If you’re upset about Rincon Tower, the worse may be yet to come. Last week, the San Francisco Chronicle lauded plans for South-of-Market – a future “Midtown Manhattan” that will include a 1,000-foot tower (along with six other high-rises) at the new Transbay Terminal. Despite the City’s proud history of battling high-rise development, now we’re supposed to support raising downtown height limits because it will mean “more housing.” But who in San Francisco needs this housing? Most of it will be luxury condos for millionaires and not for San Franciscans. Rincon sounded like a good idea when plans were approved three years ago – but despite some concessions, it’s clear that the city got the short end of the stick. Everyone wants a new transit center, but why sell our soul to these condo developers when the public sector should pick up the tab? Will housing activists fight this boom as the City’s real gentrification threat - after all, “who gets to live here gets to vote here” - or will they keep trying to stop smaller projects in the neighborhoods?

“There is a renewed interest in heights given the constraints on the environment and a move toward transit-oriented development,” said Dean Macris, the City’s ex-Planning Director who simply won’t go away. In the 1980’s, Macris incurred the wrath of progressives as Mayor Dianne Feinstein’s Planning Director – when more than 30 million square feet of new office space (more than all of Downtown Boston) was crammed into San Francisco. In 2004, Gavin Newsom appointed him interim Planning Director – and it took three years to finally get a replacement. But today, he’s still a development adviser for the Mayor.

High-density development near transit is a good thing – if the people who live in the new housing don’t bring their cars. But that’s not likely to happen if the new Transbay Plan gets approved. People who can afford condominiums likely to start at $1 million will either be wealthy retired people from elsewhere in the Bay Area, or are likely to have tech jobs in the South Bay. These residents will commute on US-101 because it’s faster than taking Cal-Train. Even if they work at a biotech firm in Mission Bay, many will still drive to work – or at the very least demand a parking space in their brand-new building.

There are only two ways we can build a high-density, transit-friendly community that fits the utopian vision of city planners: (a) build enough housing for working-class people who are transit-dependent, or (b) create such a world-class transit system (like New York) that even upper-middle class professionals conclude that owning a car is more trouble than it’s worth. It’s naïve for San Francisco to believe we can create a livable city with view-blocking high-rise towers without seriously addressing other concerns.

Now planners wants to upzone the neighborhood around 1st and Mission to build six new skyscrapers – ranging from 600 feet to 1,000 feet (the Transamerica Pyramid is only 853 feet) – creating a “new layer” of the City’s skyline that will almost exclusively house rich people. The condo development fees would help pay for a long-overdue Transbay Terminal, bringing together the region’s disparate transit agencies – making it easier, for example, to get from BART or Muni to Cal-Train. Future plans would also include a high-speed “bullet train” from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

Ironically, the public sector won’t pay for such an investment because Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won’t raise taxes on corporations or rich people. So we’re being told that this upscale development in South-of-Market is a necessary evil for the greater good. But the new Transbay Terminal will cost $1.2 billion – while revenue from the new condo fees will be approximately $441 million. Is the cost of more elevated suburbs that will house people who don’t live here really worth getting one-third of a new train station?

The answer is “no,” but the Chronicle white-washed this concern with fancy architect drawings.

But these high-rise projects – even if they don’t get built – are problematic because they also divert resources at the Planning Department. When a developer applies for a project, the Department must first assign a planner – which initiates a process for review. The Department is under-staffed, and it already takes nine months for most projects to even get assigned to a planner. How many affordable housing projects, or projects that meet some of the needs of current city residents, will be delayed because Planning is too busy working on skyscrapers for the wealthy?

Of course, growth is inevitable – and the answer is not to bring all market-rate housing to a screeching halt. But if you’re going to build condos, you better be sure to get serious concessions from the developer. In 2005, progressives lauded an agreement for mitigation fees that developers of Rincon Hill agreed to pay in exchange for building above the height limits. It was a historically unprecedented deal, allowing for millions of dollars into a community “impact fund” that the neighborhood will control.

Then, the first tower got built – and we all realized the colossal mistake. It stands out like a sore thumb, blocks everyone’s view of the Bay Bridge, and the cheapest units are at $500,000 – with prices ranging up to $2.5 million. Some of the “impact fund” could go towards affordable housing – but a lot will fund non-profits (e.g., staff salaries that will run out.) If we agreed to a complex that will permanently change the composition of District 6, why not demand the developer build permanent affordable housing to balance this impact? Giving money to groups who organize the few remaining poor people isn’t much of a long-term strategy.

Many have argued that Rincon Hill would have been approved without such concessions. That’s probably true, but why? The developer still had to get approval to build above the height limit, which required political muscle. Now there’s an effort to up-zone the area around Transbay Terminal – so that the proposed condo skyscrapers wouldn’t even have to get a conditional use. For progressives to let this pass would be insane – because a zoning change would take away their bargaining power to get more concessions.

But progressive activists have been too busy fighting smaller market-rate condo projects that have far less gentrifying impact. Why are good people in the Mission District gathering community opposition to a nine-unit project at 18th and Valencia – while Dean Macris advocates building hundreds and hundreds of luxury condos in new South-of-Market skyscrapers that will forever change the demographic and political makeup of San Francisco?

I don’t necessarily support the project at 700 Valencia – but I wonder why activists who oppose gentrification don’t focus on projects with far greater gentrification impacts. Because anyone who read the Chronicle’s cheerleading of the Transbay Project last week must wonder how we will survive much longer in San Francisco on a modest income. We need to find solutions now before it’s too late.