Very beautiful, poetic, relevant to a lot of the audience of HN, and props for detailing the tech behind it.
Meanwhile... the highest and lowest hex I can spot is 1265 / 457 = a ratio of 2.76 with both endpoints having relatively steep curves compared to the rest of the histogram. With the graph's Z0 set to 457 and Zscale set to an arbitrary ratio, the sculpture-graph conveys the impression that there is a discrepancy of 5 or more times between the top of hill on the bottom tier vs the nearby flat area of the top tier. When the reality is something more like 1234 / 810 = 1.5
Very good point! Yeah, please be advised there's artistic license taken and the Z-axis scale is arbitrary (well, not arbitrary, it's linear but stretched and certainly doesn't start at 0). You're totally right that the difference between the lowest areas and the highest isn't really as exaggerated as it appears. The real delta between lowest and highest is about 2.7x. I'd argue though that a difference between ~$500/sq ft vs $1,200/sq ft is enough of a difference to make the top of the range feel entirely out of reach for anyone living in the bottom of the range, and that's what the sculpture was meant to convey.
This is really nice art and data visualization too.
It's common to scale the elevation of a topographic map to exaggerate features [1], even non-linearly [2]. If you try to 3d print a raised relief globe without exaggeration it is surprisingly flat. If you're buying an expensive classroom globe, the specs talk about the exaggeration [2].
This is a sculpture, so whatever goes, but perhaps the designer looked at the version without exaggeration and noticed that it looked less emphatic.
I also think, as data visualization, this sculpture nicely shows the extreme change in price which occurs over small spatial distances. That's really important, and, actually, the tendency to make real estate price heatmaps with models that force continuity and prefer smoothness, like cubic splines, suppresses that aspect of the data. Railroad tracks and some beautification really are sometimes the only thing between million dollar homes and mobile parks.
It would be cool to see this with neighborhood boundaries/names on the mesh.
[1] "A raised-relief map or terrain model is a three-dimensional representation, usually of terrain, materialized as a physical artifact. When representing terrain, the vertical dimension is usually exaggerated by a factor between five and ten; this facilitates the visual recognition of terrain features." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised-relief_map
As an outsider, the solution to the SF housing issues seem pretty simple... Vote out the NIMBY politicians and replace them with people who will change zoning laws to allow for more building. I'd assume almost no one likes the current situation unless they are a landlord.
>> almost no one likes the current situation unless they are a landlord.
Anyone who owns property in the city, whether they are a homeowner or a landlord, likes the current situation. For non-landlord homeowners, the current situation keeps their property values and home equity high and it ensures that the neighborhood and quality of life they bought into stays permanently stuck in time.
My local Nimby group, for e.g., sends out monthly notices (e.g http://pastebin.com/0TJiV0aM ) letting us know where the next development is, why we should protest it and sends us sample templates on how to email politicians to protest any new development. While large developers are probably able to lobby politicians, I doubt they're able to do this kind of astroturfing.
The problem is that "NIMBY politicians" are elected by NIMBY residents. If you are a homeowner, or live in a rent controlled apartment, SF is a fantastic place and there is little incentive to get rid of zoning laws. To fundamentally change the rental market in SF, you need to craft an argument that convinces these voters to change their minds. The "hey, lets get rid of zoning laws so we can build tons of apartments so more people can live here" argument may make sense if you don't live in SF, but if you are already living there, and vote in SF elections, in many cases, it's not going to be very convincing.
San Francisco is the second-densest large city in the United States (after NYC). It is denser than the Tokyo Metropolis (which, note, is not the Tokyo Metropolitan Area, which is less dense yet).
(NYC density: 10,831 people/km^2. SF density: 7,152 people/km^2. Tokyo density: 6,200 people/km^2)
Adding enough additional units to the city to make major changes to its affordability is not just a quick change to zoning laws. It's not just that there are height restrictions. If you made a quick change to height restrictions, you'd still find high density projects are expensive to build and prone to being blocked by the various other obstacles to building that a high-regulation city like SF has. And also, creating and funding big building projects takes time -- and there's a lot of pent-up demand for SF.
AND, if you did add tens of thousands of new dwelling units in SF in the traditionally less-dense areas of the city, you'd totally overwhelm the already struggling transport infrastructure of the city in those areas (and I have no idea about other infrastructure. Could the sewers handle this?).
Should we still lower the restrictions on infill development in SF? Yes. The restrictions are well past the reasonable. Will that in a short period of time make a major change to the affordability of the city? Not unless you hand-wave away the entire reality of SF.
I just moved myself, wife, and toddler out of Cole Valley to Seattle. We had to leave because - you guessed it - cost of living. My position is head of engineering for a small SaaS company. I make a _very_ healthy living by any standard yet couldn't afford to stay in SF with a family. It's bitter sweet; the bay area is absolutely amazing. But Seattle is a very close second and we're happy we can afford a comfortable life here.
Now my point -
We became members of the the Cole Valley neighborhood association and the only involvement my wife and I had was reading the monthly newsletter. The newsletter's tone and NIMBYism was astounding! Laughably-so that it was a constant source of jokes and conversation. My wife and me kept returning to how, for she and I, that perspective was shortsighted; we believe that attitude actively works against protecting the very thing that makes the city great - diversity in arts, culture, and food & beverage. If NIMBYism truly prevailed this would all go away to a homogenous super-elite. ... but maybe that's the goal. :(
Seriously. From what I read here on HN, SF is pretty messed up. So, if someone doesn't want to live somewhere messed up, don't go there to begin with. One can't move near an airport and complain about the noise.
Wealthy voters secretly like the situation but pay lip-service to economic inequality concerns because they know nothing major can come of it. Poor voters are voting for the red herring of rent control while being slowly gentrified out of town.
The current system screws over newcomers in favor of longtime residents. Rent control and Prop 13 mean that if you've been living in SF for a couple of decades, you're paying bargain-basement prices for either rent or property tax.
Asking people to vote against their interests doesn't work very well.
Your theory here is that there is a one-way relationship between supply and demand, but that's not the case. Increasing supply pushed down on prices, but that can increase demand, sustaining high prices.
That's especially important during a boom (or bubble, depending on your view). With the rise in prices, many companies are finally looking at putting offices elsewhere, or allowing more remote work. Building more housing would have only dropped prices if the pace of building outstripped the tech sector's ability to create jobs, which is prodigious. At a recent SF CTO conference, a number of speakers talked up non-SF options, something I wasn't hearing 5-10 years ago.
As to who likes the status quo, you ignore that "more building" here mostly means "tear down existing buildings and build bigger ones". That is a gain for the people moving in to the eventual new units. But it's a clear loss for the people forced to move, and a disruption of existing communities.
I have yet to meet a SF "build more" advocate so committed that they tore down their own home and replaced it more units.
"As an outsider, the solution to the SF housing issues seem pretty simple... Vote out the NIMBY politicians and replace them with people who will change zoning laws to allow for more building."
You are correct - that is the solution.
However, voting for the opposite is also the solution and is an equally valid expression, and result, of democracy.
I seriously doubt it is that simple. We have lows and policies at both the federal and state level that impact the price of housing. They have a different impact on both individuals and on housing in cities versus smaller towns or rural areas.
Trying to "correct" for what federal and state laws and policies do the housing situation in a specific location is quite burdensome. In order to fix some of what goes on in San Francisco, you would need to figure out the impact of those federal and state laws and policies and see if, realistically, anything can be done to counter them at the local level or if you would need to fight them at the state and/or federal level to have any hope of resolving the situation.
Just because the problem is obvious in San Francisco and significantly impacting the locals does not remotely mean it originates there and can be solved there.
As an insider (resident), that's the "solution" if you only look at 1 variable in this huge equation.
I think we should ask why people still want to live here when it costs so much. Yes jobs are part of it. But the other fact is that 30 story apartment complexes have negative externalities. Unique, historical victorians are part of what makes this city special (and parks), and if we let them be replaced with apartment complexes it'd destroy a piece of this city's appeal.
Umm, the NIMBY politician is being voted in by NIMBY voters. It's not just landlords, it's any homeowner. It's the people looking to move to SF or upgrade within SF. Do you have another idea?
The one thing that is missing from the article is a top view of the sculpture. Although I believe it, I would like to see the sculpture align to the outline of the city.
It does if you can get far enough away to take a photo without the perspective distortion being too great. Here's the model with a few shots going from looking directly straight down and then slowly rotating the perspective: http://imgur.com/a/b4SGy
Why is SF so opposed to building up? Build more high rises filled with apartments and condos, there are plenty of areas that could be rezoned to accommodate high rise living.
Why hasn't this guy donned all black and put this piece for sale in a swanky gallery for $1mil? It's the perfect blend of art and social commentary, and beautiful to boot!
People keep saying 'SF should allow for more development' as if it's a universal human right to live in SF; while current residents are being mean by not wanting highrises on their block. SF is nice, more people want to live there than there's space, hence, not everyone can afford it. Why would the current owners/residents want to change that? I really don't get it.
It's an rationalization from wealthy young upper middle class people who feel entitled to everything they want in life, used to attack wealthy homeowners who are entitled to make decisions about SF. And it's encouraged by mostly geriatric mega-wealthy large land owners who know 1) that that removing height and other restrictions will raise the value of their holdings even more, 2) that building high and ugly with inadequate parking or local services on property they already own will push those wealthy homeowners to sell en masse, and 3) they have the billions and the leverage to buy.
It's cynical manipulation of the selfishness of already entitled-feeling tech kids. All restrictions will be lifted, massive high-rises will go up, the property in the shade of them with be purchased by multi-billionaires, REITS and hedge funds, they will all instantly stop building and collude to keep rentals at the current prices, or even raise them, and all the tech kids will still be renting.
edit: it's a fantasy to think that rental prices will go down if high-rises get built. Call me Nostradamus, but half of the units in those high-rises will sit empty and be used to write-off taxes from the owners' other holdings (at the current neighborhood rental value of course) just like in every other hot property market in the world.
If people actually supported preserving existing units/communities exactly as they are, with no change, then they would vote to expand rent-control to 100% of all rented units in the city, thus ensuring that anyone who gets an apartment in San Francisco will be able to stay indefinitely.
But actually, people only care about their cheap housing, not cheap housing for everyone.
Think of it reverse. Is it a universal right to have luxurious places to live in a high demand area? Why would people who want to move into or remain in SF on a budget not want to change that?
This is why issues like this are complicated. Both sides have some merit.
(also, not taking sides since I don't live there any more)
Lovely piece! A little misleading with it's z-axis (given the range isn't very much and it seems exaggerated or logarithmic at least) but that's more artistic license, which is fair (and pretty).
I would be interested to see what it would look like with a more linear scale though.
I love the aesthetics and implementation - very cool. In reality, however, I think of the rip more between everything that's there and what's not pictured. The difference between the top and bottom home sales is not all that much, though the social divide between those who could afford to stay and those who can't even live here at all anymore is the underlying purpose.
I guess I don't buy that the home prices are dividing the landed gentry in Noe valley from pac heights as much as the rich elite from everyone else who's not buying homes in SF.
This is indeed poetic: sculpture bemoaning gentrification realized through the kind of technology that is celebrated by bearded hipster millionaires that drive up housing prices.
Lovely idea, fascinating way to visualize demographics.
One comment, and not at all a criticism of the art: I'm not sure if relative property values between neighborhoods really describes how SF is being ripped apart over time; for that, it might be more accurate to graph, say, proportional difference in median rent over the past n years, which might more closely hew to contested neighborhoods (ie, Pacific Heights doesn't usually catch headlines for how much it's changed in the last 5 years).
I don't like the housing prices. I would love to move somewhere I could afford a house with a nice yard, instead of my little condo. But I don't know anywhere else I can have the career security as a data scientist that I have here. If something goes wrong in the bay area, there are always tons of other places hiring.
WOW, this is utterly profound! Like that time someone put an empty McDonalds cup on the floor of a fine art museum and everyone stood around proclaiming its genius.
"but if neighboring areas are too far from each other I allow them to split, tearing the city along its most severe economic divides."
Interesting that, from an artistic standpoint, the high delta's in nearby neighborhoods house price leads to a more interesting sculpture. The city may be 'torn', but in this case it's a good thing... assuming you think mixed neighborhoods are better than the alternative (gated communities and slums).
The sculpture is really beautiful, but is the real issue that San Francisco is "ripping apart"? Even the lowest numbers on that chart ($457/square foot) are more than double the average price per square foot in Chicago ($219 according to trulia.com), for example. Is SF ripping apart, or simply becoming so gentrified as to be only livable by the wealthy?
you should post this on thingiverse! you'd get a lot of appreciation there for the impressiveness of the print itself (as a fellow 3D printerer, daaaaaaaamn), and honestly it's so gorgeous I wouldn't be surprised if it got featured.
[+] [-] corysama|9 years ago|reply
Meanwhile... the highest and lowest hex I can spot is 1265 / 457 = a ratio of 2.76 with both endpoints having relatively steep curves compared to the rest of the histogram. With the graph's Z0 set to 457 and Zscale set to an arbitrary ratio, the sculpture-graph conveys the impression that there is a discrepancy of 5 or more times between the top of hill on the bottom tier vs the nearby flat area of the top tier. When the reality is something more like 1234 / 810 = 1.5
[+] [-] dougmccune|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moseandre|9 years ago|reply
It's common to scale the elevation of a topographic map to exaggerate features [1], even non-linearly [2]. If you try to 3d print a raised relief globe without exaggeration it is surprisingly flat. If you're buying an expensive classroom globe, the specs talk about the exaggeration [2].
This is a sculpture, so whatever goes, but perhaps the designer looked at the version without exaggeration and noticed that it looked less emphatic.
I also think, as data visualization, this sculpture nicely shows the extreme change in price which occurs over small spatial distances. That's really important, and, actually, the tendency to make real estate price heatmaps with models that force continuity and prefer smoothness, like cubic splines, suppresses that aspect of the data. Railroad tracks and some beautification really are sometimes the only thing between million dollar homes and mobile parks.
It would be cool to see this with neighborhood boundaries/names on the mesh.
[1] "A raised-relief map or terrain model is a three-dimensional representation, usually of terrain, materialized as a physical artifact. When representing terrain, the vertical dimension is usually exaggerated by a factor between five and ten; this facilitates the visual recognition of terrain features." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised-relief_map
[2] "Raised Relief: Yes. Elevations from 0-3,280 feet are magnified 60 times, higher elevations and ocean floor are exaggerated by 40 times." http://www.1worldglobes.com/1WorldGlobes/classroom_relief_gl...
[+] [-] tantalor|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomschlick|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] umeshunni|9 years ago|reply
Anyone who owns property in the city, whether they are a homeowner or a landlord, likes the current situation. For non-landlord homeowners, the current situation keeps their property values and home equity high and it ensures that the neighborhood and quality of life they bought into stays permanently stuck in time.
My local Nimby group, for e.g., sends out monthly notices (e.g http://pastebin.com/0TJiV0aM ) letting us know where the next development is, why we should protest it and sends us sample templates on how to email politicians to protest any new development. While large developers are probably able to lobby politicians, I doubt they're able to do this kind of astroturfing.
[+] [-] whyenot|9 years ago|reply
The problem is that "NIMBY politicians" are elected by NIMBY residents. If you are a homeowner, or live in a rent controlled apartment, SF is a fantastic place and there is little incentive to get rid of zoning laws. To fundamentally change the rental market in SF, you need to craft an argument that convinces these voters to change their minds. The "hey, lets get rid of zoning laws so we can build tons of apartments so more people can live here" argument may make sense if you don't live in SF, but if you are already living there, and vote in SF elections, in many cases, it's not going to be very convincing.
[+] [-] aetherson|9 years ago|reply
(NYC density: 10,831 people/km^2. SF density: 7,152 people/km^2. Tokyo density: 6,200 people/km^2)
Adding enough additional units to the city to make major changes to its affordability is not just a quick change to zoning laws. It's not just that there are height restrictions. If you made a quick change to height restrictions, you'd still find high density projects are expensive to build and prone to being blocked by the various other obstacles to building that a high-regulation city like SF has. And also, creating and funding big building projects takes time -- and there's a lot of pent-up demand for SF.
AND, if you did add tens of thousands of new dwelling units in SF in the traditionally less-dense areas of the city, you'd totally overwhelm the already struggling transport infrastructure of the city in those areas (and I have no idea about other infrastructure. Could the sewers handle this?).
Should we still lower the restrictions on infill development in SF? Yes. The restrictions are well past the reasonable. Will that in a short period of time make a major change to the affordability of the city? Not unless you hand-wave away the entire reality of SF.
[+] [-] xanadohnt|9 years ago|reply
Now my point - We became members of the the Cole Valley neighborhood association and the only involvement my wife and I had was reading the monthly newsletter. The newsletter's tone and NIMBYism was astounding! Laughably-so that it was a constant source of jokes and conversation. My wife and me kept returning to how, for she and I, that perspective was shortsighted; we believe that attitude actively works against protecting the very thing that makes the city great - diversity in arts, culture, and food & beverage. If NIMBYism truly prevailed this would all go away to a homogenous super-elite. ... but maybe that's the goal. :(
[+] [-] JustSomeNobody|9 years ago|reply
Seriously. From what I read here on HN, SF is pretty messed up. So, if someone doesn't want to live somewhere messed up, don't go there to begin with. One can't move near an airport and complain about the noise.
[+] [-] pyb|9 years ago|reply
Politicians are NIMBY only because they know voters are.
[+] [-] woodchuck64|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omegaham|9 years ago|reply
Asking people to vote against their interests doesn't work very well.
[+] [-] wpietri|9 years ago|reply
That's especially important during a boom (or bubble, depending on your view). With the rise in prices, many companies are finally looking at putting offices elsewhere, or allowing more remote work. Building more housing would have only dropped prices if the pace of building outstripped the tech sector's ability to create jobs, which is prodigious. At a recent SF CTO conference, a number of speakers talked up non-SF options, something I wasn't hearing 5-10 years ago.
As to who likes the status quo, you ignore that "more building" here mostly means "tear down existing buildings and build bigger ones". That is a gain for the people moving in to the eventual new units. But it's a clear loss for the people forced to move, and a disruption of existing communities.
I have yet to meet a SF "build more" advocate so committed that they tore down their own home and replaced it more units.
[+] [-] mtviewdave|9 years ago|reply
Complex problems often look simple from a distance. That doesn't mean they are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10884840
[+] [-] rsync|9 years ago|reply
You are correct - that is the solution.
However, voting for the opposite is also the solution and is an equally valid expression, and result, of democracy.
Sometimes democracy delivers results we dislike.
[+] [-] Mz|9 years ago|reply
Trying to "correct" for what federal and state laws and policies do the housing situation in a specific location is quite burdensome. In order to fix some of what goes on in San Francisco, you would need to figure out the impact of those federal and state laws and policies and see if, realistically, anything can be done to counter them at the local level or if you would need to fight them at the state and/or federal level to have any hope of resolving the situation.
Just because the problem is obvious in San Francisco and significantly impacting the locals does not remotely mean it originates there and can be solved there.
[+] [-] alexandercrohde|9 years ago|reply
I think we should ask why people still want to live here when it costs so much. Yes jobs are part of it. But the other fact is that 30 story apartment complexes have negative externalities. Unique, historical victorians are part of what makes this city special (and parks), and if we let them be replaced with apartment complexes it'd destroy a piece of this city's appeal.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cmurf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ethanbond|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bronson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] branchless|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsurmanski|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dougmccune|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notadoc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] audleman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kofejnik|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|9 years ago|reply
It's cynical manipulation of the selfishness of already entitled-feeling tech kids. All restrictions will be lifted, massive high-rises will go up, the property in the shade of them with be purchased by multi-billionaires, REITS and hedge funds, they will all instantly stop building and collude to keep rentals at the current prices, or even raise them, and all the tech kids will still be renting.
edit: it's a fantasy to think that rental prices will go down if high-rises get built. Call me Nostradamus, but half of the units in those high-rises will sit empty and be used to write-off taxes from the owners' other holdings (at the current neighborhood rental value of course) just like in every other hot property market in the world.
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|9 years ago|reply
But actually, people only care about their cheap housing, not cheap housing for everyone.
[+] [-] heartsucker|9 years ago|reply
This is why issues like this are complicated. Both sides have some merit.
(also, not taking sides since I don't live there any more)
[+] [-] adt2bt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dougmccune|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cenk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abritinthebay|9 years ago|reply
I would be interested to see what it would look like with a more linear scale though.
[+] [-] etrautmann|9 years ago|reply
I guess I don't buy that the home prices are dividing the landed gentry in Noe valley from pac heights as much as the rich elite from everyone else who's not buying homes in SF.
[+] [-] bborud|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dougmccune|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoprocker|9 years ago|reply
One comment, and not at all a criticism of the art: I'm not sure if relative property values between neighborhoods really describes how SF is being ripped apart over time; for that, it might be more accurate to graph, say, proportional difference in median rent over the past n years, which might more closely hew to contested neighborhoods (ie, Pacific Heights doesn't usually catch headlines for how much it's changed in the last 5 years).
[+] [-] bunkydoo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imh|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whordeley|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|9 years ago|reply
http://qz.com/535482/italian-museum-cleaners-mistook-a-conte...
[+] [-] rubidium|9 years ago|reply
Interesting that, from an artistic standpoint, the high delta's in nearby neighborhoods house price leads to a more interesting sculpture. The city may be 'torn', but in this case it's a good thing... assuming you think mixed neighborhoods are better than the alternative (gated communities and slums).
[+] [-] SocksCanClose|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkpad20|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thatsso1999|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dougmccune|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnwheeler|9 years ago|reply
then, when i read the article, i was like... WHOA!!!
[+] [-] smoyer|9 years ago|reply
The only problem I see with sculpture for data visualization is when your boss asks for an updated report next week.
Thanks for sharing!