Developments in Development is a “weekly” column recapping real estate, housing, planning, zoning and construction news.
Well, what do you know? It seems the federal government, too, has caught wind of the fact that the country has a problem with housing affordability.
Interestingly, in its look at “worst-case needs” renters (those who make less than half of their region’s median income and pay more than half of their income in rent), HUD found places that are worse off than San Francisco. Curbed reports that among relatively poorer renters making less than half of the local area median rent, 49.5 percent of San Franciscans are living the “worst case.” Compare that with 54.5 percent in Los Angeles and 60.9 percent in Miami.
The Curbed interpretation also highlights what affordability advocates continue to emphasize: Yes, we need to build more. We aren’t building enough, but what we’re most desperate for is affordable housing. In HUD’s words: “Unlike more expensive units, the stock of rental housing affordable to very low-income renters shrank between 2013 and 2015, and vacancy rates remained highest among the most expensive units.”
You can read the full report here.
So how are we doing on that building boom, then? Better than usual! San Francisco and San Mateo counties, combined, issued permits for more than 140 percent of the amount of permits they average per year. Not as high a number as San Jose (at 155 percent of its average), but we’re doing better than Brisbane, which has pushed a vote on its controversial housing-or-offices vote until next year.
As far as the homeownership market goes, there is some interesting recent data about the Mission: Following Bernal Heights, it’s actually seeing some of the cheapest per-square-foot sales in the city. Excelsior, the Outer Richmond, Outer Sunset and the Western Addition also have some of the lowest-cost listings, according to Curbed.
Permit chatter this week includes some speculation about the possible future site of a Maximus building (a supportive gathering for which drew protesters this week): Something called the City Club seems to be in the process of getting an alcohol license at 2919 16th St. You might recall that this is also the name of a bar diagonally across the street, on the lot that the Maximus development would occupy.
Also, on a fun note: People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and Mission Local has its fair share of typos, but this one is just a little too amusing not to share. A keyboard slip seems to have occurred in the administrative process to convert a parcel on Shotwell Street, currently numbered 1294, into affordable senior housing at 1296. The action noted in the records shows a change in address to “1296 CHOTWELL STREET.”
The permit has been issued.
This would be a good link to include too: using HomeSF, a project will multiply its affordable units 12x from 3 to 36 http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/amp/Housing-development-for-Lucky-Penny-site-in-SF-11943497.php (The article says 41, but according to Supervisor Tang, that was an error and it’s really 36. Still a dozen times increase.)
HomeSF was vocally supported and pushed through by Yimbys, so as a Yimby, I’ll continue to emphasize that this:
“affordability advocates continue to emphasize: … what we’re most desperate for is affordable housing”
Is something we agree with and act accordingly. I’d argue Yimbys are the ones who are more pragmatic about increasing subsidized affordable housing, compared to our critics – who didn’t turn out to support HomeSF, and some of whom attacked HomeSF in reductionist, moralistic terms: developers get something out of it, therefore it’s bad. (Of course they get something out of it, and so will the 33 additional households who get an affordable home now because it passed.)