Tag: san francisco

• Doom loop or boom loop?

  One of the interesting things about return-to-office trends is that there’s a meaningful difference between smaller and larger cities. In smaller cities, most people have returned to working in their offices. But in larger cities, this hasn’t been the case. This makes intuitive sense. Larger cities tend to have more expensive real estate (which forces people to decentralize) and, in turn, longer and more punishing commutes. So in a larger city, the individual benefits of WFH (i.e. having zero commute costs) tend to be far greater.

  However, in-person interactions are critical to what are known as agglomeration economies. This is why we have things like financial districts — because there are real economic benefits to even competing firms locating proximate to each other. WFH arguably reduces these benefits. And in this recent report called, Doom Loop or Boom Loop: Work from Home and the Challenges Facing America’s Big Cities, the authors, Richard Voith, David Stanek, and Hyojin Lee, have tried to estimate what these agglomeration losses might be for cities like New York, San Francisco, and Philadelphia.

  Here’s New York City:

  

  If you agree with their assumptions, then you might also agree with their policy recommendations. Among other things, the report argues that larger cities, like New York City, should be focused on promoting themselves to industries/jobs that benefit the most from in-person interactions, recognizing that WFH isn’t going away. At the same time, cities should understand that reducing the cost and increasing the pace of housing production also helps to reduce agglomeration losses. It keeps more people centralizing around a particular place.

  To download the full report, click here. It’s an interesting read.

  2024.07.13

• Building new cities

  On this blog, we often talk about city building in the context of doing things to help improve a city — whether that be a development project, a new public art mural, or an interesting local business. These interventions help to build a city. But even more specifically, the term has, for many, come to mean building up a city in a positive way.

  But there is another way to think about city building. You can think of it in terms of building actual new cities. We’ve spoken about some of these before, namely this one in California and this odd one in Saudi Arabia. But apparently it is becoming more common. According to The Economist, the world is now building more new cities than it has in the last 80 or so years:

  Egypt’s “New Administrative Capital” is part of a rush of city-building. Firms and governments are planning more settlements than at any time in the post-war period, with many already under construction. Ninety-one cities have been announced in the past decade, with 15 in the past year alone. In addition to its new capital in the north, Egypt is building five other cities, with plans for dozens more. India is considering eight urban hubs. Outside Baghdad, Iraq, workers have just broken ground on the first of five settlements.

  In some cases, it is being done as a solution to urban congestion. If this city is too expensive and unaffordable, just create a new one. This appears to be part of the idea with the above city outside of San Francisco. Of course, new cities can also be created for ideological reasons, or for political purposes, which was the case with Brazil’s capital city, Brasilia.

  Here, the idea was to move the federal capital away from the country’s populated southeast region to a more geographically neutral location in the middle of the country. It also turns out that seeding a new city with government institutions is a good way to get one of these started. Existing cities do, after all, benefit from network effects.

  History points to characteristics shared by successful projects. State institutions can help anchor cities, as Brasília (in Brazil) and Chandigarh (in India) showed in the 20th century. Although both have had problems, people in Brazil and India are voting with their feet. Brasília’s population is growing at 1.2% a year, more than double the national average. Chandigarh, a state capital, is now India’s fourth-richest region on a per-person basis.

  But putting money, ego, and ideology aside, when does it actually make sense to start a new city in lieu of just expanding (or addressing the problems in) the one(s) you’ve already got? Population size can’t be the only factor in determining whether a city is “full”, because Tokyo seems to do just fine as the largest metropolitan area in the world.

  If it hasn’t already been done, I think this would make for an interesting research project. Until then, there’s this (paywalled) Economist article.

  2024.05.30

• Waymo’s robotaxis now make 50,000 paid trips every week

  A few days ago, Waymo announced (on X) that its robotaxis are now doing more than 50,000 paid trips every week across Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

  This means that the company is getting an average of 300 bookings every hour or five bookings every minute. And if you add in Austin, where it’s currently offering a limited number of rides, the company has completed a total of over one million rider-only trips.

  In the announcement, Waymo also went on to say that “fully autonomous ride-hailing is a reality and a preferred mobility option for people navigating their cities every day.” All of this is something.

  But perhaps the most important takeaway, right now, is that the company continues to claim — by way of a study from Swiss Re — that its robotaxis are already significantly safer than human-driven vehicles.

  I don’t personally know if this is true, but it’s not hard to believe. I mean, human drivers suck. And assuming it is true, we should all want more robotaxis on the road, because statistically, we would be significantly safer.

  The problem, though, is that autonomous vehicles suffer from a perception bias. We’re all looking for them to fail. If a robotaxi gets into an accident, it’s news. But if a human driver gets into an accident, it’s standard operating procedure. It’ll be interesting to see how and when this flips.

  2024.05.13

• Housing follows money

  One argument that you might be able to make is that home prices follow urban density. New York City, for example, is dense. And homes in New York City tend to be more expensive than those in, oh I don’t know, rural Canada. So with this, you might conclude that development and density are bad — it makes housing more expensive. But then there’s places like San Jose, California. It’s not very dense, and yet it has some of if not the most expensive housing in the US.

  Well, it turns out that housing density and median housing values don’t actually exhibit a particularly strong correlation. A better and much stronger relationship can be found in what Kasey Klimes explains, here, in this excellent post, which is that home prices more accurately follow incomes. In other words, the more high paying jobs that exist in a market, the more likely that housing will be expensive.

  Here is what that looks like for US metros over 1 million people:

  

  The above chart compares median home value to aggregate income per unit of housing. And here, Kasey discovers an r-value of 0.9, which suggests that “over 81% of median home values in large metros can be attributed to aggregate income per unit of housing.” This explains why San Jose, and San Francisco, are such outliers. They have very high incomes for every unit of available housing, despite the former being not all that dense.

  Okay, so now that we know this, how do we make housing more affordable? One option is to just make people poorer. If you reduce incomes per unit of housing, then home prices will, almost certainly, go down. And this is why poorer cities tend to have more affordable housing. But this is obviously suboptimal. The better option is to keep people wealthy and simply increase the denominator in “aggregate income per unit of housing.”

  Meaning: build more housing!

  Chart: Kasey Klimes

  2024.04.12

• San Francisco is highly proficient at making housing more expensive

  

  If you’re looking to block new development, drive up the cost of housing, and appear “progressive” all at the same time, one generally effective technique is to do it under the guise of historic preservation. San Francisco is really good at this, as are many other cities. And it works because, who doesn’t think that history is important?

  This exact thing just transpired in San Francisco, where earlier this year Supervisor Aaron Peskin passed an ordinance enacting new density controls for most development in the Northeast Waterfront Historic District, the Jackson Square Historic District, and the Jackson Square Historic District Extension (solid neighborhood names).

  Of course, sometimes you can run into resistance when you’re trying to push through new anti-housing policies. And in this case, San Francisco Mayor London Breed actually vetoed Peskin’s bill. In a letter dated March 14, 2024, she wrote:

  Restricting new housing runs counter to the goals of our Housing Element, which the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved just over a year ago. It also runs counter to what we need to do to make this City a place that creates opportunities for new homes for the people who need them today and for future generations growing up in San Francisco.

  This ordinance passes off anti-housing policy in the guise of historic protections. Existing rules already protect against impacts to historic resources. I believe we can add new homes while also supporting and improving the vibrancy of our unique neighborhoods. Many areas of San Francisco, including eastern neighborhoods like the South of Market, Potrero Hill, and the Mission, have also already removed density limits to encourage new housing.

  However, her veto was ultimately overridden by the Board of Supervisors and so, as far as I understand it, the above density controls stand.

  What’s particularly frustrating about this outcome — sarcasm now firmly off — is that it so obviously reeks of NIMBY selfishness. Here’s an elaborate infographic created by Max Dubler explaining what many in San Francisco believe is the real reason behind this downzoning:

  

  Here is also a street view image from the area, along The Embarcadero:

  

  But like I said, San Francisco seems to be really adept at this sort of maneuvering.

  2024.03.30

• Wuhan is right now a driverless car capital

  Remember Wuhan? Well, it turns out that it is emerging as an important hub for driverless vehicles. Right now it is home to the largest fleet in the world:

  In Wuhan, 500 robotaxis, mostly run by Baidu, China’s rival to Google, recorded more than 730,000 ride-hailing trips last year. That compares with combined orders of more than 700,000 last year in Phoenix, San Francisco and Los Angeles, according to Waymo, the self-driving car developer of Google’s parent company Alphabet. Waymo told the Financial Times that it had “a couple of hundred cars” in each of the three fully autonomous zones.

  One of the things that is allegedly helping Chinese companies is that they have access to more data. The networks of cameras and other infrastructure that make Chinese cities the most surveilled in the world are, coincidentally, also good for training machine learning models.

  This has some industry experts speculating that China could reach an autonomous vehicle “tipping point” sometime around 2027. Meaning, the technologies will be significantly safer than human drivers (at least 10x) and ready for mass adoption.

  I don’t know if this is the right timeline. There have been many forecasts made over the years. But I do know that competition is good for progress and that having a rival can be an important motivator. And right now, this is yet another example of the US vs. China.

  2024.02.05

• Silicon Valley wants to build a new city about 60 miles northeast of San Francisco

  We talk a lot about housing supply on this blog. And most of the time it is about creating more and better infill housing, In other words, housing that leverages existing infrastructure and uses previously developed land as efficiently possible.

  But I suppose there are other options. You could, for instance, form an anonymous holding company, raise hundreds of a millions of dollars from leading venture capitalists in the Bay Area, spend $800 million on cheap agricultural land, and then just build an entirely new city about 60 miles northeast of San Francisco.

  And apparently that is happening:

  In 2017, Michael Moritz, the billionaire venture capitalist, sent a note to a potential investor about what he described as an unusual opportunity: a chance to invest in the creation of a new California city. The site was in a corner of the San Francisco Bay Area where land was cheap. Mr. Moritz and others had dreams of transforming tens of thousands of acres into a bustling metropolis that, according to the pitch, could generate thousands of jobs and be as walkable as Paris or the West Village in New York.

  Here’s the area; it’s generally between Fairfield and Rio Vista in Solano County:

  

  The real estate opportunity is an obvious one. The majority of the land in Solano County, roughly 62% of it, is zoned for agricultural uses. So it was and is relatively cheap to acquire. In isolation, I would imagine that it would be pretty difficult, if not impossible, to rezone any of it for other uses. But if you buy enough of it and if you have the resources, then maybe you figure it out.

  And if you do, it’ll all be worth significantly more, which is why this group has been reportedly paying many multiples of market value over the last 5 years. Because here’s the thing, paying $6,000 per acre instead of $1,500 per acre is almost certainly not going to move the needle considering the broader strategy. More important is that you get enough contiguous land to execute on the vision of a new city.

  This will be an interesting one to watch. And from what I have read, it sounds like they’re just now coming out of stealth acquisition mode and preparing to engage the broader community.

  2023.08.26

• America’s most affluent cities

  

  This is an interesting chart from Bloomberg showing the most affluent metropolitan areas in the US in 1949. As you can see, at the top of this list is Detroit, followed by mostly older industrial centers.

  Now here’s the list today:

  

  It’s largely a different list; but importantly, it’s not an entirely new list. San Francisco was a wealthy city in 1949 and it remains one of the wealthiest today. But could that be changing? Given the city’s current challenges, some are questioning whether it might end up as another Detroit.

  I don’t see that happening. And for what it’s worth, here’s evidence of nearly 75 years of resiliency.

  Images: Bloomberg

  
  

  2023.07.21

• Toward the childless city

  There is a common narrative that, when it comes time to start a family and have kids, you should probably consider moving to the suburbs. Sure, you’ll have a painful commute, but you’ll get more space for your money, and maybe you’ll end up with better kids.

  I don’t know, obviously not everyone agrees with this. I certainly don’t.

  But it is something that commonly happens and, in many cities, it is now happening more often. Here is a map from the Centre for London showing the change in the proportion of households with at least one dependent child from 2001 to 2021:

  

  A darker borough means that it lost households with at least one child. And a lighter borough means that it gained more kids. Why this is concerning is that it means the trendline is toward more, and not less, childless cities. Here’s an excerpt from a recent FT article:

  A future with dwindling numbers of children is one many cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Washington DC, are grappling with. In Hong Kong, for every adult over 65 there are, to put it crudely, 0.7 children, and in Tokyo it is even fewer (0.5).

  Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. And we know the main drivers:

  Randal Cremer is one of several planned primary school closures and mergers in inner London triggered by low birth rates, families moving away because of expensive childcare, Brexit, and parents re-evaluating their lives during the pandemic. The biggest factor, says Riley, is that “housing is just becoming unaffordable”. Philip Glanville, mayor of Hackney, calls it “the acute affordability crisis”.

  So how do we start to solve this? Here are a few ideas that we recently talked about on the blog, but it is by no means an exhaustive list. In my opinion, this is a problematic trend that deserves a lot more attention. Because cities are at their best when they work for everyone — from the young to the old.

  2023.07.14

• A canyon as mid-block connection

  

  Tishman Speyer, the San Francisco Giants, and MVRDV have just completed a new residential building in San Francisco called “The Canyon.”

  The first phase of the larger Mission Rock masterplan (which also includes a project by Studio Gang), the complex got its name because of a walkway that cuts through the plinth of the building and that, well, looks like a canyon. You can see it in the above image if you look closely. There are even stairs that take you up as you walk through it.

  But what is most interesting about this walkway is not its geological reference. It would be how it performs at the ground floor and for the homes that face into it. It’s a way of creating a narrow mid-block connection (and we like narrow streets), while at the same time allowing more light into the center of the block.

  So I’d be curious to see/experience what it’s like in the middle of this canyon. Hopefully it’s interesting.

  Photo: Jason O’Rear

  2023.06.28