A new YIMBY activist group is starting to gain meaningful traction in San Francisco. They were recently featured in the New York Times and they have managed to secure the financial backing of people like Jeremy Stoppelman – co-founder and CEO of Yelp. 

(All excerpts in this post were taken from the NY Times.)

The group is called SF BARF, which stands for SF Bay Area Renters’ Federation. The group, however, supports new development of all kinds. So I think the name is more driven by the fact that the founder, Sonja Trauss, wanted the acronym to be BARF. It speaks to their shit disturbing approach:

“Her group consists of a 500-person mailing list and a few dozen hard-core members — most of them young professionals who work in the technology industry — who speak out at government meetings and protest against the protesters who fight new development. While only two years old, Ms. Trauss’s Renters’ Federation has blazed onto the political scene with youth and bombast and by employing guerrilla tactics that others are too polite to try. In January, for instance, she hired a lawyer to go around suing suburbs for not building enough.”

The impetus for all of this, of course, is San Francisco’s lack of affordability and severe housing shortage. Housing supply is decades behind the city’s population and job growth. 

Most people are directing the blame at the tech community for bidding up housing. But there’s clearly growing recognition that housing supply matters.

As a real estate developer, my industry obviously benefits from fewer barriers to building. So let’s get that out there:

“Ms. Trauss’s cause, more or less, is to make life easier for real estate developers by rolling back zoning regulations and environmental rules. Her opponents are a generally older group of progressives who worry that an influx of corporate techies is turning a city that nurtured the Beat Generation into a gilded resort for the rich.”

But let’s also be clear that I don’t believe we should be developing roughshod over our cities. New development should respond to what’s already there and give back. 

At the same time, housing supply matters a great deal. A big part of the reason that cities like San Francisco, New York and Vancouver are so expensive is that they’re naturally supply-constrained markets. Geographically, they are either peninsulas or islands.

When you overlay tight land use restrictions, fierce community opposition and/or foreign investment on top of this geography, it should come as no surprise to anyone that demand is outstripping supply. 

New supply won’t solve every problem, but I do agree that it is an important part of the solution.

In 1933, the United States Congress created the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC). With foreclosures rising as a result of The Great Depression, the task of the agency was to provide new low-interest mortgages to both homeowners and private mortgage lenders. Between 1993 and 1936, the agency served about one million households.

By 1935, the parent company of the agency (the Federal Home Loan Bank Board) decided to initiate something called the “City Survey Program.” The idea was to look at local real estate trends – including the racial and ethnic composition of the country’s largest cities – in order to get a better understanding of how to manage all of these outstanding loans.

One outcome of this program was the creation of the HOLC’s infamous “residential security maps.” (Philadelphia’s is shown at the top of this post.)

These were maps that categorized city neighborhoods according to 4 grades. Grade A neighborhoods (green) were the best ones. They were ethnically homogenous and had room to be further developed. Grade B neighborhoods (blue) were the second-best ones. They were already completely developed, but were still considered desirable. Grade C neighborhoods (yellow) were starting to decline and showed an “infiltration of a lower grade population.” And finally, grade D neighborhoods were considered “hazardous” and colored in red. These neighborhoods had low homeownership rates, old crappy housing, and an “undesirable population”, which, at the time, largely referred to Jews and African Americans.

Some have argued that the HOLC and their “residential security maps” are what kicked off systematic mortgage discrimination in America’s inner city neighborhoods – later referred to as “redlining.” This was the practice of denying credit to people who lived in these undesirable neighborhoods (and even to real estate developers who wanted to build in these undesirable neighborhoods).

But University of Pennsylvania professor Amy Hillier has argued that these maps simply reflected the ethos of the time period. Using a sampling of HOLC mortgages, she found that 62% of them were issued to grade D (red) neighborhoods. The agency, itself, was not actually redlining in practice.

Furthermore, she also looked at private mortgages issued in Philadelphia between 1937 and 1950 and found that security grade rating actually had no impact on the total number of loans issued. She did, however, discover slightly higher interest rates for properties located near and in the bottom security grades.

All of this is to say that “redlining” is likely not the only culprit for inner city decay. There are other factors at play.

To that end, the National Bureau of Economic Research recently published a working paper, which I discovered through CityLab, called, “Racial Sorting and the Emergence of Segregation in American Cities.” The key finding here is as follows:

“Our preferred estimates suggest that white flight was responsible for 34 percent of the increase in segregation over the 1910s and 50 percent over the 1920s. Our analysis suggests that segregation would likely have arisen in American cities even without the presence of discriminatory institutions as a direct consequence of the widespread and decentralized relocation decisions of white urban residents.”

In other words, it wasn’t just mortgage discrimination; it was also just general discrimination. That actually makes a lot of sense, because, if you think about it, the former couldn’t have occurred without the latter being present.

Here’s how the research paper puts it (via CityLab):

“Policies that reduce barriers faced by blacks in the housing market may thus not prevent or reverse segregation as long as white households have the ability and desire to avoid black neighbors.”

(Note: Most of the information and data used in this post was sourced from the work and research of Amy Hillier.)

I recently started reading the blog of Michael Mortensen. Michael is a real estate developer and urban planner based in the UK. And if you like my blog, I think you’ll also like his.

Last week he published a post talking about a UK development company called Pocket and a recent design competition that they organized called “Pocket two bedroom.”

Historically the firm has been focused on well-designed and compact one bedroom apartments (38 square meters) that they deliver at a minimum 20% discount relative to typical market rate housing in London.

But over time, they found that they had to turn people away because they were looking for larger – yet still affordable – two bedroom apartments. So the firm decided to figure out how to scale their model to larger units.

To do this, they went out and asked 19 architects to come up with ideas for a two bedroom Pocket apartment. They then published all of the ideas online.

Firstly, I applaud them for making their competition results public. Most real estate companies wouldn’t do this.

Secondly, it’s interesting to take note of the recurring design themes, as they have on page 24-25 of their competition book. 

Some of the themes include “deep thresholds” that blur private and communal spaces; “thick walls” that allow for storage and servicing; flexible spaces and fewer dedicated spaces; and dual entry apartments.

This last item was particularly interesting to me. It’s a simple idea – two separate doors leading into one apartment – but it can allow for a number of flexible sharing scenarios. I am already imagining somebody creating an Airbnb rental out of their second bedroom.

Housing is certainly undergoing a transformation.