| 1. | Brandon Donnelly | 14M |
| 2. | 0xdb8f...bcfd | 4.5M |
| 3. | jcandqc | 4.1M |
| 4. | 0x65de...c951 | 2.1M |
| 5. | kualta.eth | 869.1K |
| 6. | Ev Tchebotarev | 170.5K |
| 7. | stefan333 | 81.7K |
| 8. | voltron | 81.5K |
| 9. | William Mougayar's Blog | 28.4K |
| 10. | Empress Trash | 19.8K |
| 1. | Brandon Donnelly | 14M |
| 2. | 0xdb8f...bcfd | 4.5M |
| 3. | jcandqc | 4.1M |
| 4. | 0x65de...c951 | 2.1M |
| 5. | kualta.eth | 869.1K |
| 6. | Ev Tchebotarev | 170.5K |
| 7. | stefan333 | 81.7K |
| 8. | voltron | 81.5K |
| 9. | William Mougayar's Blog | 28.4K |
| 10. | Empress Trash | 19.8K |
The headline sounds pretty promising: San Francisco is on the verge of abolishing single-family zoning, and will soon allow 4-plexes across the city and up to 6 units on corner lots. It is also clear recognition that, "hey, we have a housing problem and should probably figure out a way to increase overall supply."
Unfortunately, when you look at the policy details, you'll see that this is likely to be more symbolic than effective. What is being proposed is to take the 40% of San Francisco's land area that is zoned exclusively for single-family houses and upzone it to allow for duplexes on an as-of-right basis.
And then, if you happen to have owned the property for at least 5 years -- or inherited it from a family member that did -- you can apply for a special "density exception" from the city. This would allow you to build 6 units on corner lots and 4 units on all remaining mid-block lots.
But here's the other thing: if you are granted this density exception, the additional units (beyond your as-of-right two) will be subject to rent control. So the important question here is about whether or not anyone will end up building more than luxury duplexes and, if they do, will there be enough scale to produce a meaningful impact.
I'm not familiar with development cost structures in San Francisco and I'm not sure if there will be any incentives/subsidies for delivering these additional rent controlled units, but the above feels like far too many barriers if the goal is more housing.
But it remains a step in the right direction. Symbolism certainly has its merits.
For other posts on infill housing, click here.
Photo by Braden Collum on Unsplash
Earlier this year, California joined Oregon to become the second state to pass policy that would allow additional housing density in single-family neighborhoods. Set to take effect on January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 9 requires that communities across California allow duplexes -- and in some cases four units if they sever their lot -- in most low-rise neighborhoods.
This is similar to what Toronto is looking at doing, though the details seem to be different. But as I mentioned before, sometimes you can have the broader permissions in place and yet very little building actually takes place because of other land use restrictions or market factors.
People in California seem to get this dynamic, because the Los Angeles Times just reported that some/many cities in California are now looking at local policies that would mitigate the effects of Senate Bill 9. In other words, they're looking at policies that would make it harder to build the housing that this new law was hoping to unlock.
Land use planning is a funny thing.
The headline sounds pretty promising: San Francisco is on the verge of abolishing single-family zoning, and will soon allow 4-plexes across the city and up to 6 units on corner lots. It is also clear recognition that, "hey, we have a housing problem and should probably figure out a way to increase overall supply."
Unfortunately, when you look at the policy details, you'll see that this is likely to be more symbolic than effective. What is being proposed is to take the 40% of San Francisco's land area that is zoned exclusively for single-family houses and upzone it to allow for duplexes on an as-of-right basis.
And then, if you happen to have owned the property for at least 5 years -- or inherited it from a family member that did -- you can apply for a special "density exception" from the city. This would allow you to build 6 units on corner lots and 4 units on all remaining mid-block lots.
But here's the other thing: if you are granted this density exception, the additional units (beyond your as-of-right two) will be subject to rent control. So the important question here is about whether or not anyone will end up building more than luxury duplexes and, if they do, will there be enough scale to produce a meaningful impact.
I'm not familiar with development cost structures in San Francisco and I'm not sure if there will be any incentives/subsidies for delivering these additional rent controlled units, but the above feels like far too many barriers if the goal is more housing.
But it remains a step in the right direction. Symbolism certainly has its merits.
For other posts on infill housing, click here.
Photo by Braden Collum on Unsplash
Earlier this year, California joined Oregon to become the second state to pass policy that would allow additional housing density in single-family neighborhoods. Set to take effect on January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 9 requires that communities across California allow duplexes -- and in some cases four units if they sever their lot -- in most low-rise neighborhoods.
This is similar to what Toronto is looking at doing, though the details seem to be different. But as I mentioned before, sometimes you can have the broader permissions in place and yet very little building actually takes place because of other land use restrictions or market factors.
People in California seem to get this dynamic, because the Los Angeles Times just reported that some/many cities in California are now looking at local policies that would mitigate the effects of Senate Bill 9. In other words, they're looking at policies that would make it harder to build the housing that this new law was hoping to unlock.
Land use planning is a funny thing.
Toronto's chief planner Gregg Lintern (who you can follow over here on Twitter) was recently in the Toronto Star talking about the city's plans to allow more multi-unit dwellings in our low-rise single-family neighborhoods.
I was careful to say "more" because they are already permissible in some areas. The challenge is that they're not happening at any sort of meaningful scale, which is an obvious signal that some key ingredients are still missing.
Or perhaps there are too many required ingredients. For example, right now the zoning by-law requires one car parking space for every dwelling in a multi-unit building. This is, of course, dumb and the requirement should be completely eliminated.
Changes like this, as well as many others, are long overdue. Not just in Toronto, but in many other cities. And it is partially what I was getting at when I wrote about laneway housing this past weekend and hinted at the need for other solutions to increase housing supply.
So when you have a few minutes, I would encourage you to complete the city's survey on expanding permissions for multiplexes across the city. I just did it and voted to bring on the multiplexes.
Photo by Tiago Rodrigues on Unsplash
Toronto's chief planner Gregg Lintern (who you can follow over here on Twitter) was recently in the Toronto Star talking about the city's plans to allow more multi-unit dwellings in our low-rise single-family neighborhoods.
I was careful to say "more" because they are already permissible in some areas. The challenge is that they're not happening at any sort of meaningful scale, which is an obvious signal that some key ingredients are still missing.
Or perhaps there are too many required ingredients. For example, right now the zoning by-law requires one car parking space for every dwelling in a multi-unit building. This is, of course, dumb and the requirement should be completely eliminated.
Changes like this, as well as many others, are long overdue. Not just in Toronto, but in many other cities. And it is partially what I was getting at when I wrote about laneway housing this past weekend and hinted at the need for other solutions to increase housing supply.
So when you have a few minutes, I would encourage you to complete the city's survey on expanding permissions for multiplexes across the city. I just did it and voted to bring on the multiplexes.
Photo by Tiago Rodrigues on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
