California, and the US, shouldn’t be afraid of density and upzoning(curbed.com)
curbed.com
California, and the US, shouldn’t be afraid of density and upzoning
https://www.curbed.com/2019/12/6/20998974/california-real-estate-housing-zoning-density-affordable
37 comments
SF seems only concerned with political issues. Ensuring that convicted felons are "justice involved persons" and that they have no change in privilege than someone who never broke the law in the first place.
When someone has served their debt to society, they should be treated similar to someone who was never in prison. If you want to punish someone further, keep them in prison; Don’t let them go.
The flip side of density increases is the changes in culture and required increase in shared resource organization.
I’ve lived in NYC and in the country. You can’t simply increase housing density and have it work. You have to learn different ways to interact with people. You have to create shared transportation and parks infrastructure. And you have to admit there are trade offs.
You do lose a lot when moving toward very high density cities. The night sky. Quiet. Calmness. Yards.
I’ve lived in NYC and in the country. You can’t simply increase housing density and have it work. You have to learn different ways to interact with people. You have to create shared transportation and parks infrastructure. And you have to admit there are trade offs.
You do lose a lot when moving toward very high density cities. The night sky. Quiet. Calmness. Yards.
You dont need NYC levels of density to achieve big improvements though. You just can't have a "city" full of single-family homes like you do in places like San Francisco.
I'd also posit that the culture changes follow, and are directed by, the density. That's my speculation though.
I'd also posit that the culture changes follow, and are directed by, the density. That's my speculation though.
No, but you do need to incorporate public features that bigger cities have, like parks. That doesn't happen magically, you need to plan for that.
The SF Bay Area was designed like LA... to require burning as much fossil-fuel as possible by spreading residential and commercial areas out far from each other, making walking impractical. Heck, even local trams and bus systems were destroyed by General Motors.[0] I remember seeing the remnants of a defunct local tram platform about ½ mile / 1 km west of Gunderson High School in San Jose across the way from where the first Light Rail line was installed.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
Human beings have adapted to environments as diverse as the arctic, jungles of Borneo and the Kalahari desert, all without 'modern' technology.
I think we can handle a style of city that's already pretty common throughout the world.
I think we can handle a style of city that's already pretty common throughout the world.
I'm moving to London next month and I'm already feeling a weird mix of excitement and absolute dread.
FWIW, London is an incredible, vibrant city and one of my personal favorite places on Earth. Something you might like if you are feeling dread from being in such a dense city is how close it is to the country. A short train ride will take you far outside of the city and there are plenty of places to go that give you that 'small town' feel.
Also, go to Terry's for breakfast in the city.
http://www.terryscafe.co.uk/
Also, go to Terry's for breakfast in the city.
http://www.terryscafe.co.uk/
> The night sky
There's no night sky in any suburb though ?
There's no night sky in any suburb though ?
You can generally see more of the sky in the suburbs and there is about a 1 mag difference. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale
Are you asking a question? Yes, you can definitely see 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more starts in the suburbs than you can downtown.
California, firstly shouldn't be afraid of building: period. I mean, I'm looking at the voting pamphlet, at the mayors and the local politicians: all bragging about how many construction projects they've stopped and all the building they've prevented. It's sickening. I couldn't find a single candidate that didn't brag about preventing housing construction.
This is fluff. Sure if you build a few multi families in 10% of lots it wont affect neighborhood characteristics much because you're only adding 10-20% more housing.
Its doubling and quadrupling (even 10x) the number of housing units that is really needed and that affects everything - more cars, more schoolkids, more water, more trash, more crowds.
Its doubling and quadrupling (even 10x) the number of housing units that is really needed and that affects everything - more cars, more schoolkids, more water, more trash, more crowds.
>and that affects everything - more cars
This right here is the root problem. If you increase housing density in America, everyone expects a place to put their car, and to be able to use a car to get around, so you don't improve stuff that much. We need to get rid of cars altogether as a primary people-mover; then you can really build things closer together, and not have to waste so much space on parking lots.
Trash and water aren't problems; they don't take up a lot of space, though you do need a source of freshwater to supply the city, but unless you're in the desert that shouldn't be that big a problem. Schoolkids aren't a big problem in urban areas: people aren't having kids any more.
This right here is the root problem. If you increase housing density in America, everyone expects a place to put their car, and to be able to use a car to get around, so you don't improve stuff that much. We need to get rid of cars altogether as a primary people-mover; then you can really build things closer together, and not have to waste so much space on parking lots.
Trash and water aren't problems; they don't take up a lot of space, though you do need a source of freshwater to supply the city, but unless you're in the desert that shouldn't be that big a problem. Schoolkids aren't a big problem in urban areas: people aren't having kids any more.
I think attitudes will change when owning a car becomes more of an inconvenience than a convenience.
Dense housing is the start of making it more inconvenient. Then, once owning a car is less convenient than other modes of transit, will we see alternatives that are better for those areas.
Dense housing is the start of making it more inconvenient. Then, once owning a car is less convenient than other modes of transit, will we see alternatives that are better for those areas.
There's only more cars if there are more jobs, at least if you're looking at rush hour traffic. Adding residences in megacities like LA and SF isn't likely to increase the number of jobs, it will reduce the number of people commuting 30+ miles into the city, and thereby reduce the number of cars on the road (even if everyone still drives.)
If your city is dense enough that you live within walking/bus distance of your work and basic necessities (groceries, etc) you dont need to have every single person own a car. The cars are a big part of the problem and as long as we keep building to accomodate them and not people things aren't going to improve
> Its doubling and quadrupling (even 10x) the number of housing units that is really needed and that affects everything - more cars, more schoolkids, more water, more trash, more crowds.
If you're 10x the number of housing units, there will be less cars though.
If you're 10x the number of housing units, there will be less cars though.
At least in my Bay Area town, the people already live here.
We have serious problems with people living in RVs taking over entire streets. They don't just live in the RVs quietly. They spread their stuff (furniture, garbage, sometimes large collections of stolen goods) all over the street. They harass nearby businesses and homeowners. They park in ways that are not just technically illegal, but dangerous to drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Crime has gone up in nearby areas. I'm not saying RV people are all responsible for the crimes, but I'm aware of several instances where the crimes have been committed by the RV people. They're not all homeless, either. Many of them own homes in the East Bay or further afield and just do a week long commute to their $100K+ peninsula jobs.
Single family houses are housing 6-10 adults. Their cars are all over the streets. Some neighborhoods are can barely be navigated, and its dangerous for driver and pedestrian alike.
We'd all be better off if there were affordable apartments (with parking garages) for people to live in. We'd see an increase in city revenue. We'd reclaim our streets. We'd have a cleaner city. We'd have fewer accidents and safer walks. We'd no longer have city council members hiding behind 'compassion' when it comes to removing the RVs.
Yet every single development is opposed.
"It will make traffic worse." Not conceivably possible. Every development includes requirements of $$ to improve nearby streets and appropriate parking. Parking has gotten so much easier since one major development included public parking. (One guy argued that the amount of money a business was willing to offer wasn't enough to fix a problem area. As if it is not the responsibility of the city, county, and state to fix the existing problem. Or as if $X million is worse than $0 million for fixing a problem we already have.)
"That area is already a mess!" Yes. It is. That's why it needs to be improved.
"It only adds X homes!" X is better than zero. They're also generally trying to add them near downtown and public transport.
"It will bring more people to the area!" I don't have the numbers on this, but I suspect this is largely a red herring. Anecdotally, several of my friends have left the area, many still live with their parents after graduating, and my girlfriend wants to leave.
"They're only building luxury apartments!" So? It means more houses. It means all the houses get more affordable because supply is trying to meet demand.
"But the town will be so different!" Different than when you grew up in 1965? It's already different. And it's trash. It'll be different from now and it will be better because it will actually be meeting our needs.
"But my property values!" Just kidding. No one ever says this, but they all mean it.
We have serious problems with people living in RVs taking over entire streets. They don't just live in the RVs quietly. They spread their stuff (furniture, garbage, sometimes large collections of stolen goods) all over the street. They harass nearby businesses and homeowners. They park in ways that are not just technically illegal, but dangerous to drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Crime has gone up in nearby areas. I'm not saying RV people are all responsible for the crimes, but I'm aware of several instances where the crimes have been committed by the RV people. They're not all homeless, either. Many of them own homes in the East Bay or further afield and just do a week long commute to their $100K+ peninsula jobs.
Single family houses are housing 6-10 adults. Their cars are all over the streets. Some neighborhoods are can barely be navigated, and its dangerous for driver and pedestrian alike.
We'd all be better off if there were affordable apartments (with parking garages) for people to live in. We'd see an increase in city revenue. We'd reclaim our streets. We'd have a cleaner city. We'd have fewer accidents and safer walks. We'd no longer have city council members hiding behind 'compassion' when it comes to removing the RVs.
Yet every single development is opposed.
"It will make traffic worse." Not conceivably possible. Every development includes requirements of $$ to improve nearby streets and appropriate parking. Parking has gotten so much easier since one major development included public parking. (One guy argued that the amount of money a business was willing to offer wasn't enough to fix a problem area. As if it is not the responsibility of the city, county, and state to fix the existing problem. Or as if $X million is worse than $0 million for fixing a problem we already have.)
"That area is already a mess!" Yes. It is. That's why it needs to be improved.
"It only adds X homes!" X is better than zero. They're also generally trying to add them near downtown and public transport.
"It will bring more people to the area!" I don't have the numbers on this, but I suspect this is largely a red herring. Anecdotally, several of my friends have left the area, many still live with their parents after graduating, and my girlfriend wants to leave.
"They're only building luxury apartments!" So? It means more houses. It means all the houses get more affordable because supply is trying to meet demand.
"But the town will be so different!" Different than when you grew up in 1965? It's already different. And it's trash. It'll be different from now and it will be better because it will actually be meeting our needs.
"But my property values!" Just kidding. No one ever says this, but they all mean it.
Mountain view is kind of good in this regard. Few years ago they gave a bunch of permits to apartments, and now they started to being built. It is making city look much more modern, and house values will end up increasing due to that
In my city, they've been making a strong effort to do exactly what the article recommends.
My observation is that it absolutely does change the character of a neighborhood. Whether that change is bad, neutral, or good depends entirely on what sort of character you prefer. But there's no getting around the fact that greater density means that the area will be very different.
Personally, none of this scares me. I consider it unfortunate, but it's also probably inevitable.
My observation is that it absolutely does change the character of a neighborhood. Whether that change is bad, neutral, or good depends entirely on what sort of character you prefer. But there's no getting around the fact that greater density means that the area will be very different.
Personally, none of this scares me. I consider it unfortunate, but it's also probably inevitable.
I think this is a terrible argument.
Talking about being "afraid of density" shifts the argument and action away from progress. The discussion should be that *we should try to avoid density" and we're failing at that.
We need:
1) Faster and more efficient travel to/from hubs.
2) Organizations to embrace remote work.
Talking about being "afraid of density" shifts the argument and action away from progress. The discussion should be that *we should try to avoid density" and we're failing at that.
We need:
1) Faster and more efficient travel to/from hubs.
2) Organizations to embrace remote work.
Why should we avoid density? Societies get more urban as they progress. Density is the way of progress. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be smart and thoughtful about it, but ultimately density should be the goal.
So we can live in reasonably priced and comfortably sized spaces without cultural or income sacrifices.
Right now density is as you describe > a metric for progress. But that's old fashioned. Living in a $3,000 closet in SF or NYC in a building with 100 other closets shouldn't have to be a near-requirement to work for an exciting company or enjoy your time off in an exciting place.
I like to think this modern world has enough intelligence to improve our antiquated and slow modes of transportation. We've done it for communication.
Right now density is as you describe > a metric for progress. But that's old fashioned. Living in a $3,000 closet in SF or NYC in a building with 100 other closets shouldn't have to be a near-requirement to work for an exciting company or enjoy your time off in an exciting place.
I like to think this modern world has enough intelligence to improve our antiquated and slow modes of transportation. We've done it for communication.
I think if anything, the suburbs/exurbs are what is preventing what you're describing.
Right now it's too costly to blanket a city with public transportation, for example, because the density isn't there. The same issue happened when electricity was invented, and when the telephone was invented - to build the infrastructure in less dense areas, the taxpayer had to subsidize.
Houston and LA have worse air quality and worse traffic than NYC does, despite having less than half the population. Yes, NYC and SF are very expensive, and they also happen to have very strict zoning laws that prevent the suburbs from adding density.
Right now it's too costly to blanket a city with public transportation, for example, because the density isn't there. The same issue happened when electricity was invented, and when the telephone was invented - to build the infrastructure in less dense areas, the taxpayer had to subsidize.
Houston and LA have worse air quality and worse traffic than NYC does, despite having less than half the population. Yes, NYC and SF are very expensive, and they also happen to have very strict zoning laws that prevent the suburbs from adding density.
>Societies get more urban as they progress
I think that's more of a side effect of a population increase. Though as we've seen over the past few decades, the most advanced societies tend to have a decrease in birth rates after a certain point. I don't think we should be striving to turn the entire Earth into Kowloon.
I think that's more of a side effect of a population increase. Though as we've seen over the past few decades, the most advanced societies tend to have a decrease in birth rates after a certain point. I don't think we should be striving to turn the entire Earth into Kowloon.
> I don't think we should be striving to turn the entire Earth into Kowloon.
Oh of course not, that's an absolutely extreme example.
Yes, advanced societies tend to have a decrease in birth rates. Yet, they still keep getting denser, as people move to cities. Density, if done thoughtfully, can lead to increased economic output, better health, better environmental outcomes, less traffic (holding population constant, anyways), etc.
Oh of course not, that's an absolutely extreme example.
Yes, advanced societies tend to have a decrease in birth rates. Yet, they still keep getting denser, as people move to cities. Density, if done thoughtfully, can lead to increased economic output, better health, better environmental outcomes, less traffic (holding population constant, anyways), etc.
> I think that's more of a side effect of a population increase.
I don't think so.
Cities are much more efficient for the masses.
If you have 20 people that all evenly dispersed within 20 square miles, or 20 people within a square mile, more progress can be made in the square mile.
I don't think so.
Cities are much more efficient for the masses.
If you have 20 people that all evenly dispersed within 20 square miles, or 20 people within a square mile, more progress can be made in the square mile.
That depends entirely on your definition of a progress.
Who are the decisions makers for how a lot is zoned? Is it home owners, city council, etc.? Is it neighborhood based, city based?
City. Residents vote for council
Zoning laws should just be removed entirely.
People are allowed to make their own local decisions about how they want to live and govern. The notion that either California or the US should override local zoning laws is authoritarian, and does away with the agency of voters.
I think there is a place for dense communities as well as non-dense ones. Different people need and thrive with different environments. Recently the focus on pushing only high-density (usually from the new wave of 'urbanist' blogs) looks to demonize anything that isn't high-density urban, and frankly it feels very us versus them.
I think there is a place for dense communities as well as non-dense ones. Different people need and thrive with different environments. Recently the focus on pushing only high-density (usually from the new wave of 'urbanist' blogs) looks to demonize anything that isn't high-density urban, and frankly it feels very us versus them.
Building won’t fix the problem. A significant proportion of existing dwellings are unoccupied or under-occupied. They are unoccupied because we allow people to speculate on real estate. Much of the real estate is bought by rich foreign investors and multinational corporations. This is a problem in many places of the world and just another aspect of globalization.
Given all that, who benefits when new units are built? The developers obviously make money. The local government gets some mad money to play with. But mostly the real estate finance industry and big multinational corporations.
Economists have run the numbers, the little guy doesn’t benefit at all from efforts to increase the housing supply. It can’t be increased enough to lower prices, it merely expands the speculative market, adding more wealth to the bottom line of the big winners in the game.
Given all that, who benefits when new units are built? The developers obviously make money. The local government gets some mad money to play with. But mostly the real estate finance industry and big multinational corporations.
Economists have run the numbers, the little guy doesn’t benefit at all from efforts to increase the housing supply. It can’t be increased enough to lower prices, it merely expands the speculative market, adding more wealth to the bottom line of the big winners in the game.
> A significant proportion of existing dwellings are unoccupied or under-occupied.
Source? I can't imagine this is true given the ridiculous rent that a dwelling commands. Why leave cash on the table?
Source? I can't imagine this is true given the ridiculous rent that a dwelling commands. Why leave cash on the table?
My experience has been that it's a bunch of factions who can't/won't work together toward a common good.
Until that changes, you can create all the smart, rational, reasonable, fact-based, win-win proposals you want, but they aren't going to happen if people aren't even trying to cooperate.