According to San Francisco’s Office of Economic Analysis, with 1,268 condos and 411 rental units, the 1,679 unit Schlage Lock Project will increase the total number of for-sale units in San Francisco by 1.0 percent and increase the number of rental units by 0.2 percent once the development is completed in 2026.

Noting that the expansion of housing supply “will put downward pressure on both market rents and housing prices in the city,” the OEA projects the Schlage Lock project will cause housing prices across the city to drop by an average of 0.8% and market rents to drop by an average of 0.2%.

Unfortunately that drop isn’t in absolute terms, but simply “compared to what prices and rents would have been without the development.”

22 thoughts on “Development To Lower Housing Costs Across The City, Sort Of…”
  1. This site is going to go down as the most underbuilt site compared to the available infrastructure ever in this city. Insane that we’re not building as much as possible here.

    1. Property value increases and declining rents/housing costs are no sort of paradox, in fact with massive upzoning and building you should absolutely expect both – more units on a piece of land raises the value of the land while per units costs can go down.

    2. Sure, agreed that adding more units to a development can increase the total value of the development while reducing the per unit cost for the development.

      The OEA study claims this development will lower the value of properties across the entire city.

      Do you think the study is right or wrong or what?

          1. Seriously? How are you not getting this?

            Take your house. Now tear it down and build a duplex. The average “housing cost” is likely to go down, but the property value is likely to go up. Now multiply this out citywide. Take 400,000 units, build 1,600 more, and the same effect is in place. Not a difficult concept.

          2. Sure, lowering the average cost/price/etc by building some lower cost/price/etc units is not a difficult concept.

            But OEA claims building these lower priced units in Visitation Valley will lower the price of units “across the city”:

            “This expansion of housing supply will put downward pressure on both market rents and housing prices in the city. …The OEA projects housing prices across the city would drop by an average of 0.8%, and market rents would drop by an average of 0.2%, compared to what prices and rents would have been without the development. … These lower housing prices and rents would benefit home-seekers across the city, not only in the Visitacion Valley area.”

            Do you really think that prices in D1 and D7 will be lower because of these units?

          3. No, I don’t – the study’s conclusions are absurd. I was just correcting you when you claimed that “increasing property values” and “declining housing prices” are in conflict with one another.

          4. We agree about the study’s conclusion, even though you misquoted and misunderstood me.

  2. If they think that 1200 condos and 400 rentals OVER the next 12(!!) years is going to make a dent in the housing market, then someone is smoking some very good weed! Office of Economic Analysis- is that a joke? And my taxes are paying for that?

  3. TWELVE YEARS?!?! That is AB.


    Especially for only 1,600 units. It could be 16,000 units! This city needs to have more big ideas instead of pandering to the status quo. Think big!

  4. Here is some publicly owned land that the City should think about turning over to non profit/for profit developers:
    The sea wall lots that Lucas walked away from, select peices of McLaren Park, Fleishacker Pool area, there is a large school district site with a wonderful old building on it way out in the Sunset, etc. If Mayor Lee was going to give it to a multi millionaire like Lucas for a somewhat bogus collection of “art”, then maybe he should think about doing something really constructive for his legacy.

  5. Why exactly should housing prices be lower? Should the existing owners of ~400,000 housing units in SF have their asset values reduced because additional people want to move here and don’t want to spend a lot of money?

    Tough sh**. Besides, look at any top world city that has 10x more housing than SF. More housing does [not] in any way guarantee cheaper housing.

    1. Owning you own property doesn’t mean you have an option on someone else’s property. If SF property owners were so eager to protect their property value by controlling supply, then they should pool their money and collectively purchase all buildable property.

      Yes other people want to move here. You or your parents or grand parents were these people at some point, adding demand. Someone before you decided to build the place you live in, adding supply. Did anyone complain?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *