Yeah, yeah, office buildings are often built completely different from housing and need to be vastly retooled, but it is possible, and Boston is attempting it. When it comes to SF it feels like the regulatory issues are more difficult.
Historically it's been a huge issue in other neighborhoods, where current homeowners are loath to approve more housing since it would drag down their property values. But I have to imagine that SF's downtown has drastically fewer homeowners per-square-mile (at least compared to, say, Sunset or Pacific Heights or the Marina).
Yes SF's approval process is a hellscape of regulatory hurdles, but given the lack of homeowners in the area, I wonder if the approval process would go at least a smidge more smoothly?
Actually, who am I kidding- some other interest group would probably take their place.
This is it unfortunately.
After observing the SF NIMBY mentality for many, many years, you start to see the matrix. It has nothing to do with gentrification, inclusion, environmentalism, or any of the other purported values. It's about one thing: stasis. Keeping SF the same at all costs, and making sure no new people come here.
San Franciscans favorite subject right now is talking about how downtown commercial space could be converted to housing, but make no mistake, the second anyone actually tried to do that, the backslash would be powerful and instantaneous. (And it's already so impossible to do between zoning and regulation that it doesn't even need backlash to already be infeasible.)
No. You're just monstering your enemies so you don't have to argue with them. Poisoning the well.
Applies to Seattle as well
But I think the problems are that this would represent a major depreciation of the value of the real estate - both for the owners and the city. And the zoning issues would be tough. These are currently not good areas for housing without a lot of work.
Compartmentalization will be a lot easier though since most offices are built to be fairly modular/open plan.