SPUR Talk: Why is Housing so Expensive?

Image:  Pixabay.
Image: Pixabay.

The San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), during a lunchtime presentation yesterday, developed a blueprint to bring down Bay Area housing prices in five years, so that everyone who wants to live in the city can afford a home.

Actually, they didn’t do that. But it would have been nice.

Instead, they listed all the reasons housing prices are so high and offered some suggestions for how advocates can help supply get more in line with demand. “Sales prices have continued to rise–most new condos are in the $1,200 to $1,400 per square foot range,” said Mark Hogan of OpenScope Studio, which designs in-fill housing projects.

What’s driving that cost–or, more importantly, what could help remove the upward thrust? Hogan, using a small, 640 square foot condo as an example, said one of the most straight forward things would be to remove parking requirements. While explaining that land costs vary widely, roughly speaking each parking spot adds “$35,000 per space which assumes mechanical parking stackers inside a building.”

And even if the parking is built without expanding the footprint of the project, it still jacks up costs. Buildings get higher which, sometimes, even changes the construction type to bear the extra mass. Or builders have to dig underground parking, which, again, makes building more complicated and expensive.

He added up other costs which quickly propel new construction into the stratosphere, with financing costs, labor, and permits. And then, while progressives generally support it, Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements don’t just provide cheaper units out of thin air. “In order to provide 18 percent of the units as BMR, $87,805 in gap funding is added to the cost of producing each market rate unit.”

He explained that construction/labor costs aren’t even that big a factor, when weighed against all others, dispelling the idea that there are simple ways to bring down prices. “When we hear shipping containers will solve the housing crisis, that doesn’t even cut one-third of the costs of bringing a unit to market.”

That isn’t to say labor is not a big issue–at least finding enough of it. Ann Silverberg of BRIDGE Housing, which develops affordable housing for workers and seniors, said the recession is still having a residual effect on construction.

“The recession was shorter than people expected; we have not been able to get enough workers back,” Silverberg said.

She explained that construction workers moved away from California or left the industry entirely, so now there’s huge demand for workers–who also can’t afford to live near Bay Area job sites, explained Taeko Takagi of Pankow, a construction company.

“Over 50 percent of our laborers come from 50 miles outside of the job site. That’s not productive,” Takagi said.

Sometimes contractors have to put up work crews in hotels during the week. It’s also nearly impossible to find subcontractors in the area, such as electricians and plumbers, who are always in demand, they said. That also jacks up prices.

In addition, because of the cyclical nature of building, it’s really hard to steadily train new workers, since they end up leaving the industry, as they did in the great recession.

“We’ve grown about one percent per year,” said Takagi. “While the world economy moves at around 2.8 percent and tech grows at 3-to-4 percent per year…we have to squish that gap.”

Silverberg and Takagi also blamed heavy regulation for making building–and growth in the construction trades–so slow. “We have to streamline the permitting process. Identify issues often and early,” said Takagi. “I’m not against regulations…we have healthier, safer buildings because of regulations, but they do add time and costs.”

Libby Seifel, Taeko Takagi, Ann Silverberg, and Mark Hogan

The key, said the panelists, is making sure the regulations are consistent and don’t jam up the timeline of a project because of changes and unpredictable interpretations.

“San Francisco is really difficult–you might have some community opposition to affordable or community housing, meaning entitlements are never certain, they take a long time, they cost a lot of money,” said Silverberg. “We had a project we had to walk away from when it became irresponsible to keep pursuing the entitlement.”

So if regulations, labor and land costs aren’t enough of a burden, don’t forget financing.

“Equity is the most expensive source of capital and equity is needed [to start any housing project] because lenders are only willing to lend 65 to 75 percent,” said Libby Seifel, a development consultant. “So equity is more expensive the longer you carry it.”

What that means is every time the community objects to something about a development, the timeline gets stretched, and costs go up because of the delays–investors expect a greater return the longer it takes, driving up the capital costs.

The panelists called on SPUR members to lobby lawmakers to streamline permitting requirements. They praised Home-SF, for example, which gives an opportunity to lift density requirements, which can make housing cheaper by allowing developers to take advantage of economies of scale. Takagi also seemed to call on the tech industry to figure out cheaper ways to build and manage construction–pre-fabrication helps.

From a Streetsblog perspective, the most concrete and specific takeaway from a pretty desperate situation was to get rid of parking requirements. “One of the biggest positives is reducing parking,” said Seifel. “But if your neighbors say you have to provide parking, that increases costs, which means you have less land value.”

That also means good bike infrastructure and better transit, combined with car-sharing services and less private car ownership, can reduce housing costs. “There are places in San Francisco where instead of housing cars we’re housing people,” said Silverberg. “That’s one thing that’s very positive because in certain locations people can get around without their cars.”

That also suggests that the popular notion that San Francisco housing is expensive because it is constrained by water on three sides is not really the problem. Instead, it’s a combination of bad or overreaching public policies that require huge amounts of precious space for cars, plus neighborhood reviews of projects that are doing too much to delay both public and private developments. One hopes some of these issues can be solved. Still, the presentations made everything seem a bit hopeless and were short on prescriptions.

“If we can go to Mars, why can’t we build a house better, cheaper, faster?” asked Seifel, expressing the exasperation people feel about the Bay Area housing crisis.

A packed house came to hear the experts talk about housing costs. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick
A packed house came to hear the experts talk about housing costs. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

For more events like these, visit SPUR’s events page.

  • davistrain

    That “If we can go to Mars…” reminds me of the 1970s, when the line was “If we can put men on the Moon…..”

  • Sanchez Resident

    Eliminating the parking requirements in new construction is a great idea. But, we also need to eliminate issuing Residential Parking Permits to people living in these buildings. We can’t allow these residents to still own a motor vehicle and take up street space that could be dedicated to physically protected bike lanes.

  • JustJake

    Housing? The streetsblog attempt to make parking the boogeyman is classic, but mistaken. If the ideological dream of zero parking arrived with a big pink bow on it, housing costs would likely remain the same.

    “Still, the presentations made everything seem a bit hopeless and were short on prescriptions.”

    But wait, there are a handful of yimby activists, and they are going to change the world! s/

  • JustJake

    After being in the areas construction trades for 30+ years, I can unequivocally state that a huge added labor cost to multifamily building in SF & Oakland is… local hiring requirements. Neither city has an established labor pool large enough to meet the requirements, and the result is nearly 50% of the total costs are added into bids as overhead, because local hires (most of them anyway) are dead weight, become a cost burden and negatively affect productivity goals of the project.
    Hunters Point is a prime example.

  • thielges

    The request to limit RPP access short term makes sense to prevent sudden disruption. However the restriction should be phased out over the years. Incumbent properties should not be granted unequal access (compared to newcomers) to a shared public resource like street parking. It belongs to everyone.

  • p_chazz

    Another cost is mandating eco-friendly nice to haves like gray water recovery systems and solar panels

  • Sanchez Resident

    New construction has to comply with the restricted parking building codes. Residents of these buildings know that before they rent or buy. Older buildings were constructed before the building codes changed. If you buy or rent an older building without​ off street that you know that before you move in. I’m not sure I agree with your proposal.

  • John Murphy

    you prefer the cost of dealing with overwhelming the sewer infrastructure?

  • p_chazz

    If you are trying to make housing more affordable, then these costs shouldn’t be passed along to home buyers. Sewer infrastructure improvements are something that should be paid for by the City, through the sale of municipal bonds. Gray water recovery systems should be incentivized through tax breaks.

  • thielges

    I do not understand why older buildings should have preferential access to a public taxpayer funded resource like on-street parking. It is unfair to distribute common property this way. Both residents of new and old buildings pay taxes. And at least in San Francisco the residents of newer buildings tend to pay more taxes.

    Excluding newer buildings from access to street parking motivates developers to produce maximum off-street parking. That will exacerbate street congestion.

  • Sanchez Resident

    City building codes prevent developers from producing maximum off-street parking. The City is trying to reduce personal ownership of autos. If we really believe in this policy of personal auto ownership reduction then we shouldn’t​ allow residents of new construction projects to get street parking permits. I would support the reduction of parking permits to residents of older buildings that have off-street parking but use it for purposes other than auto storage.

  • Richard

    Except we havent yet been to Mars. We are getting head of ourselves.

  • thielges

    I get that you think that older buildings should have priority for on-street parking but you still haven’t explained why.

  • Sanchez Resident

    I do not believe that older buildings should have priority for on-street parking. I do believe that new buildings without off-street parking constructed under the City’s planning codes should not have on-street parking permits. The City has mandated these parking restrictions to promote the reduction of private auto ownership; the logical next step is to restrict on-street parking.

  • thielges

    > I do believe that new buildings without off-street parking constructed
    under the City’s planning codes should not have on-street parking

    Isn’t that the same as granting older building’s residents an advantage over those of newer buildings with respect to access to on-street parking?

  • Sanchez Resident

    I do not believe it does, but you may want to continue this discussion with people responsible for the building codes that restrict auto parking in new construction.


Can In-Law Units Help Solve SF’s Housing Woes?

There seem to be two points of view on San Francisco’s frustrating housing situation: either the tech industry is to blame for increasing demand or it comes down to NIMBY homeowners hoarding housing stock and preventing new development. Or maybe it’s some combination of the two? Clearly, there’s a desire to keep San Francisco looking […]

Apartment Blockers

Alan Durning is the executive director and founder of Sightline Institute, a think tank on sustainability issues in the Pacific Northwest. This article, originally posted on Sightline’s blog, is #9 in their series, “Parking? Lots!” Have you ever watched the excavation that precedes a tall building? It seems to take forever. Then, when the digging […]
A rendering of the recommended plan for Geary BRT at 17th Avenue in the Richmond. Images: SFCTA

ULI Talk: The Bay Area’s Transportation Future

It costs $2.25 to go one block on the Geary 38 bus, but someone driving a Tesla can use all of San Francisco’s streets for free. “It’s fundamentally inequitable” said Jeff Tumlin, Principal and Director of Strategy at Nelson\Nygaard Consulting, during a panel discussion at San Francisco’s Urban Land Institute. “We even manage traffic signals based on […]
Higher density suburban infill is helping keep housing costs in Seattle low relative to the Bay Area. Photo: SPUR

SPUR Talk: Learning from Seattle

“There’s a kind of cultural license to grow,” explained Benjamin Grant, Urban Design Policy Director for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), at a presentation about planning lessons from Seattle. “Although they have 20 percent fewer residents, Seattle is consistently producing, decade over decade, two times as much housing as San Francisco.” […]

SPUR Talk: Developing the Oakland Waterfront

SPUR hosted a lunchtime forum today at its Oakland location to discuss the $1.5 billion Brooklyn Basin development. The panel, which was moderated by SPUR’s Oakland director Robert Ogilvie, included Mike Ghielmetti of Signature Development Group, Matt Franklin of MidPen Housing, and Patricia Kernighan, who represented District 2 of Oakland during the authorization phase of […]