I must come down strongly in favor of the "live-work" apartments/condos
discussed less than favorably in this forum. Why?
1. SUPPLY AND DEMAND. There is a well-defined shortage of good housing
in SF, as anyone not reaping the benefits of rent control (yes, I am a
recent arrival, having moved here in 1995) is well aware. Live-work is a
great way to convert unused (industrial) space to used (residential)
space. Therefore, it helps provide housing for people who want it. This
is very good, in my view.
2. MODERN WORK HABITS. Many people do not work 9-5 jobs, not because
they don't have a union but because they demand flexibility and autonomy
in their lives. I, for one, was an "independent contractor" for about a
year and LOVED it: lots of freedom, decent money, I could work several
different jobs per week, and (very importantly) I could deduct as
business expenses important computer purchases. Live-work meets this
need exactly for artists, web designers, custom handbuilt bicycle makers,
and anyone else who needs a bit more room than the typical (small) SF
apartment provides.
3. INFILL. Live-work developments, legit and informal, bring new life to
formerly rundown or abandoned districts. This is called economic
development, and occurs without Willie Brown subsidies (which may be why
certain old-line Dems hate it). This of course generates traffic and
demand for transit, which a competently run transit agency or private
company would address, but that's another issue. I have two friends, who
shall remain nameless, who live entirely outside of code in areas where
their presence definitely brings real dollars into the neighborhood.
Some people don't like live-work, apparently because:
A. IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE. Live-work is priced at the high end of the market
and doesn't address SF's need for affordable housing.
Rebuttal: See 1. By filling SF's well-defined and growing demand for
expensive (fancy) housning, live-work expands the total supply of houses
and enables other people to live in the less-costly places its residents
might otherwise take. "Affordable housing" ceases to be when people who
can _afford_ more bid up the price.
B. IT DISPLACES COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SPACE. By converting warehouses to
peoplehouses, we render the wares homeless. That is, we make it harder
to locate new business (for the politician, this means "jobs") in the
city.
Rebuttal: This would be true if SF did not have A LOT of abandoned
industrial/commercial land ripe for development. At the moment, however,
many of these locations are parking lots or worse because that's more
profitable than new commercial development. Residential development,
which can be very profitable even at the low end, can be a better use for
these lots.
C. IT CONTRIBUTES TO SPRAWL, TRAFFIC, REVERSE COMMUTING. Live-work is
too low density and located in areas not served by transit; these people
will drive, often to the South Bay.
Rebuttal: See 3. If Muni, BART, and Caltrain can't meet these people's
transit needs, let's find someone who can. Reverse commuting is
something we will have in our lives for quite a while, until SF figures
out how to attract Valley businesses used to (a) lower taxes (b) simpler
regulations (c) weaker unions (d) proximity to the CEO's house in the
hills. Hint: a long time. At least SOMA is near Caltrain and 280, so
live-work might actually cut back on traffic from the rest of the city.
Just my $.02.
ANDREW
p.s. Note new email address: andrew@sulli.org.
p.p.s. Third Street Light Rail does virtually nothing for the majority
of these users. Some in the China Basin may benefit, however. To
opponents: Start a RM task force - you never know what you might achieve!
s u l l i . o r g
ANDREW SULLIVAN
NEW email: andrew@sulli.org
NEW web: www.sulli.org
SAME physical address: 1668 Grove St, SF CA 94117
Phone: 415 673 0626