Comments on: Report: Richard Hu on the Future of the CBD http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/10/09/report-richard-hu-on-the-future-of-the-cbd/ Biking in the Bay Fri, 18 May 2012 09:22:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Peter http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/10/09/report-richard-hu-on-the-future-of-the-cbd/#comment-228 Peter Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:59:59 +0000 http://bikeblogs.org/sf/?p=181#comment-228 ah, thanks greasybear. i kinda was thinking 'vacation homes?' at first, but then i thought, 'no - nobody would actually do that, would they?' i guess they would. i kinda lost track of the conversation there for a few seconds, and then i heard something that sounded important and perked up. :) ah, thanks greasybear. i kinda was thinking ‘vacation homes?’ at first, but then i thought, ‘no - nobody would actually do that, would they?’ i guess they would.

i kinda lost track of the conversation there for a few seconds, and then i heard something that sounded important and perked up. :)

]]> By: greasybear http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/10/09/report-richard-hu-on-the-future-of-the-cbd/#comment-227 greasybear Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:36:09 +0000 http://bikeblogs.org/sf/?p=181#comment-227 I wasn't at the forum, but I might be able to shed light on why second and third homes aren't great for SF. When we plan for, promote, and facilitate new housing construction in SF, as a community we're doing so with the intent to bring about certain beneficial results. Among those anticipated community benefits are increased density and thus efficiency (within the larger, metropolitan context)--more homes here hopefully means fewer homes needed out in the autopian sprawl--and increased supply better meeting demand, thus making a dent in the cost of housing here. If a signficant number of the newly-constructed housing units, however, are only occupied part of the year by wealthy residents from other places, then the benefit of sprawl reduction is endangered (full-time residents likely will still have to buy out in Antioch) and demand for full-time homes--still the vast majority of the market everywhere--is not alleviated by the supply of, in essence, vacation homes. I wasn’t at the forum, but I might be able to shed light on why second and third homes aren’t great for SF.

When we plan for, promote, and facilitate new housing construction in SF, as a community we’re doing so with the intent to bring about certain beneficial results.

Among those anticipated community benefits are increased density and thus efficiency (within the larger, metropolitan context)–more homes here hopefully means fewer homes needed out in the autopian sprawl–and increased supply better meeting demand, thus making a dent in the cost of housing here.

If a signficant number of the newly-constructed housing units, however, are only occupied part of the year by wealthy residents from other places, then the benefit of sprawl reduction is endangered (full-time residents likely will still have to buy out in Antioch) and demand for full-time homes–still the vast majority of the market everywhere–is not alleviated by the supply of, in essence, vacation homes.

]]>