San Francisco is betting big with its family zoning plan. The goal: permit 36,000 new homes in historically low-density parts of the city (especially western neighborhoods), to hit the state-mandated target of 82,000 homes by 2031. The plan would relax zoning restrictions, allow more multi-unit buildings, and enable greater flexibility near transit, schools, and job centers. At its core, this is a tension between urgency and community identity. On one side are proponents who argue the plan is overdue, given skyrocketing housing costs, shrinking affordability, and exclusionary zoning that has locked out many. On the other are residents, preservationists, and small business owners concerned that fierce changes will come at the cost of displacement, loss of neighborhood feel, and smaller businesses squeezed out. What this reveals is something planners often wrestle with: how to balance scale and speed with justice and texture. The plan’s success likely hinges on how well protections are built in—tenant protections, mitigation funds, design oversight. Another dimension worth watching: political risk. This isn’t just a housing project; it’s a test of political will. With state mandates, rising housing pressure, and visible failures in affordability, San Francisco is facing a choice: transform or keep failing. In the end, family zoning may not solve every problem, but it might shift what’s acceptable in planning conversations. If San Francisco can do it—and do it fairly—it could be a precedent for other dense, high-cost cities where low-density zoning persists more out of preference than necessity.

Read full article here.