You may know that currently, San Francisco is the American city with some of the most expensive housing costs and the highest rents in the country. It’s not all too uncommon the rents within the city are approaching over 3,000 for a one bedroom apartment. Even that seems cheap when you understand that just recently San Francisco averaged around $4,225 for the median rent in the city. That means that it costs around $50,000 per year in rent alone. Because the U.S government considers those who spend more than 30% percent of their income on housing overly burdened and potentially facing difficulty with other necessary daily expenses, then it would take around an average of $167,000 in San Francisco to able to live there sustainable. Once you consider that the median income in San Francisco is around $75,000 per year, the crisis in the city becomes crystal clear.

But what does the housing crisis in San Francisco have to do with urban planning? Plenty. Decisions made at the government level concerning urban planning and design can resonate through the city and manifest themselves in a more sustainable housing market, or a worse one. In fact, government decisions are often THE nexus for these changes. Because urban planning is so important for ensuring that everyone who wishes to live in San Francisco can do so reasonably, it CANNOT be ignored.

Let me demonstrate my point by using an example. Suppose the city council had a decision to make about a certain moratorium and decided to accept a pause on new housing development in the mission instead of reject it.  That decision might cause both immediate and long term negative consequences as outlined below.

1. The moratorium would slow definitely down development in the mission district (its intended purpose), and this could mean that while the supply of housing in the mission would remain the same, the demand for housing in the mission (and in all of San Francisco for that matter) would increasing. That would result in even steeper price increases from what we would have already have seen.
2. The moratorium would send a message to developers that any potential developments might be slowed down or even halted completely in the future. This could drive developers to reconsider development in the Mission altogether which could lead to a similar outcome as number one.

Now, these consequences demonstrate that the government does have an important role to play in securing the livability of the city, but that doesn’t mean it is the first and last word in solving the housing crisis. Good urban planning is simply the foundation for an alleviated crisis. It represents the first step toward correction of the crisis.