-sponsored health insurance, yet it lives.

As to the OP, if you don’t like the idea of a tiny apartment, don’t live in one. I can only see a problem if the tiny apartments resulted in such a high population density that other public goods like the sewer system became insufficient.

In college I lived in a two-room unit that could not have been more than 300 square feet. With three other people. Granted, we didn’t have to cook or eat there, but we did have a bathroom.

Employer sponsored healthcare is also something we should get rid of. A health care marketplace with a public option or UHC (depending on your political leaning) is much better.

[BigT]

@SciFiSam

That’s not that small. It’s exactly half the size of my flat, and two of us live here right now, usually three. You must be thinking of amazingly spacious prison cells.

The amount of space needed doesn’t double with twice the occupants. That apartment in that artist’s rendering is tiny. You barely have room to stand beside your bed. I definitely thought 300 sq. ft. was larger than that, with you guys talking about it being the size of your college dorms and all.

But maybe it’s just the layout that’s cramped. Does it have to be so much longer than it is wide?

Looking at the overhead view, is that even to scale? How in the world is the bed as wide as the bathtub is long?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@PBear42

Ravenman, mostly I posted to point out an importance nuance (new units aren’t rent controlled in SF) which seems to have been overlooked in the thread.

FWIW, I’m no fan of rent control. Which in this context, as others have noted, is actually rent stabilization, since rents on vacant units aren’t regulated. BTW, another important nuance overlooked in the thread is that rent control here is more than a restriction on rent increases. It’s also a restriction (with narrow exceptions) on taking rental units off the market and protections (widely regarded by landlords as unfair) which make it very difficult to evict tenants for grounds other than nonpayment of rent. Given the realities of politics in SF, rent control isn’t going away any time in the foreseeable future. I’ve read (sorry, no cite handy) that something like 70% of SF’s voters are renters. Repeal ain’t gonna happen. Vested interests and all that.

Meanwhile, I have long felt the fundamental problem we have is that it’s so difficult to get anything built here. That, IMHO, is the real supply problem, as evidenced by your statistic that less then 30% of the current rental units were built since 1979. What I’d love to see is a development track for modest, no-frills apartments (regular studios, one and two bedrooms) which are inherently priced (based on amenities and location) for the middle of the market, which is terribly underserved.

There are multiple market failures at work here. Developmental restrictions matter: eliminate rent control while holding supply fixed and only landlords would benefit.

I understand there are pretty serious height restrictions in SF, because a fair number of people don’t want it “Mahattanized”. This is separate from seismic considerations. If you believe Matt Yglassias, land regulations may be amongst the most under-appreciated distorting intervention in the US today. [hijack]And they exist pretty much everywhere. [/hijack]