As goes San Francisco...
Seattle has always modeled itself on San Francisco, and now both cities are having doubts about the model. The California city picked itself up after the dot-com bust by pursuing condos, fine restaurants, young residents, and the new trends in the economy such as biotechnology, green tech, and stem-cell research.
Sound familiar? It's a formula for Seattle and Portland. But now the doubts are setting in. Minority populations are moving out, particularly Blacks. They are becoming cities with few children and few families, in effect cities without a middle class. The prospect is a city with extreme wealth and pockets of poverty.
A valuable survey of San Francisco's rapid march up the income scale, in the San Francisco Chronicle, worries that the city will be unrecognizable in the next five years, in effect turning from a real city into a boutique city. Corey Cook, assistant professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, points out the dramatic shifts in demographics:
He sees San Francisco attracting 25-year-olds, "fresh out of MIT, who want to come to San Francisco because it is the coolest place in the world."
It could become a city of the young - and you can see that trend now in the clubs, in the hip restaurants. Ten years later, this scenario goes, these San Franciscans want to raise families, but the housing stock now going up is one- and two-bedroom condos, and the older houses, their prices driven up by scarcity, are unaffordable. Even now, even in a mortgage crisis, single-family homes in desirable neighborhoods like Noe Valley sell for well over $1 million.
So, Cook said, these San Franciscans move to the suburbs. It's an old story in cities: It happenedin North Beach, the Sunset, the Richmond and other places.
But in the new scenario, after years go by and their family is grown, these ex-San Franciscans move back - a movement planners call "new urbanism."
But now there are places for them like One Rincon Hill, the Millennium Towers and Soma Grand, which advertises itself as "a boutique condominium development."
The new, older San Franciscans who live in them support the opera, the theater, the symphony. All three were booming in 2007, a year in which the San Francisco Opera even showed a profit.
In this scenario, not long in the future, what has developed is a city of the young and the old. "If this happens," Corey said, "you definitely have a different kind of a city."
Can these trends be reversed? The article notes that the Board of Supervisors leans firmly left and in favor of condo development (to stop sprawl), but Mayor Gavin Newsome is a moderate, more aware of the backlash.
One thing is likely to continue the same. San Francisco is "always changing, but it opposes change."






Comments:
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 10:57 a.m. inappropriate
Hard to find space for a family: I have lived in SF and now live in Seattle. I can say in both cities that it is difficult to find the larger living spaces required for families.
I don't understand why developers don't build larger condos and apartment/flats. It would be great to see developments with large (like 2000-3000 SF) 3-4 bedroom condos and flats in areas like Capitol Hill, Montlake, Greenlake, etc.
It's a way to add density without driving families to the 'burbs.
Maybe someone with development experience can explain why these types of developments are not built? I'm not a planner or developer so I don't know.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 12:57 p.m. inappropriate
why: Because a 2,000 square foot condo would require a sales price out of reach of most people, mostly due to the basic structure, land, parking, and other costs that don't vary by luxury level.
Your "required by families" comment is a mystery to me. A family of four can live in a two-bedroom, 1,000 sf apartment or townhouse. If that's too small, what's wrong with 1,400 sf? Especially if there's a park a couple blocks away?
It's amazing how large the expectations of some Americans have gotten. Houses used to average in the 1,400 sf range, even when households were typically much bigger than today. On one hand, it's their business. On the other hand, it's disgusting how much we consume as a result.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 1 p.m. inappropriate
Also: Furthermore, because your plan would cause fewer units to be built on any given site, the difference in units would have to be built elsewhere, increasing sprawl and further hurting affordability.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 1:08 p.m. inappropriate
back on the main point: The comparison to San Francisco isn't particularly parallel.
Seattle housing prices are far lower, about 50% if I hear correctly. Middle income people can live here assuming they don't need huge square footages.
San Francisco is more tech, biotech, and tourism dependent than we are. The Seattle area meanwhile is reasonably well balanced, with a stronger manufacturing base, a bigger seaport including Tacoma, probably more non-tech headquarters in relative terms, and even a large military presence on our fringes. At the same time we're in a strong second-tier position in all three of SF's strong areas.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 1:52 p.m. inappropriate
How much space does a family need?: Currently, quite a bit it seems, but this wasn't always the case. Some friends of mine bought their 3 bedroom 2500 sqrt foot Capitol Hill craftsman 15 years ago from a family that raised 12 kids in that house. Sure, that's an extreme example, but a family of 4 can easily fit into a 2 br 1200 square foot Belltown condo. Today there are many thousands of families in Manhattan making due with even less space for the privilege of living in the city.
If you want to know where Seattle and SF are heading, just look at NYC.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 2:08 p.m. inappropriate
RE: why: If the condo were in a nice, residential area like most of capitol hill, montlake or greenlake (just as examples), I agree that a smaller condo is definitely very liveable. If the streets around the condo have amenities and safe play areas, then great. If the neighborhood is like Belltown, then I would personally want more space in my unit because the streets of Belltown are definitely not family-friendly.
But it seems like most families I know want more space. That's what I meant by "required". You can replace it by "desired" if you like.
Whatever your opinion on the morality of wanting more space, I think the fact remains that families these days (esp. with more than 1 kid and a pet) don't want to live in 1000 sf if they can help it. And they help it by moving to the 'burbs. That's why I was asking about bigger condos. Your first paragraph was informative (if it's factually accurate).
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 2:13 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Also: First, I have no plan. Second, I hope that I didn't imply that EVERY development would be larger units. I just recall that when we looked for housing in Seattle, we could not find any apartments or condos (or VERY few) that had more than 2 bedrooms. I actually like apartment/condo living.
I disagree with your assertion that "my plan" would necessarily increase sprawl. What if large-unit or mixed-size condo or apartment developments replaced lower-density developmnets like townhomes or single-family homes?
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 2:15 p.m. inappropriate
the difference: I agree if you're saying that an increasing number of families will live in smaller units here. But we'll always have one big difference: housing will be much cheaper in Seattle because we can build new supply, unlike Manhattan which to a great extent can't.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 2:18 p.m. inappropriate
RE: How much space does a family need?: The problem with Belltown is that the neighborhood itself is not very appealing to families and the street-level amenities are paltry as compared to Manhattan.
In Seattle you can still live in a single-family home in the central part of the city. I think Manhattan is almost all apartments/condos isn't it?
If I were a family of 4 and I had to live in a 1000SF condo, I'd much rather take Manhattan than Belltown. Manhattan offers much more amenities, so you end up getting as much or more for your $$.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 2:47 p.m. inappropriate
SF and Seattle, not too similar: Having lived in San Francisco and the Bay Area for 9 years and Seattle for the past 4, I think it's a stretch to compare the two cities (don't get me wrong, I love it here). Other than the basics of geography -- both being located on the water -- the culture, economics and psyche of each city couldn't be more different. San Francisco, the quintessential boomtown, is the social, cultural and financial hub of a region that extends much farther and is much more heavily populated than the greater Seattle metroplex (if you can even call it that). With just over half the land area of Seattle but nearly 30% more residents, San Francisco's underlying real estate dynamics are entirely different as well. San Francisco's problems are also the problems of the entire state of California, writ large. People are leaving the state in droves because of the high cost of home ownership, high income and property taxes (despite Prop. 13) and general issues of overcrowding.
Despite all of the hand wringing, what's happening in Seattle is hardly different than what's happened in any major city over the past 10-15 years. And we still have a long way to go before the density/cost equation remotely approaches what's happening in San Francisco. Just take a look at the real estate listings for each city.
That said, Seattle's current development strategy leaves a lot to be desired. I keep wondering who exactly is expected to move into all of the $ million and up condos currently being developed downtown. Moreover, encouraging density without a clearly articulated and fully funded local and regional transit strategy (that goes beyond buses and bikes) is just ludicrous.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 2:49 p.m. inappropriate
same difference: The only reason Seattle can build new supply is because it's less populated than NYC. As the city's population approaches that of NYC, the number of single family homes available in Seattle's urban core will decrease to zero due to cost and zoning laws.
In both NYC and the Seattle of the future, families seeking more space will always have the option of moving the outer boroughs and suburbs. The real difference is that Manhattan is a 20-minute train ride from its burbs, whereas people will sit in their cars for hours trying to get into Seattle of the future.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 6 p.m. inappropriate
"Mayor Newsome is a Moderate?": Quote, "but Mayor Gavin Newsome is a moderate". Only in Seattle and San Francisco would Gavin Newsome be considered a "moderate".
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 7:33 p.m. inappropriate
RE: same difference: Seattle is nearly 7,000 people per square mile and New York is around four times that. Maybe we'll get to more like a 1/3 ratio in our lifetimes as Seattle densifies.
Seattle is dominated by single-family zoning, which is unlikely to change in the short- or mid-term future, aside from maybe greater provision for mother-in-laws and so on. Houses will always be plentiful compared to New York.
You're part right -- a slowly dropping number of houses matched with gradually increasing demand will push house prices up. That's why we need townhouses, which provide family-sized living spaces but save tens of thousands per unit in land costs.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 7:47 p.m. inappropriate
RE: why: Most of the best sources regarding building costs are manuals sold to construction firms. I'm not aware of one I can point you to that's open to the public, though you can certainly dig up ENR's cost quarterlies at the library.
You can also look at condo and townhouse ads. In close-in areas it's hard to find a new condo in a concrete building for less than $500/sf. Woodframe is substantially cheaper, but even so I doubt you'd find a new 2,000 sf townhouse in a good close-in area for less than $600,000. Even if you cut $20,000 out of the kitchen and bathroom fixtures budget you're still at a hypothetical $580,000.