• Lot width: 20'

• Lot depth: 115'

• Site area: 2,300 sf

Your total allowable gross floor area would be 1,380 square feet (0.6 x 2,300 sf).

If you build a laneway suite in this city, that won't count towards your total allowable GFA (otherwise they'd be very challenging/impossible to build). But if you want to build something like a triplex or a fourplex, it counts.

The one important caveat is that if you're building a residential building -- that isn't an apartment building with 5 or more homes -- you can deduct the floor area of the basement:

This, of course, helps the situation. But it doesn't solve all of our problems.

If you assume that the basement can be one home, that still only leaves 1,380 square feet for the other three, technically permissible, homes. This equals: 3 homes x 460 square feet.

Another option would be 2 homes x 690 square feet. But still, we're not exactly making it easy to deliver more "family-sized homes" in the city.

And herein lies one of the problems (plural, because there are others). We can say that fourplexes are allowed across the city, but it may not actually be technically feasible or practical to build them.

Note: I am not a planner. If you are, leave a comment below.

• Lot width: 20'

• Lot depth: 115'

• Site area: 2,300 sf

Your total allowable gross floor area would be 1,380 square feet (0.6 x 2,300 sf).

If you build a laneway suite in this city, that won't count towards your total allowable GFA (otherwise they'd be very challenging/impossible to build). But if you want to build something like a triplex or a fourplex, it counts.

The one important caveat is that if you're building a residential building -- that isn't an apartment building with 5 or more homes -- you can deduct the floor area of the basement:

This, of course, helps the situation. But it doesn't solve all of our problems.

If you assume that the basement can be one home, that still only leaves 1,380 square feet for the other three, technically permissible, homes. This equals: 3 homes x 460 square feet.

Another option would be 2 homes x 690 square feet. But still, we're not exactly making it easy to deliver more "family-sized homes" in the city.

And herein lies one of the problems (plural, because there are others). We can say that fourplexes are allowed across the city, but it may not actually be technically feasible or practical to build them.

Note: I am not a planner. If you are, leave a comment below.

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

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

Share Dialog

Share Dialog

Share Dialog

Share Dialog