=v= A local perspective ...
=v= One reason San Francisco is a low-rise city is earthquakes.
There are some parts of the city on solid ground, where in
theory taller structures would be safe, but much of the city
is landfill. (Oddly enough, we recently built condos in a
tall structure known as Millennium Tower, on landfill. It has
started to lean, even without an earthquake.) These issues
have to be taken into consideration all over the Bay Area; not
too many skyscrapers in these parts.
=v= San Francisco has more people than its infrastructure can
handle at this point. The space considerations in the article
are already exceeded by some of the roommate arrangements in
existing housing. Now, to me the clear solution is more density
along transit corridors, but there has been local opposition to
every proposal:
o Where it's not currently dense, it's argued that transit is
unnecessary, and car-owners fuss about losing their (free,
taxpayer-subsidized) street parking.
o Where it is currently dense, it's argued that density should
go somewhere else, since the transit can't handle it.
Some of the stalemate is truly preposterous. A recent struggle
was over one building along an existing transit corridor (which
the city is seeking transit district status for) decryed "85ft
people hives," meaning a 6-story building. Except that it's a
4-story building being proposed, and across the street from an
existing 6-story building.
=v= Given this stalemate, we've seen private sector moves such
as the double-decker luxury employee buses to Google and Apple,
which of course damage the street surfaces more than traditional
shuttles, and which hog the bus stops, making transit worse.
Plus the fleet of Uber/Lyft cars, lately estimated as 45,000
on weekdays, impeding transit and very much impeding the city's
recent, ballyhooed improvements in bike facilities.
=v= (Sadly, many transportation advocates are resigned to this
arrangement in the face of corrupt neoliberal accommodation to
these developments. "Part of the healthy transportation mix"
is the catchphrase, and a particularly onerous version of it
makes use of the word "ecosystem.")
=v= I'll note that the demand for living in San Francisco has
much to do with the very infrastructure that's being overwhelmed
by this influx. One would think that employment at Google,
Apple, Facebook, &c. would be an opportunity for the much closer
city of San Jose, which has much, much, much more room to build,
but its infrastructure is essentially suburban. Still, the boom
we've been seeing has been going on long enough that you'd think
someone would have been doing infill development by now. (The
other cities mentioned in the article are suburbs of San Jose.)
=v= The article mentions proximity to BART as part of a proposed
solution, but the region's commuter rail is balkanized: BART
doesn't go to Silicon Valley, but Caltrain does. There has been
a building boom near Caltrain stops, starting with the misnamed
live/work condos starting in the dot-com era (near the 22nd St.
station in a neighborhood now called Dogpatch), and some entire
neighborhood condo developments one stop south (Bayshore). In
both cases the developers are also eyeing freeway access instead
of transit, and this has been true for other large projects.
<_Jym_>