Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning(sfchronicle.com)
sfchronicle.com
Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-cities-want-to-end-single-family-home-15983648.php
372 comments
Currently about 3/4 of the land area of San Francisco is zoned to only allow single-family houses or duplexes. All of the pale yellow areas in https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02... (RH-1 and RH-2 zones).
Most of that area is not classified as historical, and a lot of it is filled with relatively cheaply constructed and not particularly beautiful buildings (property values have increased a lot in the past few decades). The residential streets in most of that area are way wider than currently necessary and there is a lot of free or cheap street parking everywhere, but some arterial roads are a bottleneck during commute hours and public transit is inadequate. The zoning is basically “sleepy low-density beach town” rather than “cosmopolitan city”.
Changing the zoning of most of those areas to the purple (NCT) or medium orange (RM, RC, RTO) types is not the only change needed, and it won’t make a difference overnight, but it would eventually allow something like doubling the population of the city without requiring anything taller or larger than 4–10-unit low-rise buildings. It would probably also force the city to make a bunch of public transit upgrades, as the whole western half of the city is currently pretty isolated from the more connected eastern half.
Most of that area is not classified as historical, and a lot of it is filled with relatively cheaply constructed and not particularly beautiful buildings (property values have increased a lot in the past few decades). The residential streets in most of that area are way wider than currently necessary and there is a lot of free or cheap street parking everywhere, but some arterial roads are a bottleneck during commute hours and public transit is inadequate. The zoning is basically “sleepy low-density beach town” rather than “cosmopolitan city”.
Changing the zoning of most of those areas to the purple (NCT) or medium orange (RM, RC, RTO) types is not the only change needed, and it won’t make a difference overnight, but it would eventually allow something like doubling the population of the city without requiring anything taller or larger than 4–10-unit low-rise buildings. It would probably also force the city to make a bunch of public transit upgrades, as the whole western half of the city is currently pretty isolated from the more connected eastern half.
The zoning isn't everything, but it's definitely one of the things that has to change. If everywhere in California had Sacramento's ministerial housing ordinance (60-90 day approvals, everything as of right), AND zoning reform, AND major reduction in impact fees, you'd start to make a dent in the problem.
Rezoning is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Rezoning is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Sure, single-family zoning is a necessary but not sufficient development for housing reform. Can't have density with it, but doesn't mean there isn't a laundry list of other things wrong with housing in the bay
Why not free markets though? Why is this concept so dirty?
The idea housing is so expensive is just ridiculous. There should theoretically be no arbitrage between renting and owning. The market is so distorted though that the idea is a joke.
If there is something that free markets would do a very good job at solving it is this problem. If we don't believe in that at least we are really in trouble.
The really sad thing is this is just crushing poor people with rents. No one would be helped more by free markets in real estate than poor people.
The idea housing is so expensive is just ridiculous. There should theoretically be no arbitrage between renting and owning. The market is so distorted though that the idea is a joke.
If there is something that free markets would do a very good job at solving it is this problem. If we don't believe in that at least we are really in trouble.
The really sad thing is this is just crushing poor people with rents. No one would be helped more by free markets in real estate than poor people.
Hopefully this is exactly what you're asking for. one of a series of changes.
The bigger the change in a single effort, the faster it often dies. This one is already fairly large and what happens to rent will be important in the short term but also the long term where you could build enough to keep things stable or growing slower.
The bigger the change in a single effort, the faster it often dies. This one is already fairly large and what happens to rent will be important in the short term but also the long term where you could build enough to keep things stable or growing slower.
Some of the objections from the article:
Sean Kieghran, president of San Francisco's Residential Builders Association, said he supports getting rid of single-family only zoning but doesn't think it will result in many new units. Kieghran said that building fourplexes requires either two staircases or a staircase and an elevator, which takes up too much of the site.
And, unless the city streamlined the process of building a fourplex on a single-family lot, builders would run into too many bureaucratic obstacles, Kieghran said. "With how long it takes to get through planning and fire and DPW and all the other red tape it's not likely we are going to see anybody building fourplexes anytime soon," he said.
...
One of the few architects to design fourplexes on single-family sized lots in the last few decades is Daniel Solomon, who has worked on three such projects...
"These are nifty little projects, but they won't make a big dent in the housing need," Solomon said. "That zoning is a tool to create housing production is a widely held and completely fallacious idea. Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it happens. It's very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work."
He said the fourplexes he designed and built were profitable, but barely. And they took as much time to design and execute as the 100-unit complexes his firm, Mithun, is known for.
"You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale."
Sean Kieghran, president of San Francisco's Residential Builders Association, said he supports getting rid of single-family only zoning but doesn't think it will result in many new units. Kieghran said that building fourplexes requires either two staircases or a staircase and an elevator, which takes up too much of the site.
And, unless the city streamlined the process of building a fourplex on a single-family lot, builders would run into too many bureaucratic obstacles, Kieghran said. "With how long it takes to get through planning and fire and DPW and all the other red tape it's not likely we are going to see anybody building fourplexes anytime soon," he said.
...
One of the few architects to design fourplexes on single-family sized lots in the last few decades is Daniel Solomon, who has worked on three such projects...
"These are nifty little projects, but they won't make a big dent in the housing need," Solomon said. "That zoning is a tool to create housing production is a widely held and completely fallacious idea. Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it happens. It's very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work."
He said the fourplexes he designed and built were profitable, but barely. And they took as much time to design and execute as the 100-unit complexes his firm, Mithun, is known for.
"You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale."
These don’t read so much as objections as pointing out that the zoning change is necessary but not sufficient.
[deleted]
I want to point out some evidence for the theory can be found in Vancouver where the entire city was rezoned for fourplexes (a duplex where each side has a rental unit.)
It has added barely any new supply at all.
I think it didn't go far enough. Rezone for 4-10 story apartment buildings, and now you're getting somewhere.
This single family home thing just doesn't work in cities with as much demand as San Francisco and Vancouver.
If you want to tackle the problem from the supply side, you need to be more aggressive about it. You need for the potential profit to be great enough to justify buying multiple adjacent homes, tearing them down, and combining the lots.
Even then, it might not be enough to solve the problem, but it's a start.
It has added barely any new supply at all.
I think it didn't go far enough. Rezone for 4-10 story apartment buildings, and now you're getting somewhere.
This single family home thing just doesn't work in cities with as much demand as San Francisco and Vancouver.
If you want to tackle the problem from the supply side, you need to be more aggressive about it. You need for the potential profit to be great enough to justify buying multiple adjacent homes, tearing them down, and combining the lots.
Even then, it might not be enough to solve the problem, but it's a start.
If Vancouver overall is as dense as SF then 4 plexes won't matter much. But there are many other cities - even LA - where I would think it would. Yet LA has vast amount of low rise commercial on 4 lane streets with bus lines that could support widespread 1+5 podium style designed buildings.
Seems to me like in Van this is just a gradual process. Particularly in east van, I'm seeing houses be replaced or renovated to specifically accomodate at least twice the addresses and maintain the feel of the existing neighborhood; I'm living in one. I think something to consider though is that a lot of people were renting the basements anyway, and might instead be renting an intentionally constructed unit on the same property now.
I'm also of course seeing nimbys against tower development at commercial and broadway, which would have the biggest short term impact imo. They want to protect their scarcity.
I'm also of course seeing nimbys against tower development at commercial and broadway, which would have the biggest short term impact imo. They want to protect their scarcity.
> I'm also of course seeing nimbys against tower development at commercial and broadway, which would have the biggest short term impact imo. They want to protect their scarcity.
Ugh. We have to put a stop to that if we don't want to end up like San Francisco. The Tokyo model is the one to emulate.
Ugh. We have to put a stop to that if we don't want to end up like San Francisco. The Tokyo model is the one to emulate.
Do you mean put a stop to nimbyism or put a stop to tower development?
I'm not one for completely favouring towers, but in this particular neighborhood, there's basically no new buyable housing stock. If people want to live here, they're either renting or buying one of the endlessly appreciating massive houses. That need to rent and the scarcity drives up the big house value further, and the only people who can get ahead are the ones who cam buy something for 1.7m.
I'm not one for completely favouring towers, but in this particular neighborhood, there's basically no new buyable housing stock. If people want to live here, they're either renting or buying one of the endlessly appreciating massive houses. That need to rent and the scarcity drives up the big house value further, and the only people who can get ahead are the ones who cam buy something for 1.7m.
That sounds like an epic value destroyer. It won’t lower prices. Instead it will drive out owners to be replaced by leasers incapable of owning property. The only people that win are owners of multi-tenant properties, which are often commercial businesses.
If they're condos, you can own it, at least as much as you can own half a duplex.
If they're rental units, that's also ok, more supply brings down rents and lower rent causes more landlords to sell. Extra supply does add downward pressure on prices one way or another.
I don't see where the "value destroyer" is.
If they're rental units, that's also ok, more supply brings down rents and lower rent causes more landlords to sell. Extra supply does add downward pressure on prices one way or another.
I don't see where the "value destroyer" is.
Condos are not advantageous to the owner. You're not building equity or able to borrow on the value, just ensure a very slow growth investment at risk of value destruction at the hands of the condo board.
> more supply brings down rents
People say that on here all the time, but I have never seen that happen. Do you have an example where increased housing supply lowered prices aside from a natural or market disaster? Maybe, Detroit where people simply abandoned their homes with no intent to sell.
People say that on here all the time, but I have never seen that happen. Do you have an example where increased housing supply lowered prices aside from a natural or market disaster? Maybe, Detroit where people simply abandoned their homes with no intent to sell.
Japan is the classical example where they have national zoning rules permitting residential development in each zone. You can get a place in downtown Tokyo for like $300K USD. [1]
> While the cost of housing is climbing in many global cities, the average middle-class family in Tokyo can still afford to buy a new, single-family detached home for $300,000. That’s right. The typical Tokyo starter home is a brand new three-bedroom.
Their national zoning rules allow supply to meet demand without city-level meddling. Houses there sell for roughly the cost of construction.
The reason housing is so nuts in SF is because the city added half as many new houses as required to meet demand over the last say 30 years. [2]
[1] https://archive.curbed.com/2017/2/3/14496248/tokyo-real-esta...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage
> While the cost of housing is climbing in many global cities, the average middle-class family in Tokyo can still afford to buy a new, single-family detached home for $300,000. That’s right. The typical Tokyo starter home is a brand new three-bedroom.
Their national zoning rules allow supply to meet demand without city-level meddling. Houses there sell for roughly the cost of construction.
The reason housing is so nuts in SF is because the city added half as many new houses as required to meet demand over the last say 30 years. [2]
[1] https://archive.curbed.com/2017/2/3/14496248/tokyo-real-esta...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_housing_shortage
However, that Tokyo 3BR is much smaller than anything you'd find in the US. The average house (not apartment) size in Tokyo is 91 sqm, or under 1000 sqft.
That sounds, fwiw, roughly in line with SF or NY 3br apartments. [1] By the way, that's actually part of the value proposition. New houses in the US are twice as big as they were in the 1970s - while costing the same per square foot on an inflation adjusted basis. This means 3br houses are 2x as expensive now as they were back then and is part of the reason folks are priced out of the market entirely. This is also a zoning issue.
We need small 3br houses and apartments. That doesn't mean we can't also have large 3br houses.
[1] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/139-Steiner-St-3-San-Fran...
We need small 3br houses and apartments. That doesn't mean we can't also have large 3br houses.
[1] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/139-Steiner-St-3-San-Fran...
Japan is a terrible example. It has near-zero immigration. Its population is now falling is the same as it was 30 years ago. In the 80s it had the highest most unaffordable prices in the world.
I'm not sure any of that is relevant, especially immigration. All it means is that supply is roughly in line with demand. Nothing more, nothing less. When supply is in line with demand, the cost of housing approaches the cost of construction.
Tokyo didn't have near-zero immigration for most of the last 70 years. It's a great example.
We just ran a massive experiment, called Covid-19, which caused about 10% of San Francisco residents to leave the city.
This is not quite the same thing as an immediate increase in supply, but instead a large drop in demand. The net result is the exact same thing: a large increase in the vacancy rate, which resulted in a rapid and dramatic decrease in median rents.
This is not quite the same thing as an immediate increase in supply, but instead a large drop in demand. The net result is the exact same thing: a large increase in the vacancy rate, which resulted in a rapid and dramatic decrease in median rents.
It’s a terrible example though as the people with the most liquid financial situation are the ones that left. The ones that remained can’t even afford to rent they U-Haul to get out of Dodge. They’re stuck treading water and at best will get Newsom to buy their vote^W^W^Wpay their back rent.
It’s a terrible example of housing policy and how we want the city to develop and mature, but it is still a perfect demonstration of how excess supply drives down prices.
How much of a decrease on average?
35% per bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/san-franc...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-08/san-franc...
https://www.sfweekly.com/news/what-happens-to-rents-after-th...
Has the decrease at about 22% at one point. Lowest rents since 2013. They seem to have gone back up somewhat since, but that is a big adjustment and reflects excess supply.
Has the decrease at about 22% at one point. Lowest rents since 2013. They seem to have gone back up somewhat since, but that is a big adjustment and reflects excess supply.
That’s rents. What is the change of ownership value?
That's microeconomics 101, so it's theoretically sound.
Is there some effect in real life that prevents it from working the way the theory predicts?
I don't think so. I would put the burden of proof on you, if you want to go against a solid theory. It seems self evident that more housing supply means houses stay on the market longer (there is lots of evidence for that) and that means sellers have more incentives to lower the price to get a quicker sale (lots of evidence for that too.) Look for historical real estate inventory reports that include prices and you should see the effect when time on market increases.
It's important to note that prices would only fall if the change in supply overwhelmed the change in demand. In cities like Vancouver the demand is increasing at such a rate that increased supply only means prices don't rise as much as they would have otherwise. Time on market is always short. There was a brief dip in prices early in the pandemic and then things compensated back in the other direction.
Is there some effect in real life that prevents it from working the way the theory predicts?
I don't think so. I would put the burden of proof on you, if you want to go against a solid theory. It seems self evident that more housing supply means houses stay on the market longer (there is lots of evidence for that) and that means sellers have more incentives to lower the price to get a quicker sale (lots of evidence for that too.) Look for historical real estate inventory reports that include prices and you should see the effect when time on market increases.
It's important to note that prices would only fall if the change in supply overwhelmed the change in demand. In cities like Vancouver the demand is increasing at such a rate that increased supply only means prices don't rise as much as they would have otherwise. Time on market is always short. There was a brief dip in prices early in the pandemic and then things compensated back in the other direction.
Right, but do you have any historic examples? I see none.
The whole cloth construction of suburbia after WWII in the US. It opened ownership to a class of people who never had access prior.
That's because you didn't look.
You didn’t supply any for me to look at. Is this a child’s imagination game?
Guessing at some 9th grade economics theory aside, what does the actual data say?
Ignoring data like this is the only reason I can think of why people are willing to pay 10x more for a house of half the size that I paid.
Guessing at some 9th grade economics theory aside, what does the actual data say?
Ignoring data like this is the only reason I can think of why people are willing to pay 10x more for a house of half the size that I paid.
Burden of proof is you. It's not my job to do your research for you. You asked the question, challenging accepted theory, look up the answer.
What proof? I asked for examples. You replied with a red herring. I asked for examples again and then you got confused.
Multiple examples provided in this article:
https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...
https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...
> Instead it will drive out owners to be replaced by leasers incapable of owning property.
Isn’t that exactly the point? These are the people that can’t afford to live in the city now.
Isn’t that exactly the point? These are the people that can’t afford to live in the city now.
Destroying value does not imply lower prices. It just means lost equity.
> Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it happens. It's very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work
First you make things legal then you streamline them.
> You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale."
Once you’ve gotten the streamlining part right, new actors can come in to make this cheaper. Those developers just want to keep the code complex so that only 100 unit projects are viable so that huge firms are the only ones who can execute projects.
First you make things legal then you streamline them.
> You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale."
Once you’ve gotten the streamlining part right, new actors can come in to make this cheaper. Those developers just want to keep the code complex so that only 100 unit projects are viable so that huge firms are the only ones who can execute projects.
> Those developers just want to keep the code complex so that only 100 unit projects are viable so that huge firms are the only ones who can execute projects.
Strong disagreement.
The best thing for developers would be minimal zoning, Houston style.
As the Bay Area built to expand from 7M people to, say, 20M in a decade, enormous fortunes and livelihoods would be made from all that construction work.
Strong disagreement.
The best thing for developers would be minimal zoning, Houston style.
As the Bay Area built to expand from 7M people to, say, 20M in a decade, enormous fortunes and livelihoods would be made from all that construction work.
You're confusing the incentives of all developers and people who might become developers collectively with the incentives of entrenched large players already existing in the market.
It's like in many industries; the interests of the group as a whole push towards deregulation, while the interests of the biggest, politically well-connected firms is to increase regulation that will be harder for competitors to deal with and will allow them to get or maintain a stranglehold over the market.
It's like in many industries; the interests of the group as a whole push towards deregulation, while the interests of the biggest, politically well-connected firms is to increase regulation that will be harder for competitors to deal with and will allow them to get or maintain a stranglehold over the market.
People in general lack the imagination to grow the pie too. Getting / keeping a big slice allows you lord it over others, and do so immediately.
A big lie spread under capitalism is that the wealthy and powerful actually like growth.
A big lie spread under capitalism is that the wealthy and powerful actually like growth.
Do you know why you're getting down voted? Because this "insight" flies in the face of reality: economic growth (despite arguably unfair distribution of it) has defined the last 150+ years of the most powerful nations on earth, aside from a few blips during a war period or brief speculative asset collapse.
The rich and powerful "don't like" growth? Well, they've been failing spectacularly for quite some time: maybe they aren't so powerful? It makes no sense.
The rich and powerful "don't like" growth? Well, they've been failing spectacularly for quite some time: maybe they aren't so powerful? It makes no sense.
There are plenty of wealthy people that are more focused on maintaining relative position in the hierarchy than they are on increasing their absolute amount of wealth.
Prime example is oil wealth. With their massive coffers, fossil fuel companies could be leading the transition to renewable energy, massive increasing human wealth as they drive the cost of energy down and drive their former competitors out of business by acquiring all the new renewables startups that will become the large companies of the future.
Tech, and the HN crowd in general, pursues a strategy of generally increasing the pie size, of disrupting themselves before somebody else disrupts them. But that is not the case for the majority of the economy in developed countries. And in undeveloped countries it's painfully easy to see so many wealthy people maximizing their own position in society over maximally growing their wealth.
Prime example is oil wealth. With their massive coffers, fossil fuel companies could be leading the transition to renewable energy, massive increasing human wealth as they drive the cost of energy down and drive their former competitors out of business by acquiring all the new renewables startups that will become the large companies of the future.
Tech, and the HN crowd in general, pursues a strategy of generally increasing the pie size, of disrupting themselves before somebody else disrupts them. But that is not the case for the majority of the economy in developed countries. And in undeveloped countries it's painfully easy to see so many wealthy people maximizing their own position in society over maximally growing their wealth.
Sure, they like it when numbers in account books get bigger, but
Why are they NIMBYs when they could make much more money redeveloping their best-positioned neighborhoods as massive apartments they rent out?
Why did they not let wages grow, when the resulting increase in consumption will make them more profit?
If rich people as a class really were interested in max growth, they would have stayed Fordist-Keynesianist, but that did not happen. And indeed growth, while still present, hasn't been what it was in the past.
Why are they NIMBYs when they could make much more money redeveloping their best-positioned neighborhoods as massive apartments they rent out?
Why did they not let wages grow, when the resulting increase in consumption will make them more profit?
If rich people as a class really were interested in max growth, they would have stayed Fordist-Keynesianist, but that did not happen. And indeed growth, while still present, hasn't been what it was in the past.
I disagree.
Developers who are entrenched enjoy the fact it is hard to get a permit. Then, the specialty becomes navigating the system (which the surviving developers are de facto good at). It is hard for the best developers from other cities, who may be amazing at cheap/efficient/quality construction to challenge the incumbents in SF.
It is like saying that government contractors who build websites want the bid system to be simpler. In some ways they do, since on paper they would save a lot of money if they could get rid of their dozen employees who specialize in navigating it. At the same time, most government website contractors probably are not the best web developers - jsut the best at navigating the system.
Developers who are entrenched enjoy the fact it is hard to get a permit. Then, the specialty becomes navigating the system (which the surviving developers are de facto good at). It is hard for the best developers from other cities, who may be amazing at cheap/efficient/quality construction to challenge the incumbents in SF.
It is like saying that government contractors who build websites want the bid system to be simpler. In some ways they do, since on paper they would save a lot of money if they could get rid of their dozen employees who specialize in navigating it. At the same time, most government website contractors probably are not the best web developers - jsut the best at navigating the system.
You disagree but it sounds like you make the same points.
The post you reply too says "we need minimal zoning". You say "its hard to work because of too many restrictions".
Am I reading it wrong, but you disagree but seem to agree on the main points: Government needs to get out of the way to allow progress.
The post you reply too says "we need minimal zoning". You say "its hard to work because of too many restrictions".
Am I reading it wrong, but you disagree but seem to agree on the main points: Government needs to get out of the way to allow progress.
He’s saying entrenched developers like the restrictions because they can navigate them better than newcomers. With a lot of red tape it’s easier to make the most money if you’re good at dealing with red tape instead of being the best developer.
I understand that: He's saying the same thing as the previous guy. More red tape = bad. Just for different reasons.
>Developers who are entrenched enjoy the fact it is hard to get a permit.
Imagine how much a developer with Coastal Commission expertise could charge. That's probably a specialty in itself.
Imagine how much a developer with Coastal Commission expertise could charge. That's probably a specialty in itself.
Developers as a whole, sure.
The handful of developers who are working in the current environment? No.
You see this with every regulated industry. The people who pissed away a ton of time and money to get into the club don't want the club to fall apart.
The handful of developers who are working in the current environment? No.
You see this with every regulated industry. The people who pissed away a ton of time and money to get into the club don't want the club to fall apart.
Why would the Bay Area grow so much in the next decade? Now that remote working is becoming more normal, and considering the cost of living in the Bay Area, why would that many people want to move there? There are plenty of other places with comparable natural beauty, vibrant communities, cultural resources, etc.
I don't think remote work would become that common fast enough.
Even if it did, remote-work-driven sprawl would be terrible for humanity. We should still congregate for environmental reasons, whether that means 5 story walkable towns, or 20 story city. No where does SFH fit in the picture. Li-on will not save us.
Even if it did, remote-work-driven sprawl would be terrible for humanity. We should still congregate for environmental reasons, whether that means 5 story walkable towns, or 20 story city. No where does SFH fit in the picture. Li-on will not save us.
Part of the reason for the cost of living there is the cost of housing being high because of artificially restricted supply. Why live there? Plentiful jobs and mild weather seem like good enough reasons.
Start naming those other places and we will tell you why they are not viable or comparable. If there are so many it should be easy.
Uhh, Portland or Seattle?
They're political similar, economically as similar as you'll get (silicon forest in Hillsboro and Seattle's whole tech scene rivals SF), and geographically similar in terms of climate to parts of the bay area.
They're political similar, economically as similar as you'll get (silicon forest in Hillsboro and Seattle's whole tech scene rivals SF), and geographically similar in terms of climate to parts of the bay area.
Neither Portland nor Seattle can match the Bay Area in terms of overall culture. Neither has a world-class orchestra or opera, to say nothing of the early-music scene in the Bay Area, which is easily the best in the US. Neither measures up to the Bay Area in the art scene, either. Or the restaurant scene. Or the wine scene.
Neither comes very close in terms of climate, although that argument is muted lately due to California being on fire for 4 months out of each year now. But Portland and Seattle are already experiencing their own climate-change-related impacts.
And no, neither measures up economically either. Comparing the tech industry in Portland or Seattle to the Bay Area (Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and basically all of the startup scene) is a joke.
I could go on, but really, there is no competition.
Neither comes very close in terms of climate, although that argument is muted lately due to California being on fire for 4 months out of each year now. But Portland and Seattle are already experiencing their own climate-change-related impacts.
And no, neither measures up economically either. Comparing the tech industry in Portland or Seattle to the Bay Area (Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and basically all of the startup scene) is a joke.
I could go on, but really, there is no competition.
I've lived in Seattle so my viewpoint is biased.
> Neither has a world-class orchestra or opera
Seattle Symphony is fantastic and has multiple Grammy awards. The one that stands out to me is the 2014 premiere of John Luther Adams' work, Become Ocean. Not everyone's cup of team, but a phenomenal performance nonetheless.
> to say nothing of the early-music scene in the Bay Area, which is easily the best in the US
Grunge is very distinctly Seattle. I have a feeling you are incorrectly attributing certain bands with California because they moved there after they became famous.
> And no, neither measures up economically either. Comparing the tech industry in Portland or Seattle to the Bay Area (Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and basically all of the startup scene) is a joke.
Google is heavily in Seattle. You are ignoring the powerhouses of Microsoft and Amazon which are headquartered there. Additionally, the startup scene is thriving. Vulcan Ventures (Paul Allen's firm) has a major presence.
> Neither measures up to the Bay Area in the art scene
I can't speak to the art scene but the Seattle Art Museum was pretty cool, not sure how it ranks. I do know that Seattle attracts a lot of artsy types from personal experience.
> Or the wine scene
If you look at Seattle in a hyper-focused fashion, yes there is no wine, it's a city and Bay Area is an area. But wine in Washington state is also thriving (extended family operates a small vineyard for fun). The climate issues have ironically made Washington a better place for wine in the past years
I could go on, but really, there is quite a bit of competition ;)
> Neither has a world-class orchestra or opera
Seattle Symphony is fantastic and has multiple Grammy awards. The one that stands out to me is the 2014 premiere of John Luther Adams' work, Become Ocean. Not everyone's cup of team, but a phenomenal performance nonetheless.
> to say nothing of the early-music scene in the Bay Area, which is easily the best in the US
Grunge is very distinctly Seattle. I have a feeling you are incorrectly attributing certain bands with California because they moved there after they became famous.
> And no, neither measures up economically either. Comparing the tech industry in Portland or Seattle to the Bay Area (Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and basically all of the startup scene) is a joke.
Google is heavily in Seattle. You are ignoring the powerhouses of Microsoft and Amazon which are headquartered there. Additionally, the startup scene is thriving. Vulcan Ventures (Paul Allen's firm) has a major presence.
> Neither measures up to the Bay Area in the art scene
I can't speak to the art scene but the Seattle Art Museum was pretty cool, not sure how it ranks. I do know that Seattle attracts a lot of artsy types from personal experience.
> Or the wine scene
If you look at Seattle in a hyper-focused fashion, yes there is no wine, it's a city and Bay Area is an area. But wine in Washington state is also thriving (extended family operates a small vineyard for fun). The climate issues have ironically made Washington a better place for wine in the past years
I could go on, but really, there is quite a bit of competition ;)
Grunge is not "early music". Bach is. ;) That said, yes, granted, Seattle deserves credit for grunge.
But no, the Seattle Symphony is not a world-class orchestra. The SF Symphony is, though.
But no, the Seattle Symphony is not a world-class orchestra. The SF Symphony is, though.
And yet, this is the first I’ve ever heard that SF has a symphony, despite the local classical music station being my standard station in the car. Maybe it’s not as world-class as you might think.
Maybe someone who has made money at classical music for 30 years knows a bit more than you about it.
I mean, do five minutes of research. At least Google it.
Also, if you think a random "classic" [sic] music station in your car teaches you anything significant about this topic, please do think again. Classical music radio station are almost universally awful.
I mean, do five minutes of research. At least Google it.
Also, if you think a random "classic" [sic] music station in your car teaches you anything significant about this topic, please do think again. Classical music radio station are almost universally awful.
Ranked 13th in the world here:
https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/the-world-s-gr...
https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/the-world-s-gr...
Ranked 13th in the world here also:
https://www.liveabout.com/worlds-best-orchestras-724384
https://www.liveabout.com/worlds-best-orchestras-724384
Really, seriously, anyone with even a passing familiarity with this subject knows this. And it's been the case for some time.
that sounds like the koolaid talking. while SF offers a lot of "culture", portland and seattle have great "scenes" too. restaurants in both cities easily rival those of SF, which tend to be long on cost and short on flavor. but in CA, LA outdoes SF for food, weather, art, music, entertainment, fashion, and shopping, with a more diverse (not tech-centric) economy to boot.
Los Angeles wasn't part of the comparison, however. The question was about housing values and why they'd be so much higher in SF than in Portland or Seattle.
And speaking as an experienced professional musician who has performed a lot in both places, I'd take the Bay Area over LA, at least for classical music, overall.
And speaking as an experienced professional musician who has performed a lot in both places, I'd take the Bay Area over LA, at least for classical music, overall.
You just listed a bunch of things that seem pretty subjective measures of a city.
I bet those other places are 115 Fahrenheit right now.
And/or the people already in them are trying to keep them secret lest they gain all the problems people are fleeing from in the first place.
If those places can suddenly hit 115F then so can the Bay Area. I am not saying it is likely but who would have said it is likely that Portland would hit 115.
It’s true in general. What really surprised me though was the recent/current heat wave across all of the west coast - it has been foggy and cool the entire time in the Bay Area. I hope that holds even as the climate changes, though I don’t know if it will.
Singapore, Shenzhen to start.
If we blow it in the US there are plenty of people ready to work for TikTok or whatever other overseas company takes over.
Though I am surprised NYC doesn't have more tech jobs
If we blow it in the US there are plenty of people ready to work for TikTok or whatever other overseas company takes over.
Though I am surprised NYC doesn't have more tech jobs
NYC has a lot of software jobs, it's just not dominated by a single industry. If you mean exclusively tech, maybe yeah.
For the same reason the Bay Area has been growing for the last 50 years: the birth rate is still close to 2 and longevity is still expanding.
The people I know who live in the Bay Area don’t particularly want it to expand. Part of the value of living there is its relative exclusivity.
The people who currently live in neighborhoods full of $5M single-family houses may value “exclusivity”, but I have met plenty of young people with ordinary jobs sleeping in bunk beds, 4 adults to a 2-bedroom house and still paying most of their paychecks to rent, who would much prefer to be living in separate 1–2 bedroom flats instead, with more little shops in their neighborhood and better transit.
Sure but they could move almost literally anywhere else.
If someone said you could live in one of the most desirable places in the entire world on an 'ordinary' job but you had to share a room (which TBH could just be your significant other anyway) that would seem like a great deal right?
If someone said you could live in one of the most desirable places in the entire world on an 'ordinary' job but you had to share a room (which TBH could just be your significant other anyway) that would seem like a great deal right?
A city cannot function without sanitation workers, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, house painters, road maintenance workers, teachers, librarians, gardeners, bus drivers, janitors, delivery drivers, taxi drivers, shop clerks, wholesale merchants, mechanics, cooks, firefighters, paramedics, accountants, bank tellers, municipal bureaucrats, musicians, bartenders, ...
When many categories of essential workers start to be priced out of living locally and need to commute long distances from undesirable far-flung suburbs, it is (a) a grossly inefficient use of resources, and (b) makes the city much less pleasant and effective. A city where all of the residents are wealthy professionals with other workers as second-class commuters is not a very nice place to live, more like a theme park or resort hotel than a real city.
When many categories of essential workers start to be priced out of living locally and need to commute long distances from undesirable far-flung suburbs, it is (a) a grossly inefficient use of resources, and (b) makes the city much less pleasant and effective. A city where all of the residents are wealthy professionals with other workers as second-class commuters is not a very nice place to live, more like a theme park or resort hotel than a real city.
True. Ideally we would have road tolls and congestion pricing to prevent this. With sufficient tolls, something else would have to give whether that's wages or housing.
No, living with partner is not the same as living with roomate and 3 flatmates. The two are actually massively different.
I'm not saying they are the same or always the case. I'm just saying that is someone is already going to live with a partner, then it isn't a big deal to share a house with another couple.
i.e There is pressure for people living in that area or moving into that area to find a SO or something similar.
i.e There is pressure for people living in that area or moving into that area to find a SO or something similar.
And then those adults will either leave SF or climb the ladder and afford to buy a place, then many won’t advocate to devalue what they just worked so hard for.
I own property in downtown SF and I want it to expand massively. The current system is completely untenable. This is not to my direct/immediate benefit of course, the current situation is just straight-up SF city mismanagement.
The people who value the “exclusivity” of the Bay Area tend to be a very narrow demographic. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not a particular representative group.
I agree that it is a narrow group, but unfortunately it is a very powerful narrow group that controls local politics and has enacted these exclusionary policies. The Calvin Welch school of thought in SF is a prime example.
I'm one of them.
You wouldn’t have to go all the way to Houston style zoning. SF’s regulations are so onerous that going just half way would help massively.
Houston still has also sorts of housing covenant and other thing. Texas is still a low density mess, too.
We do need to get rid of stupid zoning, but also cannot rely on a housing market to do the right thing. We need to force a shift to anti-car rather than pro-car development (and it really is a dichotomy, with the midpoint being a highly unstable equilibrium).
The fact that they are talking about 4-plexes shows they really don't get the scale of density that is needed. Everything should be 5 stories minimum. Maybe some shorter Victorians can be grandfathered in, but the Sunset and western half more broadly needs to be almost entirely redeveloped.
We do need to get rid of stupid zoning, but also cannot rely on a housing market to do the right thing. We need to force a shift to anti-car rather than pro-car development (and it really is a dichotomy, with the midpoint being a highly unstable equilibrium).
The fact that they are talking about 4-plexes shows they really don't get the scale of density that is needed. Everything should be 5 stories minimum. Maybe some shorter Victorians can be grandfathered in, but the Sunset and western half more broadly needs to be almost entirely redeveloped.
The reason they are talking about 4-plexes is that's the reality of redeveloping a single family residence one at a time. If you could do it city block by city block there would be huge savings, and WAY more developer interest. The problem is it's too hard and expensive to assemble that much land to make such projects actually happen. No one wants to move, no one wants change.
The headlines will read "Poor Betty was forced from her home by the evil mayor and money grubbing developer".
They set the table when they built it, and to undo all of that is going to be crazy expensive and difficult.
Some people dream of a car free utopia. Some people like their SFR. Those things may not be compatible.
Things like the Miami tower collapse will make things worse. A lot of people don't want their life dictated by their neighbors. HOAs are well known to be horrendous. And the Miami disaster just goes to show that not only can your HOA affect your sanity, but also your life safety.
The headlines will read "Poor Betty was forced from her home by the evil mayor and money grubbing developer".
They set the table when they built it, and to undo all of that is going to be crazy expensive and difficult.
Some people dream of a car free utopia. Some people like their SFR. Those things may not be compatible.
Things like the Miami tower collapse will make things worse. A lot of people don't want their life dictated by their neighbors. HOAs are well known to be horrendous. And the Miami disaster just goes to show that not only can your HOA affect your sanity, but also your life safety.
This really resonated with me.
> No one wants to move, no one wants to change.
A large percentage of the people living in my R-1 neighborhood are retired now. They could sell their houses and "cash out", but what would be the point? Money is no substitute for a lifestyle. We chose this lifestyle because of the attractions it offered. A couple of my neighbors have moved away, but for every one that moved, there are ten who have stayed. Once we retire we aren't making that long commute any more, and most of us don't leave our neighborhood during the week because we have almost everything we need within a mile or two. For the people who are working in tech, a lot of them used to have WFH days, but now most of them expect to have more regular WFH days - perhaps even a majority. That's pretty much the utopia that people want to achieve through dense development, namely living locally.
I think there is one major issue that doesn't get mentioned, namely the fact that companies have chosen to site themselves in areas where there was a shortage of nearby housing. The south bay areas are the best example of this, with so many of the employers being north of 101 but almost no housing north of 101. This is not a new problem - I remember people commuting long distances to Lockheed and other defense employers north of bayshore in the 70s. As employers have continued to pack more and more jobs into tight spaces, they have exacerbated the problem.
There is a severe problem with affordability of housing, but that is caused by increased demand as much as limited supply. We worship at the altar of economic growth, and refuse to consider the consequences of that growth. Urban planning is about maintaining balances, in much the same way that we seek to strike balances in our lifestyles. Would anyone accept that employment growth is constrained to not exceed housing supply? It's hard to imagine.
> No one wants to move, no one wants to change.
A large percentage of the people living in my R-1 neighborhood are retired now. They could sell their houses and "cash out", but what would be the point? Money is no substitute for a lifestyle. We chose this lifestyle because of the attractions it offered. A couple of my neighbors have moved away, but for every one that moved, there are ten who have stayed. Once we retire we aren't making that long commute any more, and most of us don't leave our neighborhood during the week because we have almost everything we need within a mile or two. For the people who are working in tech, a lot of them used to have WFH days, but now most of them expect to have more regular WFH days - perhaps even a majority. That's pretty much the utopia that people want to achieve through dense development, namely living locally.
I think there is one major issue that doesn't get mentioned, namely the fact that companies have chosen to site themselves in areas where there was a shortage of nearby housing. The south bay areas are the best example of this, with so many of the employers being north of 101 but almost no housing north of 101. This is not a new problem - I remember people commuting long distances to Lockheed and other defense employers north of bayshore in the 70s. As employers have continued to pack more and more jobs into tight spaces, they have exacerbated the problem.
There is a severe problem with affordability of housing, but that is caused by increased demand as much as limited supply. We worship at the altar of economic growth, and refuse to consider the consequences of that growth. Urban planning is about maintaining balances, in much the same way that we seek to strike balances in our lifestyles. Would anyone accept that employment growth is constrained to not exceed housing supply? It's hard to imagine.
I think you are accurately describing a current political reality, but this is deeply disappointing and not a response that will go behind virtue signalling ("zoning is racist") to actually solving the problem, or even right a wrong: ("there is so much cheap housing the non-white proportion of SF/Berekley/etc. goes up.")
> The reason they are talking about 4-plexes is that's the reality of redeveloping a single family residence one at a time.
I wish they could at least talk about 2 lots at a time!
> If you could do it city block by city block there would be huge savings, and WAY more developer interest.
Amen.
> The problem is it's too hard and expensive to assemble that much land to make such projects actually happen.
If only we could do just one, and then for the next one give people units and free moving in the prior one. That can become a virtuous cycle.
> No one wants to move, no one wants change.
Very true, but for all those perks and a nice cache out people can be persuaded. We would need some eminent domain for the stragglers, however.
> The headlines will read "Poor Betty was forced from her home by the evil mayor and money grubbing developer".
Just gotta talk about how Better is getting $5M, a condo, and the elevator she will need anyways as she gets older.
> Some people dream of a car free utopia. Some people like their SFR. Those things may not be compatible.
They aren't! Spineless compromises as described in https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-train... (pork for both sides!) is spineless politics that will diffuse outrage now, but at the cost mutually-undermining investment that just makes people disrespect government more later.
> Things like the Miami tower collapse will make things worse.
:(
> A lot of people don't want their life dictated by their neighbors. HOAs are well known to be horrendous.
The irony is suburbia is full of annoying HOAs. Just like the fact that without more broad economic growth homeowners will have a hard time paying off their mortgage in their lifetimes means that it is a lot closer to paying rent than they would like to think.
> The reason they are talking about 4-plexes is that's the reality of redeveloping a single family residence one at a time.
I wish they could at least talk about 2 lots at a time!
> If you could do it city block by city block there would be huge savings, and WAY more developer interest.
Amen.
> The problem is it's too hard and expensive to assemble that much land to make such projects actually happen.
If only we could do just one, and then for the next one give people units and free moving in the prior one. That can become a virtuous cycle.
> No one wants to move, no one wants change.
Very true, but for all those perks and a nice cache out people can be persuaded. We would need some eminent domain for the stragglers, however.
> The headlines will read "Poor Betty was forced from her home by the evil mayor and money grubbing developer".
Just gotta talk about how Better is getting $5M, a condo, and the elevator she will need anyways as she gets older.
> Some people dream of a car free utopia. Some people like their SFR. Those things may not be compatible.
They aren't! Spineless compromises as described in https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-train... (pork for both sides!) is spineless politics that will diffuse outrage now, but at the cost mutually-undermining investment that just makes people disrespect government more later.
> Things like the Miami tower collapse will make things worse.
:(
> A lot of people don't want their life dictated by their neighbors. HOAs are well known to be horrendous.
The irony is suburbia is full of annoying HOAs. Just like the fact that without more broad economic growth homeowners will have a hard time paying off their mortgage in their lifetimes means that it is a lot closer to paying rent than they would like to think.
We don't need to force a shift. We just need to get rid of incentives for cars, like off street parking requirements and free parking.
The government shouldn't be telling people what they can or can't build (beyond safety)
The government shouldn't be telling people what they can or can't build (beyond safety)
Disagree with the last one, one of government’s main responsibilities is to regulate peoples’ externalities so they don’t infringe on other peoples’ rights. Noise and pollution especially negatively affect neighbors.
It’d be great if this was done parametrically (Eg setting max noise output at your property boundaries, particulate output, etc,), but I guess it’s been historically more convenient to do it via broad zoning instead. Japan’s max-use zoning seems like a good compromise.
It’d be great if this was done parametrically (Eg setting max noise output at your property boundaries, particulate output, etc,), but I guess it’s been historically more convenient to do it via broad zoning instead. Japan’s max-use zoning seems like a good compromise.
> We just need to get rid of incentives for cars, like off street parking requirements and free parking.
The Bay Area cannot hope to cancel all the car subsidization done at the state and national level. More active measures are needed.
> The government shouldn't be telling people what they can or can't build (beyond safety)
I really fundamentally disagree. Even if we accept liberatarianism for individual and business choices by default, land is a public good in finite supply in fixed position. Isolated actors developing land as they please can cause public harm because the utility of land is based on how surrounding land is used.
We need to collectively agree cars and single family homes hold the bay area back, and then collectively work to move away from both, to replace wholesale self-perpetuating car culture with self-perpetuating public transit apartment culture.
The Bay Area cannot hope to cancel all the car subsidization done at the state and national level. More active measures are needed.
> The government shouldn't be telling people what they can or can't build (beyond safety)
I really fundamentally disagree. Even if we accept liberatarianism for individual and business choices by default, land is a public good in finite supply in fixed position. Isolated actors developing land as they please can cause public harm because the utility of land is based on how surrounding land is used.
We need to collectively agree cars and single family homes hold the bay area back, and then collectively work to move away from both, to replace wholesale self-perpetuating car culture with self-perpetuating public transit apartment culture.
[deleted]
Reducing red tape would help a lot, but Houston has geography on its side. Looking at a map of Beltway 8 superimposed over the SF Bay [1], it is easy to visualize why land is cheap. That's not even the outer loop for Houston.
SF and adjacent cities need to both reduce the approval process and encourage higher density.
1. https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/as-if-you-needed...
SF and adjacent cities need to both reduce the approval process and encourage higher density.
1. https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/as-if-you-needed...
Minimal zoning would be a bit much, but I think Japanese-style highest-allowed use zoning with few single-family home zones would be good.
There are developers that specialize in building and "developers" that specialize in buying land, getting the approvals, and selling it off to someone that actually builds it.
[deleted]
The best thing would be to ban AirBNB and rental housing. Those two artificially restrict the supply of housing to an absurd extent and drive up the costs of everyone else’s housing.
I’m not alone in this - several cities have already banned AirBNB.
I’m not alone in this - several cities have already banned AirBNB.
lol how do you figure that rental housing restricts total supply?
It inflates the prices of desirable areas because there is less housing available to purchase, especially for the currently renting tenants who ostensibly wish to someday become homeowners.
So we totally flip the rules and it will all work out once the new rules are in place because people will begin to optimize to the new rules. Sounds like a lot how people think the free market is supposed to work.
How do you streamline real estate availability? Blow up mountains or expand into the ocean?
A legal framework that enables the land you do have to be less like Atlanta and more like Paris.
[deleted]
Eliminate minimum requirements on parking and restrictions on height. Make demolitions easier. Eliminate the neighbors ability to stop any project that they don't like. Reduce the number of permits required, reduce the permit fees, reduce the time it takes to issue a permit.
In the case of San Francisco, they also need a centralized, online planning/permits database. They are still doing things on paper, and they've got a backlog of thousands of permits. It can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars simply to navigate the permitting process.
In the case of San Francisco, they also need a centralized, online planning/permits database. They are still doing things on paper, and they've got a backlog of thousands of permits. It can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars simply to navigate the permitting process.
building fourplexes requires either two staircases or a staircase and an elevator
Wow. That means they can get away with one staircase in San Fran. Wouldn't fly where I'm from.
His material point is correct though. Real estate development is about money. Where I live, you can generally only make money on fourplexes where land prices are low enough. I don't know much about San Fran real estate, but from what I've heard, land is not very cheap.
I would think in San Fran larger apartment complexes would be more profitable. Of course then there are all kinds of other headaches, like getting all the lots you need in the exact same contiguous area. Which also doesn't sound cheap in San Fran. So maybe what I meant is luxury condos instead of apartments? Point is that however it happens the money math has to work.
Wow. That means they can get away with one staircase in San Fran. Wouldn't fly where I'm from.
His material point is correct though. Real estate development is about money. Where I live, you can generally only make money on fourplexes where land prices are low enough. I don't know much about San Fran real estate, but from what I've heard, land is not very cheap.
I would think in San Fran larger apartment complexes would be more profitable. Of course then there are all kinds of other headaches, like getting all the lots you need in the exact same contiguous area. Which also doesn't sound cheap in San Fran. So maybe what I meant is luxury condos instead of apartments? Point is that however it happens the money math has to work.
Typically the emergency staircase is attached to the front of the building in SF, like so: https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-fire-escape-san-franc...
Houses are bought and destroyed to make way for tri-plex blds and condos at a pretty consistent pace where I live, because the returns are that good. I'm surprised that this would be any different in SF.
If enough red tape was cleared it would be common in SF too. But the regulatory environment is so oppressive that it’s not worth doing a project unless it’s going to be a huge money-maker, which generally means large-scale.
Changing the zoning is a good first step, but not the only (or even the most significant) obstacle.
Changing the zoning is a good first step, but not the only (or even the most significant) obstacle.
It sounds like the problem isn't just the law but also the frivolous interruptions that delay permitting. Those aren't written into the law but they still matter a great deal.
It can take 250k in permits and 5 years just to renovate a duplex. It is insane
One issue (of many) in California compared to other locations is the requirement for water sprinkler fire suppression systems in new buildings. This eats a lot of money and space in each building.
Between California and Bay Area regulations it is very challenging to turn a profit on demolitions except at the highest echelons of the housing market.
Between California and Bay Area regulations it is very challenging to turn a profit on demolitions except at the highest echelons of the housing market.
Demolition and construction are nearly completely regulated out of existence here.
I suspect where you live doesn’t have environmental impact studies and objection by basically anyone in the entire city requiring design review. Fixing the zoning is a first step, but won’t solve all the other issues.
If you fix the incentives, everything else follows eventually. If you don't fix the incentives, some other symptom will appear from the same disease.
We need Land Value Taxes.
We need Land Value Taxes.
Also scarcity of contractors, architects, and essentially anyone who works on homes. Even with the project approved costs are going to be high in the Bay Area.
Addressing the regulations, but not the financing, means this scarcity doesn't change.
Dodd Frank made speculative financing so difficult, that the industry either scaled up, as was mentioned in the article, to make it worth the trouble of pacifying HUD, or scaled down and run a business that essentially relies on clients to finance the projects. Most builders (and others in the industry) were forced to scale down.
These were the builders that might have considered 4-plex or other small multifamily projects, but they've essentially been barred from the market.
Dodd Frank made speculative financing so difficult, that the industry either scaled up, as was mentioned in the article, to make it worth the trouble of pacifying HUD, or scaled down and run a business that essentially relies on clients to finance the projects. Most builders (and others in the industry) were forced to scale down.
These were the builders that might have considered 4-plex or other small multifamily projects, but they've essentially been barred from the market.
This is the stupid tax at work.
They should have pulled their heads out of their butts and respected people's property rights 20, 30yr ago when the problems were becoming obvious. But they didn't so they're gonna have to pay up.
Repealing some zoning is a small step in the right direction but they're gonna continue hemorrhaging money until they start tackling the other ideologically driven inefficiency (of which the person you are replying to has named a few types) before they really start seeing improvement.
They should have pulled their heads out of their butts and respected people's property rights 20, 30yr ago when the problems were becoming obvious. But they didn't so they're gonna have to pay up.
Repealing some zoning is a small step in the right direction but they're gonna continue hemorrhaging money until they start tackling the other ideologically driven inefficiency (of which the person you are replying to has named a few types) before they really start seeing improvement.
You don't have to live in the city of the project you want to stop. You don't even have to live in the state, in the United States, or even be a natural person. The requirements for standing under CEQA are so loose that anyone can sue on any basis. This was made perfectly clear when the California Supreme Court allowed "Save the Plastic Bag Coalition" to sue Manhattan Beach. Yes, you read that correctly.
but if the CEQA proceedings are fact-based, a broader requirement for standing is not a bad thing, right?
An opposite example might be, in the East Bay hills, on a steep area of dense old vegetation, a developer wants to bulldoze the entire thing, add heavy landscaping and drainage, and built four dozen "premium" homes. If the city council member is looking at the hundreds of millions of dollars that will change hands, over an are that is literally no dollars now, then the plan gets approved. You might guess, this is a true example and a developer from Hong Kong put their name on the project and it was built.
The case of a beach is also not-obvious, as it is world-scale irreplaceable.
An opposite example might be, in the East Bay hills, on a steep area of dense old vegetation, a developer wants to bulldoze the entire thing, add heavy landscaping and drainage, and built four dozen "premium" homes. If the city council member is looking at the hundreds of millions of dollars that will change hands, over an are that is literally no dollars now, then the plan gets approved. You might guess, this is a true example and a developer from Hong Kong put their name on the project and it was built.
The case of a beach is also not-obvious, as it is world-scale irreplaceable.
Those parcels are sold to the public and zoned for housing, what outcome are you hoping for here?
Developing a bunch of enormous single-family homes in hillside slide zones is just about the only thing that is legal by-right in all East Bay cities. That's the sick joke!
I'm not sure if you are referring to the big tacky mansions on Highland Terrace in Fremont, but if you are those are now the most heavily-assessed properties in Alameda County.
I'm not sure if you are referring to the big tacky mansions on Highland Terrace in Fremont, but if you are those are now the most heavily-assessed properties in Alameda County.
Can previously-approved plans be used as precedence for design review, or is everything in design review de novo?
Everything depends on the city, but in my experience it's de novo. Code changes every 3 years (usually pretty minor stuff). Additionally every site has unique features. Different shape, different elevations, different neighbors, different soils, etc so some rework of the plans is always necessary to accommodate those differences.
Those are valid objections to fourplexes, but there are still plenty of things in between SFH and fourplexes -- including, most particularly, semi-detached duplexes, which are much easier and still double the density on the lot! I do agree that much of the hype about fourplexes is suspect (including the noise isolation of units that are one-atop-another), but there are many other possibilities, including ADUs.
Also, small elevators are definitely something that could benefit from an economy of scale, and anyway make a big difference in accessibility for any building above one story. Likewise, the possible designs of multi-unit homes on small lots could become more standardized. And the regulations could improve, and the regulatory institutions could gain more experience handling these kinds of projects.
All of that starts with the zoning.
Also, small elevators are definitely something that could benefit from an economy of scale, and anyway make a big difference in accessibility for any building above one story. Likewise, the possible designs of multi-unit homes on small lots could become more standardized. And the regulations could improve, and the regulatory institutions could gain more experience handling these kinds of projects.
All of that starts with the zoning.
Small elevators get to use a potentially cheaper and easier option. In a tall building the elevator is suspended from cables, because that's the only practical option, but with only three-four floors of rise you can use hydraulics from below instead, this also puts the equipment room down at the bottom of the shaft instead of on the roof, so now you don't need roof access for routine maintenance.
>semi-detached duplexes, which are much easier and still double the density on the lot!
They built a duplex by me and the combined units went for less than what a SFH would have gone for. Plus I imagine it was more expensive to build.
I think it only makes sense where the lot is big enough to fit 2 essentially full SFHs as a duplex.
They built a duplex by me and the combined units went for less than what a SFH would have gone for. Plus I imagine it was more expensive to build.
I think it only makes sense where the lot is big enough to fit 2 essentially full SFHs as a duplex.
Or midrises that are between 4plexes and large condos, are another option
Five-over-ones are nice medium density units, but they depend on public transit to be viable. If you can't get to work without a car (let's suppose those ground floor stores cover all your shopping needs) you need a parking spot, everyone and their partner needs a parking spot, and now the whole complex is surrounded by a huge parking lot.
Public transportation, bikes, and car sharing all make sense when cities are designed for it
Just going to point out - ending single family zoning doesn't mean building a single family house is prohibited, it just means that you can build things other than a single family home on a particular plot of land.
Right. A better term would be Apartment Prohibition, which swept the country in the 1970s after the Supreme Court said you can't just directly exclude people by race.
Earlier - this started in 1911 when the Supreme Court said that.
Highly progressive people continue to self segregate into very non-diverse neighborhoods when buying houses.
This is category error, at a minimum. 'highly progressive people' is an abstraction and cannot take action. It's imagine it's also inductive reasoning and out group bias.
[deleted]
This was my experience working at Google. Very liberal until you start talking about upzoning, then suddenly "some neighborhoods should keep their character".
Very liberal until it's time to actually solve their own backyard's problems eh.
NIMBY does not mean conservative. Indeed, one of the most annoying things about NIMBYs is that they come in all political shapes and sizes. :)
They also complain about ghettoization as soon as certain people come to their neighborhood.
[deleted]
Housing discrimination persisted well beyond 1917. See, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
It wasn't until the late 60's / early 70's that explicit racial discrimination was finally outlawed, and it's not a coincidence that exclusionary zoning took off immediately thereafter as a prima facie race-neutral way to achieve the same outcome.
It wasn't until the late 60's / early 70's that explicit racial discrimination was finally outlawed, and it's not a coincidence that exclusionary zoning took off immediately thereafter as a prima facie race-neutral way to achieve the same outcome.
No, you have the timeline wrong. Exclusionary zoning took off almost immediately after Buchanan. Some of the original designers specifically cited that Supreme Court case as their motivation for passing such laws. Redlining and racial covenants were also used around that time for similar purposes.
As the threat of litigation became a new constant, the San Francisco Planning Department slowly began to craft a new approach to development. The city’s 1971 Urban Design Plan was the first to codify the shift in values from the Modernist freeway-and-tower model toward a greater respect for San Francisco’s unique neighborhoods and their human-scale features. The plan focused on preserving and expanding existing neighborhood character
...
But the largest legislative achievement of this emerging anti-growth coalition would be the Residential Rezoning of 1978, a project to implement stricter controls across all of San Francisco’s neighborhoods. In addition to creating 40-foot building-height limits for most residential areas, the legislation included new setback rules (regulating how far a building could be from the public right-of-way), low-density requirements (limiting the number of housing units in a given building), and overall design guidelines aimed at preserving entire neighborhoods in amber.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90242388/the-bad-design-that-cre...
...
But the largest legislative achievement of this emerging anti-growth coalition would be the Residential Rezoning of 1978, a project to implement stricter controls across all of San Francisco’s neighborhoods. In addition to creating 40-foot building-height limits for most residential areas, the legislation included new setback rules (regulating how far a building could be from the public right-of-way), low-density requirements (limiting the number of housing units in a given building), and overall design guidelines aimed at preserving entire neighborhoods in amber.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90242388/the-bad-design-that-cre...
That proves that exclusionary zoning was around in 1971, but not that it wasn't used earlier. Massachusetts amended its constitution in 1918, literally one year after Buchanan, to enable cities to impose zoning. And the idea of using it to create racial segregation was specifically discussed at the time [0]:
Of particular concern was the fear that zoning would bring about racial and socioeconomic segregation in Massachusetts, which need not take the form of racial tests, as zoning could just as easily bring about segregation by regulating who could afford certain neighborhoods by income. Pro-zoning advocates... [went ahead anyways]
[0]: https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/officeofthemayor/2...
Of particular concern was the fear that zoning would bring about racial and socioeconomic segregation in Massachusetts, which need not take the form of racial tests, as zoning could just as easily bring about segregation by regulating who could afford certain neighborhoods by income. Pro-zoning advocates... [went ahead anyways]
[0]: https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/officeofthemayor/2...
Yep, my position isn't that EZ was invented in the 70's; that's just when it swept the nation, and in particular, the Bay Area.
[deleted]
wow this got long, but I'm in Denver and we have like 4 ballot measures to vote on that revolve around this issue of race, class, development. Specifically Apartment Prohibition!! If anyone is interested.
--
denver is going to vote on a ballot measure soon to repeal the repeal of apartment prohibition and I feel it is similarly driven by race & class bias, driven by largely white home owners who literally say they want to protect their wealth (below).
Our city council only recently changed zoning to allow an increase from only 2!!! non-related adults living in the same place to 5. It's crazy to me that was ever a limit in the first place.
No 3 bed apartments for non-blood relatives?!
The old zoning that was fixed also made it harder and limited certain types of group homes, rehabs etc too, especially the number of and locations.
One of the filers of this repeal said the following in a press article - clear intent imho.
“This affects their very wealth. Their very wealth,” said George E. Mayl, one of the five voters who officially filed to create a referendum committee. “And not only that, their children’s, their heirs’ wealth. Someone’s home is their single largest investment of their life.”
also the way they use 'neighborhood' to me is not so veiled language in the context of race and class - just like the many policies and laws in the past. It's used as a rhetorical excuse just like 'protecting the kids' is often used.
Similarly like Trump & Reps in 2020 made 'protect the suburbs from' or 'border invasion' a key message.
There are another 2 housing measures on the ballot that are competing.
A big developer spent like $20 million or something to buy rights for a golf course in the city that they want to develop.
They bought it with a green space park easement... But to be profitable they have to repeal the easement so they can built over the park. They gambled on their power to change the law.
So they filed a measure to allow them to build more (to be fair they still plan on having a park, but less green space than currently protected in an easement).
So now there is a competing measure in response to protect the park.
I'm for it we don't have a ton of open green space in Denver and we can't build more. Let's change laws and remove red tape to build UP.
What happens if they both pass? who in the world will be able to decipher the two when voting?
And what does it say that corporations & white homeowners consistently and so plainly manipulate the law directly for their bottom line (oil and gas is a big one here)?
Another one on the ballot around homelessness. HUGE problem, we have tents in residential neighborhoods and lots of theft.
But it's pretending to address the problem while really making more laws and regulations to criminalize homelessness and disallow solutions.
They're so brave to invest in allowing homeless to sleep in parking lots lol...
While simultaneously making it harder to create group living and the rehab that a ton of homeless individuals would greatly benefit from.
Thankfully we do have some push by Rep. DeGette and a few others to buy old motels. That's a good investment and would actually help.
Our city council only recently changed zoning to allow an increase from only 2!!! non-related adults living in the same place to 5. It's crazy to me that was ever a limit in the first place.
No 3 bed apartments for non-blood relatives?!
The old zoning that was fixed also made it harder and limited certain types of group homes, rehabs etc too, especially the number of and locations.
One of the filers of this repeal said the following in a press article - clear intent imho.
“This affects their very wealth. Their very wealth,” said George E. Mayl, one of the five voters who officially filed to create a referendum committee. “And not only that, their children’s, their heirs’ wealth. Someone’s home is their single largest investment of their life.”
also the way they use 'neighborhood' to me is not so veiled language in the context of race and class - just like the many policies and laws in the past. It's used as a rhetorical excuse just like 'protecting the kids' is often used.
Similarly like Trump & Reps in 2020 made 'protect the suburbs from' or 'border invasion' a key message.
There are another 2 housing measures on the ballot that are competing.
A big developer spent like $20 million or something to buy rights for a golf course in the city that they want to develop.
They bought it with a green space park easement... But to be profitable they have to repeal the easement so they can built over the park. They gambled on their power to change the law.
So they filed a measure to allow them to build more (to be fair they still plan on having a park, but less green space than currently protected in an easement).
So now there is a competing measure in response to protect the park.
I'm for it we don't have a ton of open green space in Denver and we can't build more. Let's change laws and remove red tape to build UP.
What happens if they both pass? who in the world will be able to decipher the two when voting?
And what does it say that corporations & white homeowners consistently and so plainly manipulate the law directly for their bottom line (oil and gas is a big one here)?
Another one on the ballot around homelessness. HUGE problem, we have tents in residential neighborhoods and lots of theft.
But it's pretending to address the problem while really making more laws and regulations to criminalize homelessness and disallow solutions.
They're so brave to invest in allowing homeless to sleep in parking lots lol...
While simultaneously making it harder to create group living and the rehab that a ton of homeless individuals would greatly benefit from.
Thankfully we do have some push by Rep. DeGette and a few others to buy old motels. That's a good investment and would actually help.
Playing the devils' advocate, is the key to affordable housing to allow neighborhoods, builders etc. to exclude by race?
Folks might not be able to choose where they live, but at least they will get cheap housing? Is that a fair trade?
Folks might not be able to choose where they live, but at least they will get cheap housing? Is that a fair trade?
California voters approved such a law, 1963 Prop 14, but the supreme court struck it down.
But don't lose hope for direct democracy yet! A few years later Prop 13, which is arguably worse on minorities https://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/11/..., passed by a wide margin and continues to see strong support from voting demographics today.
But don't lose hope for direct democracy yet! A few years later Prop 13, which is arguably worse on minorities https://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/11/..., passed by a wide margin and continues to see strong support from voting demographics today.
I don't understand what you are (rhetorically) advocating for?
Nothing stopping Blacks or Hispanics from moving to the suburbs except for the laws of supply and demand. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs.
By definition not racist.
By definition not racist.
The laws of supply and demand are being manipulated by the powerful: They're suppressing the ability of supply to rise to meet demand, which has the effect of granting windfall profits to the haves while keeping the have-nots away from areas of opportunity.
Not arguing that, but that is decidedly not racist.
It's why educated Blacks in the US are moving back to red Southern states more so than they're moving to blue Northeast and Western ones. It's much cheaper and easier to build new housing in suburban Dallas or Atlanta versus San Francisco, New York, or LA.
It's why educated Blacks in the US are moving back to red Southern states more so than they're moving to blue Northeast and Western ones. It's much cheaper and easier to build new housing in suburban Dallas or Atlanta versus San Francisco, New York, or LA.
A big thing I've noticed - especially on HN which is mostly white and male - is we perhaps fundamentally disagree on what 'racist' means.
To me I view racism as a larger umbrella. Includes bias, both on the surface but also more broadly what has been cultivated as a society. Context is very important in my definition viewpoint. centuries of historic oppression, which led to unequal wealth, opportunity, and more. ongoing bias which discriminates in hiring and opportunity and more.
I view this context as a kind of 'prior' (to use a ML term I don't fully understand lol) when assessing whether or not something is 'racist.'
While on the other hand it seems like some view racism as solely a person knowingly and vocally treating one ethnicity differently and discriminating openly.
To me I agree with parent and I hold the larger viewpoint.
Because of centuries of oppression BIPOC have less money, less opportunity, own less housing, communities are segregated don't have nearly as much ownership in the 'single family neighborhoods' & that community which drives the policy we are talking about.
I don't think one can ignore that context, and its implicit bias, when looking at why these laws, regulations, zoning were (and are) being passed.
And plus many times it's also explicitly racist like the latter viewpoint; like the language Trump & Republicans use about 'invading' the suburbs.
To me I view racism as a larger umbrella. Includes bias, both on the surface but also more broadly what has been cultivated as a society. Context is very important in my definition viewpoint. centuries of historic oppression, which led to unequal wealth, opportunity, and more. ongoing bias which discriminates in hiring and opportunity and more.
I view this context as a kind of 'prior' (to use a ML term I don't fully understand lol) when assessing whether or not something is 'racist.'
While on the other hand it seems like some view racism as solely a person knowingly and vocally treating one ethnicity differently and discriminating openly.
To me I agree with parent and I hold the larger viewpoint.
Because of centuries of oppression BIPOC have less money, less opportunity, own less housing, communities are segregated don't have nearly as much ownership in the 'single family neighborhoods' & that community which drives the policy we are talking about.
I don't think one can ignore that context, and its implicit bias, when looking at why these laws, regulations, zoning were (and are) being passed.
And plus many times it's also explicitly racist like the latter viewpoint; like the language Trump & Republicans use about 'invading' the suburbs.
You don't get to magically redefine what "racist" is because the current definition doesn't match up with your narrative.
Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist. No one is stopping any race of people from moving to the suburbs, no law is stopping any members of any race from moving to the suburbs, etc.
You can definitely make the claim that suburbs are classist, but racist? No.
Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist. No one is stopping any race of people from moving to the suburbs, no law is stopping any members of any race from moving to the suburbs, etc.
You can definitely make the claim that suburbs are classist, but racist? No.
Seriously? If this was reddit i'd say fck off.
That's not what I was saying.
I'm pointing out that you for instance, could benefit from some perspective in understanding why there is disagreement between because we fundamentally have different word-views / disagree on the language of this argument.
It's like trying to argue about bikes, if your definition of bike is a self powered two wheel and mine is a motorized machine.
That's not what I was saying.
I'm pointing out that you for instance, could benefit from some perspective in understanding why there is disagreement between because we fundamentally have different word-views / disagree on the language of this argument.
It's like trying to argue about bikes, if your definition of bike is a self powered two wheel and mine is a motorized machine.
[deleted]
"Hey, we've economically oppressed minorities and made our neighborhood too expensive for them. Not racist!"
No, our nation's history guarantees that economic segregation is racial segregation. These laws were literally designed to create racial segregation.
Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.
No, our nation's history guarantees that economic segregation is racial segregation. These laws were literally designed to create racial segregation.
Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.
You're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants), etc. all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff.
>Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.
Correlation does not imply causation. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs. They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist.
>Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.
Correlation does not imply causation. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs. They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist.
"They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist"
You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so.
Example: "More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se...
"Correlation does not imply causation."
The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f...
When the origin and outcome are both racist then policy itself is clearly racist.
You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so.
Example: "More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se...
"Correlation does not imply causation."
The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f...
When the origin and outcome are both racist then policy itself is clearly racist.
>You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism.
I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist.
>Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning.
This is not entirely true. Zoning laws in LA and NYC predate explicit racial zoning, and survived past the 1917 Supreme Court ruling.
>It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so.
Again, not entirely true, and definitely no longer true. Asians, Jews, Indians, Africans, etc. are all more likely to reside in suburban areas now, so they by definition do not "racially segregate and continues to do so".
>"More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se...
Your link literally agrees with me: "Many of these policies were not designed to oppress."
>The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f...
Poor opinion piece that conflates zoning and segregation laws, which is what many people have been doing because it's politically expedient.
>When the origin
Maybe, but not entirely.
>and outcome
Provably not so. Asians/Indians (a historically disadvantaged POC), Africans, etc. are all flooding to suburbs, which means they are de facto no longer racist, and do not have a racist outcome. QED.
I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist.
>Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning.
This is not entirely true. Zoning laws in LA and NYC predate explicit racial zoning, and survived past the 1917 Supreme Court ruling.
>It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so.
Again, not entirely true, and definitely no longer true. Asians, Jews, Indians, Africans, etc. are all more likely to reside in suburban areas now, so they by definition do not "racially segregate and continues to do so".
>"More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se...
Your link literally agrees with me: "Many of these policies were not designed to oppress."
>The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f...
Poor opinion piece that conflates zoning and segregation laws, which is what many people have been doing because it's politically expedient.
>When the origin
Maybe, but not entirely.
>and outcome
Provably not so. Asians/Indians (a historically disadvantaged POC), Africans, etc. are all flooding to suburbs, which means they are de facto no longer racist, and do not have a racist outcome. QED.
> I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative.
I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. “It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice.
The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist.
I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. “It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice.
The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist.
A law can be "not racist", but still be crafted with certain intentions in mind; it's easy to exploit certain correlations to achieve a certain end result. I don't think anyone would argue that there's something innate about one's skin color that would make them predisposed to living in apartments! But if you want to exclude certain people from your neighborhood, and those people happen to often be from a certain culture/socioeconomic class…
It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/how-1800s-racism-...
It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs.
It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/how-1800s-racism-...
It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs.
>A law can be "not racist", but still be crafted with certain intentions in mind; it's easy to exploit certain correlations to achieve a certain end result.
Correlation does not imply causation.
>But if you want to exclude certain people from your neighborhood, and those people happen to often be from a certain culture/socioeconomic class…
No doubt, no one wants to live around low class riff raff. That's not race specific, and so, is by definition not racist.
>It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown
Now you're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants) all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff.
>It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs.
Same for whites. Many/most were locked away in perpetual poverty in rural areas.
Correlation does not imply causation.
>But if you want to exclude certain people from your neighborhood, and those people happen to often be from a certain culture/socioeconomic class…
No doubt, no one wants to live around low class riff raff. That's not race specific, and so, is by definition not racist.
>It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown
Now you're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants) all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff.
>It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs.
Same for whites. Many/most were locked away in perpetual poverty in rural areas.
You don't think we have laws that are currently racist?
If there are so many racist laws in systemically racist USA, you should have no issues pointing out some laws that are racist, no?
This is a very good step, but I wouldn't mind an outright prohibition either.
That's hubris. The reason we're in this situation, where a lack of dense housing is causing housing prices to rise, is because earlier planners were confident 50 years ago that single-family homes were the best option, and they weren't content to just follow that strategy then and there. They decided that this had to be enforced on future people too - us, that is.
I didn't say the ban had to be indefinite.
We really need to densify a lot, and do so quickly, and I am skeptical the market will get us the quick enough.
Zoning is bad, but don't forget all our good unplanned construction was also pre-auto. Looking at e.g. parts of Texas, I worry that the self-perpetuation dynamics of cars --- which are very strong --- will make a market-based transition away from low density too quite tenuous.
I have 0 problem saying in Core areas single family family homes have no place, and we should ban them outright. SFH zoning is bad because it causes land too be wasted, such that future generations have to pay the costs of redevelopment rather than building right on "unimproved" land. Conversely, "too much density", if there even is such a thing, would waste very little land, meaning that a mandated switch back to SFH suburbia would be cheap, just as it was 50+ years ago.
It's not hubris, it's learning from our mistakes.
We really need to densify a lot, and do so quickly, and I am skeptical the market will get us the quick enough.
Zoning is bad, but don't forget all our good unplanned construction was also pre-auto. Looking at e.g. parts of Texas, I worry that the self-perpetuation dynamics of cars --- which are very strong --- will make a market-based transition away from low density too quite tenuous.
I have 0 problem saying in Core areas single family family homes have no place, and we should ban them outright. SFH zoning is bad because it causes land too be wasted, such that future generations have to pay the costs of redevelopment rather than building right on "unimproved" land. Conversely, "too much density", if there even is such a thing, would waste very little land, meaning that a mandated switch back to SFH suburbia would be cheap, just as it was 50+ years ago.
It's not hubris, it's learning from our mistakes.
> because earlier planners were confident 50 years ago that single-family homes were the best option
SFH IS the best options, nobody WANTS to live in an apartment if given the choice.
SFH IS the best options, nobody WANTS to live in an apartment if given the choice.
You really can't make a categorical statement like that. I prefered living in an apartment because the housing density meant I had a grocery store, a farmer's market, and multiple other commercial hubs within walking distance. It also meant that street planning gave priority to public transport and pedestrians. There were plenty of jobs available within reasonable commute times. My neighbours gave me an easy-to-access network of people that you could befriend and somewhat rely on.
There's so many positives to living in an apartment that are pretty much direct effects of the denser housing.
There's so many positives to living in an apartment that are pretty much direct effects of the denser housing.
They should just largely remove these kinds of zoning laws, raise the height restriction to at least 6 stories and maybe require a commercial ground floor for buildings over a certain footprint and/or on arterials. Allow builders to combine lots. Get rid of the parking and driveway requirements as well. At least do this in strips down arterials so that entire blocks could be converted to high density mixed residential/commercial.
Of course there goes your rents and home prices, but now if you actually lived in the surrounding area you'd be able to easier walk to shops and with rents being less that'd wind up eventually as lower prices and lower cost of living.
Its not surprising that the half-measures they're taking almost seems designed to not have a lot of actual uptake.
Of course there goes your rents and home prices, but now if you actually lived in the surrounding area you'd be able to easier walk to shops and with rents being less that'd wind up eventually as lower prices and lower cost of living.
Its not surprising that the half-measures they're taking almost seems designed to not have a lot of actual uptake.
I would add removing car parking requirements AND simultaneously pay for public transport, dedicated protected bike lanes etc to serve this new density.
Like you mention importance of stores.
I would maybe subsidize grocers & shops with tax breaks for a few years to get the walkability cycle going. The cart before horse problem, build it and they will come theory.
Like you mention importance of stores.
I would maybe subsidize grocers & shops with tax breaks for a few years to get the walkability cycle going. The cart before horse problem, build it and they will come theory.
Exactly, make it all walkable/bikable with mass transit down the arterials, and incentives and density to attract the commerce. Particularly for mom+pop stores/restaurants.
And have it all near enough school and offices that a <10 minute bus ride can get you to those campuses.
And you can still have islands of SFH/Townhouses that are within ~4 blocks of high density (I'd probably prefer that since I'm quite introverted most of the time).
And have it all near enough school and offices that a <10 minute bus ride can get you to those campuses.
And you can still have islands of SFH/Townhouses that are within ~4 blocks of high density (I'd probably prefer that since I'm quite introverted most of the time).
Relevant: https://fiftythree.studio/blogs/news/lets-talk-about-why-la-...
"The small apartment buildings that triggered this revolt are called are called 'dingbats'. They're those boxy buildings you see all over the place with pompous names like 'La Traviata' or 'Chateau Antoinette'. These kinds of housing weren't pretty, but they were no-frills apartments you could afford if you were an actor, or a grocery clerk, or a secretary. This scared the hell out of homeowners in rich neighborhoods, because apartments were for poor people and minorities. So, we voted for politicians who reduced the zoning of LA bit by bit, effectively freezing the status quo in place. And after 1970, rich communities just stopped building new housing, period. You can see the results from the population table below."
"The small apartment buildings that triggered this revolt are called are called 'dingbats'. They're those boxy buildings you see all over the place with pompous names like 'La Traviata' or 'Chateau Antoinette'. These kinds of housing weren't pretty, but they were no-frills apartments you could afford if you were an actor, or a grocery clerk, or a secretary. This scared the hell out of homeowners in rich neighborhoods, because apartments were for poor people and minorities. So, we voted for politicians who reduced the zoning of LA bit by bit, effectively freezing the status quo in place. And after 1970, rich communities just stopped building new housing, period. You can see the results from the population table below."
From TFA
> But while the movement to allow multifamily buildings in zones previously limited to single-family homes
How is this even a thing? Couldn't two families just define themselves as a big extended family? They could for example just have two people marry for a day, move into the upstairs and downstairs respectively, and then get divorced the next day to hack the system.
> But while the movement to allow multifamily buildings in zones previously limited to single-family homes
How is this even a thing? Couldn't two families just define themselves as a big extended family? They could for example just have two people marry for a day, move into the upstairs and downstairs respectively, and then get divorced the next day to hack the system.
It's 100% a thing in law. Denver up until very recently only allowed 2!!!
They shouldn't have to. That's a ton of work.
At one point in time black people could vote if they 'hacked the system' by paying or passing a test.
They shouldn't have to. That's a ton of work.
At one point in time black people could vote if they 'hacked the system' by paying or passing a test.
“Single family” is a property of the building, not the people living in it. A multi-family building has separately locking units with their own kitchens. Where there are too many large houses and not enough apartments, many of the houses end up with would-be apartment dwellers living communally.
You do sometimes here about communities trying to enforce prohibitions on unrelated people living together in single family homes, but where the zoning itself is almost universal in America, such enforcement is very rare.
You do sometimes here about communities trying to enforce prohibitions on unrelated people living together in single family homes, but where the zoning itself is almost universal in America, such enforcement is very rare.
[deleted]
Planning is a perverse set of incentives. First it’s usually longer term thinking, where decisions made now impact the shape of a city decades out. Second, the people that live in a place now have undue influence and veer conservative in how land is used (ie NIMBYism). This often gives rise to at least near term stagnation (on a historical scale) in established, wealthy cities and growth in up and coming metros that don’t have a reason to preserve the current city planning policies.
I don’t know if there’s a solution. Cities may just go through decade long cycles of stagnation and revitalization as NIMBY generations die off, there’s less “romance” around the current character/ the place falls into disrepair, the city wants to attract new folks, and newer generations have strong demand for different modes of living.
I don’t know if there’s a solution. Cities may just go through decade long cycles of stagnation and revitalization as NIMBY generations die off, there’s less “romance” around the current character/ the place falls into disrepair, the city wants to attract new folks, and newer generations have strong demand for different modes of living.
Among the most beautiful cities in world are those that were not planned, but were just allowed to happen. I don't know where we get the mindset that planning is necessary to begin with
I live in one of those cities (Edinburgh). The old town (completely unplanned, grew naturally) is a beautiful place but utterly impractical for the size of the city now. The new town was meticulously planned and has fared much better.
Meanwhile, all of the brownfield sites that are appearing are being turned into student accomodation en masse; even with planning restrictions. I can only Imagine the state of the city if we just blindly allowed building.
Meanwhile, all of the brownfield sites that are appearing are being turned into student accomodation en masse; even with planning restrictions. I can only Imagine the state of the city if we just blindly allowed building.
How do you determine if planning or not planning is a causative factor? Maybe it’s just luck and maybe most unplanned cities do not survive to be viewed as beautiful.
I am sure scale of planning matters too, and that there was at least a little bit of planning, but perhaps smaller in scale.
The more evident factor in “beautiful” cities is probably that they came about before the advent of personal automobiles. They are much more pleasant to be in outside of a vehicle, and hence more “beautiful” simply because there were no vehicles at the time, and so whatever developed, planned or unplanned, had parameters that only considered people not in big boxes moving at high speeds.
I am sure scale of planning matters too, and that there was at least a little bit of planning, but perhaps smaller in scale.
The more evident factor in “beautiful” cities is probably that they came about before the advent of personal automobiles. They are much more pleasant to be in outside of a vehicle, and hence more “beautiful” simply because there were no vehicles at the time, and so whatever developed, planned or unplanned, had parameters that only considered people not in big boxes moving at high speeds.
This a very US-specific observation. While yes mid-century planners did some very stupid things and were kind of control freaks, the privately-held land baseline that preceded them is not at all universal. See the other posts' great examples.
Also, we now have the automobile to content with. The car is a like a gene drive, a self-perpetuating technology like we had never seen before, radically upending status-quo-ante system dynamics. (The reasons being a) Cars push everyone else off the streets, b) car-driven development spreads everything way to far apart for anything else to be practical.)
The market alone can't defeat cars any more than evolution can defeat gene drives. Only social failure / extension (and heaven forbid horizontal gene transfer!) can rain them in "endogenously".
Also, we now have the automobile to content with. The car is a like a gene drive, a self-perpetuating technology like we had never seen before, radically upending status-quo-ante system dynamics. (The reasons being a) Cars push everyone else off the streets, b) car-driven development spreads everything way to far apart for anything else to be practical.)
The market alone can't defeat cars any more than evolution can defeat gene drives. Only social failure / extension (and heaven forbid horizontal gene transfer!) can rain them in "endogenously".
Paris is usually cited as a beautiful city and it definitely has undergone some serious transformation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann's_renovation_of_Pa...
You're right its long term thinking. A lot of people like suburbs, it makes sense to keep strict zoning for the benefit of the residents long term. That is true long term thinking, rather than quickly putting up luxury apartment buildings that no one will want to live after a few decades.
Go further. Get rid of all zoning that’s unrelated to pollution of some kind or strictly a safety issue.
Why is the government involved in whether I can run a business from my home? Why is the government responsible for controlling where businesses might be located instead of the free market controlling that aspect more dynamically?
Why is the government involved in whether I can run a business from my home? Why is the government responsible for controlling where businesses might be located instead of the free market controlling that aspect more dynamically?
The reasonable justification is government builds public infrastructure like schools, highways, and subways based on assumptions about use and population density. It’s much harder and more expensive to have reasonable infrastructure if you can’t make accurate predictions.
The de facto justification is indirect negative externalities exist like traffic congestion. Also known as F U I got mine.
The de facto justification is indirect negative externalities exist like traffic congestion. Also known as F U I got mine.
With uses segregated, the "reasonable" argument does not make sense to me: infrastructure will have to be maximized because there will be big migrations of people based on normal use times like going to work. You need twice as much parking, twice as much freeway throughput.
Don’t just think in terms of low density around current American cities.
Plopping down a subdivisions in a sleepy county can quickly overwhelm local school systems, sewage treatment, etc. Even just 7% annual growth doubles the local population every decade which requires incredible and increasing investments in infrastructure. Slowing that down slightly is hardly unreasonable and it can help avoid expensive and damaging boom / bust cycles.
Plopping down a subdivisions in a sleepy county can quickly overwhelm local school systems, sewage treatment, etc. Even just 7% annual growth doubles the local population every decade which requires incredible and increasing investments in infrastructure. Slowing that down slightly is hardly unreasonable and it can help avoid expensive and damaging boom / bust cycles.
> Get rid of all zoning that’s unrelated to pollution
I would still be skeptical of this since I've learned the racial views of many famous environmental figures (like John Miur) and the various organizations brought up in their wake. Obviously correlation != causation but check out the trajectories and intersection between the usage of "segregationist" and "environmentalist" in American English publications. They cross over right around the time of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1973):
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gentrification...
(Sorry for gross huge URL. You might have to focus the input box and hit Enter to see the results. Here's a screenshot otherwise: https://i.imgur.com/kP8ugvH.png )
I would still be skeptical of this since I've learned the racial views of many famous environmental figures (like John Miur) and the various organizations brought up in their wake. Obviously correlation != causation but check out the trajectories and intersection between the usage of "segregationist" and "environmentalist" in American English publications. They cross over right around the time of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1973):
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gentrification...
(Sorry for gross huge URL. You might have to focus the input box and hit Enter to see the results. Here's a screenshot otherwise: https://i.imgur.com/kP8ugvH.png )
Opening a chicken farm or leather tannery in a residential neighborhood sounds great.
You're replying to someone that specifically mentioned pollution as a reason to keep certain uses in different zones. Did they edit their comment?
Extreme examples. In reality you’ll see more service industry like bodega, accounting, cafe, etc
If it were possible, it would produce far better outcomes than what we are currently seeing in SF. No chicken farmer or tanner could afford to build in SF, so that’s not much of a concern. And it would mean a far more diverse housing supply than what we currently have.
Even without zoning, it doesn't make economic sense to start a farm in a residential area.
None of those things are economically viable to put in an area that can support residential housing even at the single family level of density.
The only way they get there is when housing is built up around them.
If you're too lazy to fire up Google maps before you buy well then that's on you.
The only way they get there is when housing is built up around them.
If you're too lazy to fire up Google maps before you buy well then that's on you.
My town in MA has a turkey farm with a couple barns in basically a residential area. But then it's historically a fairly rural farm town.
Having local restaurants and small businesses in walking distance instead of international mega corps in driving distance sounds horrible too.
Yeah, but being allowed to have a couple chickens on your small plot is an example of allowing sustainable and relatively poor living. Can't have that! We want you supporting your local supermarket instead! The one that delivered that egg from that licensed farm 200km away in the middle of nowhere.
California has more same regulations on backyard chickens than the rural town I’m now in which requires a $50 license per hen, max three.
Though you can move just outside town if you want chickens I guess.
Though you can move just outside town if you want chickens I guess.
It has worked pretty well for Houston. Houston is as close to free market as you can get. It helps that much of what people call Houston isn't actually in any city boundary.
Genuinely curious as to how much time you have lived or worked in Houston ?
I found many pieces of it - some of which were directly related to lack of zoning - to be aesthetic disasters.
There seems to be a conception that support of zoning, and things like it, need be grounded in some scientific public-good maximalism that probably doesn't exist.
I don't feel bound by that at all.
The reason I am against ad-hoc liquor stores being run from a walled in front porch of a single-family home converted (badly) to a duplex[1] is because I dislike them aesthetically.
[1] Houston, circa 1999.
I found many pieces of it - some of which were directly related to lack of zoning - to be aesthetic disasters.
There seems to be a conception that support of zoning, and things like it, need be grounded in some scientific public-good maximalism that probably doesn't exist.
I don't feel bound by that at all.
The reason I am against ad-hoc liquor stores being run from a walled in front porch of a single-family home converted (badly) to a duplex[1] is because I dislike them aesthetically.
[1] Houston, circa 1999.
It's easy to value things like aesthetics when you've got yours. Rents are taxing people out onto the streets and raising the cost of everything, but heaven forbid we offend any NIMBY's personal aesthetic tastes.
I grew up in Houston.
The general idea is that city planners prioritize aesthetics over their residents being able to afford housing.
The general idea is that city planners prioritize aesthetics over their residents being able to afford housing.
Except for the massive spread paved over most of the marshland and waterways in the area. Resulting in much of the city being under water (literally) for days in 2017 when a class 1 hurricane, which is pretty common, hit the area.
"Go further. Get rid of all zoning that’s unrelated to pollution of some kind or strictly a safety issue."
I keep wondering: How soon until someone proposes that building codes drive up housing prices and that code enforcement unfairly impacts PoC ?
It seems outlandish but ... part of me thinks it's just a matter of time.
I keep wondering: How soon until someone proposes that building codes drive up housing prices and that code enforcement unfairly impacts PoC ?
It seems outlandish but ... part of me thinks it's just a matter of time.
We have honest-to-god oil derricks right in the middle of residential neighborhoods in Los Angeles. They even pump oil directly from a school campus in Beverly Hills.
But fourplexes? Not a chance.
But fourplexes? Not a chance.
Well my neighbor works in construction and would park several of his giant dump trucks in the street parking and the crew would gather outside every morning making a ruckus while leaving for the day. It was terrible and I was glad the code department put a stop to that and made every person in that neighborhood happy.
This reasoning is exactly why I stopped being a libertarian, the free market has no recourse mechanisms for actors making peoples lives worse.
This reasoning is exactly why I stopped being a libertarian, the free market has no recourse mechanisms for actors making peoples lives worse.
> This reasoning is exactly why I stopped being a libertarian, the free market has no recourse mechanisms for actors making peoples lives worse.
Nuisance law is a recourse mechanism in the case you point out, and is included in any reasonable notion of "free market". (In the more radical notions of libertarianism, you and the other guy would simply submit the dispute to a mutually-trusted outside arbitrator, with a voluntary agreement to abide by the arbitrator's ruling.)
Nuisance law is a recourse mechanism in the case you point out, and is included in any reasonable notion of "free market". (In the more radical notions of libertarianism, you and the other guy would simply submit the dispute to a mutually-trusted outside arbitrator, with a voluntary agreement to abide by the arbitrator's ruling.)
I wouldn’t confuse this incident and the solution with libertarianism or any other government system because it would take a large systematic and philosophical analysis to really arrive at an agreed-upon “what is causing this” consensus.
Annnnd from the perspective of the person you’re complaining about this is an incentive for libertarianism, you are making their life worse by enacting arbitrary rules that make you happy and enforcing those rules with violence.
And it could be that some other inane government rule made it so that they had to park trucks where they did in the first place.
Annnnd from the perspective of the person you’re complaining about this is an incentive for libertarianism, you are making their life worse by enacting arbitrary rules that make you happy and enforcing those rules with violence.
And it could be that some other inane government rule made it so that they had to park trucks where they did in the first place.
Has anyone SEEN a typical SF plot? They’re basically enough for a small 1000-2000 sq ft home, a parking spot, and a little back yard.
No one ain’t building a four plex on that, unless a) the height restriction is also raised b) one parking space per unit no longer required and c) some fancy footwork somehow incentivizing adjoining plots to combine.
If you had two plots and lifted the restrictions, then I could see making 4 units comfortably out of that. But seeing how unlikely it is two neighbors sell at the same time, seems unlikely
I think this would be more meaningful in other cities, where there are a lot of ranch style homes / bigger plots
No one ain’t building a four plex on that, unless a) the height restriction is also raised b) one parking space per unit no longer required and c) some fancy footwork somehow incentivizing adjoining plots to combine.
If you had two plots and lifted the restrictions, then I could see making 4 units comfortably out of that. But seeing how unlikely it is two neighbors sell at the same time, seems unlikely
I think this would be more meaningful in other cities, where there are a lot of ranch style homes / bigger plots
In Boston and surrounding areas the “triple decker” is very common - three 1000 square foot condos, driveway leading to compact car parking in back, small yard or none at all. The buildings are not connected but the space between is the driveway on one side and a small path on the other to store trash cans. There are tens of thousands of these if not hundreds of thousands.
San Fransisco has already removed (b) as an issue [0].
When SF made that change, you had people saying the same thing “this won’t change anything because you can’t build the housing that’s needed”.
No one is saying that this, by itself, with zero other changes, will resolve the issue. I prefer to applaud individual incremental improvements than belabor the fact that this one change is not enough.
[0] https://www.livablecity.org/time-san-francisco-say-goodbye-m...
When SF made that change, you had people saying the same thing “this won’t change anything because you can’t build the housing that’s needed”.
No one is saying that this, by itself, with zero other changes, will resolve the issue. I prefer to applaud individual incremental improvements than belabor the fact that this one change is not enough.
[0] https://www.livablecity.org/time-san-francisco-say-goodbye-m...
I think that single family housing, especially in cities dealing with lack of availability, likely needs to go. And other changes need to be made on top of that. But, assuming we were able to replace single family housing with 3 or 4 plexes, where does that leave home ownership?
I'm concerned the transformation of single family homes to apartments would just present another opportunity wealth and property to move from private owners to conglomerated investment or the rich. Personally, my best experiences have always been renting with private owners, so if people have to rent in the future, hopefully they aren't stuck doing so from a comparatively small number of management companies that control the market.
I'm concerned the transformation of single family homes to apartments would just present another opportunity wealth and property to move from private owners to conglomerated investment or the rich. Personally, my best experiences have always been renting with private owners, so if people have to rent in the future, hopefully they aren't stuck doing so from a comparatively small number of management companies that control the market.
3 or 4 plexes are not going to solve the housing issue in the bay area, because many single family homes are already being used that way. They need to build dense urban cores with residential high rise and mixed use mid rise. Ideally close to Caltrain and BART stations, but additionally every single family zoned neighborhood should be given such an urban core. That way it would create more dense pockets all throughout the area, which would make it possible to bring alternative modes of transit into all neighborhoods by connecting these dense pockets with rail, bus routes and bike lanes.
Most of the land in my (Massachusetts) town is zoned for single-family homes. There are several identifiable square-mile or larger areas with nothing but homes plus maybe one school and one church. Maybe a gas station / Dunkin Donuts within fifteen-minute walking distance. That's no way to live.
I'd love to change it, with greater zoning diversity and particularly that which allows higher density, but there valid objections to doing it all at once. Roads would need to be upgraded and then maintained, at direct town expense, plus dealing with increased traffic. Ditto for water and sewer lines, minus the traffic issue. Electrical, gas, and communications are better in that they're not at town expense but worse in that more parties have to be involved (and they tend to cheap out even more than the town does). And then there's schools - the town's crown jewels and the main reason anyone lives here. They're excellent but already overcrowded. Work is under way to fix that, but we really can't afford to add even more stress to that system.
These are very real issues that I'm sensitive to, even though I also think there are other issues - especially racial and income diversity - that we must address in the longer term. These same issues recur many other places, I'm sure including the Bay Area. It has to be not only allowable but profitable for developers to do the actual building, or else they won't, and then the town needs property-tax revenue from each tranche before they begin the next. It's a very tricky dance, and I do not at all envy the people on zoning/planning boards trying to reconcile all these conflicting needs.
I'd love to change it, with greater zoning diversity and particularly that which allows higher density, but there valid objections to doing it all at once. Roads would need to be upgraded and then maintained, at direct town expense, plus dealing with increased traffic. Ditto for water and sewer lines, minus the traffic issue. Electrical, gas, and communications are better in that they're not at town expense but worse in that more parties have to be involved (and they tend to cheap out even more than the town does). And then there's schools - the town's crown jewels and the main reason anyone lives here. They're excellent but already overcrowded. Work is under way to fix that, but we really can't afford to add even more stress to that system.
These are very real issues that I'm sensitive to, even though I also think there are other issues - especially racial and income diversity - that we must address in the longer term. These same issues recur many other places, I'm sure including the Bay Area. It has to be not only allowable but profitable for developers to do the actual building, or else they won't, and then the town needs property-tax revenue from each tranche before they begin the next. It's a very tricky dance, and I do not at all envy the people on zoning/planning boards trying to reconcile all these conflicting needs.
> I'd love to change it
The simplest way to change your own situation is to move. Different towns, cities, rural areas, etc. with different land uses exist so that people with different preferences can all find some place that reasonably matches their preferences. Making them all the same just so they match your personal preferences makes the situation worse, not better.
The simplest way to change your own situation is to move. Different towns, cities, rural areas, etc. with different land uses exist so that people with different preferences can all find some place that reasonably matches their preferences. Making them all the same just so they match your personal preferences makes the situation worse, not better.
You're assuming infinite variety exists, or can exist. That's so absurd that it's hard to believe it was meant in good faith. No, I can't just select from a menu. What if I want good schools and other facilities that few towns have, and proximity to the people/places that matter to me, and a town that's not so much single-family-home wasteland everywhere but the center? What if I want other people who aren't millionaires to have access to some of these things? Oops, me moving doesn't solve that. Sometimes you have to build the kind of place you want (or think should exist) and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Every town that already exists has been shaped by the conscious choices of people who live there and vote there and serve in offices there. I have just as much right to push for what I want as any of them did.
P.S. Almost forgot to point out the "making them all the same" strawman. Never suggested that, champ.
P.S. Almost forgot to point out the "making them all the same" strawman. Never suggested that, champ.
> You're assuming infinite variety exists, or can exist.
I'm assuming no such thing. I'm only assuming that there are places that would match your preferences better than where you currently live (or, if you want to be really precise, enough better to justify the costs of moving). Since people move all the time, for precisely that reason (I've done it myself, several times), that does not seem to me like a very extravagant assumption.
It is true that no place will be perfect: no place will satisfy literally all of someone's preferences. (There may be rare people that can find such a place, but they are going to be rare enough that we can ignore them for this discussion.) But I did not claim that you could find a place that would be perfect for you. I only claimed that you could find a place that would be better than where you currently are.
> Every town that already exists has been shaped by the conscious choices of people who live there and vote there and serve in offices there.
That's true. And if you think enough other people in your town would support your desired changes, you can of course get them to help you enact them, and then you won't have to move. But that is likely to take a lot more time and effort than moving to a place that already matches your preferences better than where you are now. I didn't say moving was the only solution to your problem. I only said it was the simplest one.
I'm assuming no such thing. I'm only assuming that there are places that would match your preferences better than where you currently live (or, if you want to be really precise, enough better to justify the costs of moving). Since people move all the time, for precisely that reason (I've done it myself, several times), that does not seem to me like a very extravagant assumption.
It is true that no place will be perfect: no place will satisfy literally all of someone's preferences. (There may be rare people that can find such a place, but they are going to be rare enough that we can ignore them for this discussion.) But I did not claim that you could find a place that would be perfect for you. I only claimed that you could find a place that would be better than where you currently are.
> Every town that already exists has been shaped by the conscious choices of people who live there and vote there and serve in offices there.
That's true. And if you think enough other people in your town would support your desired changes, you can of course get them to help you enact them, and then you won't have to move. But that is likely to take a lot more time and effort than moving to a place that already matches your preferences better than where you are now. I didn't say moving was the only solution to your problem. I only said it was the simplest one.
> moving to a place that already matches your preferences better than where you are now
Still assuming there is such a a place. Why would you assume (again) that I didn't already research and consider alternatives before plonking down a third of my net worth on a house? I live where I do because it was the best match for what I'm looking for, but the fact that it's the best available doesn't mean I can't wish it to be better for myself and others.
Also, even if there were such a better place already, moving itself isn't a no-op. Moving even between ideal locations can be considered worse than staying even in one non-ideal location. Pulling kids out of a school system and away from all of their friends is particularly disruptive. "Love it or leave it" only works for one constituency - those who are fine with the status quo, who don't have or seek any connection to their communities, and don't see a need for there to be more of anything else. It doesn't even engage with people whose circumstances or beliefs are different; it just ignores their existence. I don't think that's constructive. Why are you so dead set against people solving problems instead of running away from them?
Still assuming there is such a a place. Why would you assume (again) that I didn't already research and consider alternatives before plonking down a third of my net worth on a house? I live where I do because it was the best match for what I'm looking for, but the fact that it's the best available doesn't mean I can't wish it to be better for myself and others.
Also, even if there were such a better place already, moving itself isn't a no-op. Moving even between ideal locations can be considered worse than staying even in one non-ideal location. Pulling kids out of a school system and away from all of their friends is particularly disruptive. "Love it or leave it" only works for one constituency - those who are fine with the status quo, who don't have or seek any connection to their communities, and don't see a need for there to be more of anything else. It doesn't even engage with people whose circumstances or beliefs are different; it just ignores their existence. I don't think that's constructive. Why are you so dead set against people solving problems instead of running away from them?
> Still assuming there is such a a place.
Have you tried to find out?
> "Just move" only works for one constituency - those who don't have or want any connection to whatever community they live in
Not at all. People can change communities. The fact that a person chooses to move does not mean that had no connection to the place they are leaving, or that they won't form any connections to the place they move to. Maybe you can't imagine ever being connected to any other place than the one you live in right now, but not everyone is like you.
> Pulling kids out of a school system and away from all of their friends is particularly disruptive.
It could be. Or it could be an opportunity to broaden their horizons and give them a chance to make new friends, and to cease having to deal with the kids at their school that they can't stand.
> I live where I do because it's the best match for what I'm looking for
Your original post in this subthread didn't make it sound that way. But if that is in fact the case for you, that's fine. It might not be the case for many other people.
Have you tried to find out?
> "Just move" only works for one constituency - those who don't have or want any connection to whatever community they live in
Not at all. People can change communities. The fact that a person chooses to move does not mean that had no connection to the place they are leaving, or that they won't form any connections to the place they move to. Maybe you can't imagine ever being connected to any other place than the one you live in right now, but not everyone is like you.
> Pulling kids out of a school system and away from all of their friends is particularly disruptive.
It could be. Or it could be an opportunity to broaden their horizons and give them a chance to make new friends, and to cease having to deal with the kids at their school that they can't stand.
> I live where I do because it's the best match for what I'm looking for
Your original post in this subthread didn't make it sound that way. But if that is in fact the case for you, that's fine. It might not be the case for many other people.
> Maybe you can't imagine ever being connected to any other place than the one you live in right now
I've lived 20 places in my life, from New Zealand to Massachusetts. I know all about uprooting oneself to seek something better, broadening horizons, etc. Please stop making convenient personal assumptions.
I've lived 20 places in my life, from New Zealand to Massachusetts. I know all about uprooting oneself to seek something better, broadening horizons, etc. Please stop making convenient personal assumptions.
> I've lived 20 places in my life, from New Zealand to Massachusetts.
Then I fail to understand why you seem unable to comprehend why people might want to move.
> Please stop making convenient personal assumptions.
It seems to me that you are the one who is doing that: you seem to be assuming that, since you, after moving many times, have now found a place you want to stay in, nobody else can have any reason to move.
Then I fail to understand why you seem unable to comprehend why people might want to move.
> Please stop making convenient personal assumptions.
It seems to me that you are the one who is doing that: you seem to be assuming that, since you, after moving many times, have now found a place you want to stay in, nobody else can have any reason to move.
Are you just conflating "no reason to move" with "moving doesn't always solve a problem" for rhetorical effect? Because I find no value in that. Find another target.
> Almost forgot to point out the "making them all the same" strawman. Never suggested that, champ
If you succeeded in making your desired changes in your town, what would happen to the people that didn't want them--that like things the way they are now?
If you succeeded in making your desired changes in your town, what would happen to the people that didn't want them--that like things the way they are now?
>That's no way to live.
I live that way and rather enjoy it. If that sounds so terrible to you, I suppose you should move elsewhere instead of turning the neighborhood I live in into the one you'd like to.
There's plenty of room for everyone.
I live that way and rather enjoy it. If that sounds so terrible to you, I suppose you should move elsewhere instead of turning the neighborhood I live in into the one you'd like to.
There's plenty of room for everyone.
>There are several identifiable square-mile or larger areas with nothing but homes plus maybe one school and one church. Maybe a gas station / Dunkin Donuts within fifteen-minute walking distance.
This is just suburban America in general.
This is just suburban America in general.
Sadly yes, but I don't think that model is even sustainable let alone desirable. We must do better. Since these things do take so much time, that means we must reach some agreement on what "better means" (which doesn't at all have to be the same everywhere) and get moving toward it.
> that means we must reach some agreement on what "better means"
90%(?) of America lives in Single Family homes. We've agreed that this is the best. Dont change it.
90%(?) of America lives in Single Family homes. We've agreed that this is the best. Dont change it.
So you're saying there are areas with single-family homes and areas with higher density. Surely everyone is happy then? If you want HD, move there, if you want LD you have suburbs. Why do you have to change it?
Shockingly Palo Alto joined a lawsuit to try and prevent this kind of thing being mandated.
The progressive city I used to live in (section 8 housing, homeless housing, source of random bands like Grateful Dead, Joan baez, grace slick) was taken over by the greed lobby when the dot com boom hit and has become an “I got mine, jack” colony.
The progressive city I used to live in (section 8 housing, homeless housing, source of random bands like Grateful Dead, Joan baez, grace slick) was taken over by the greed lobby when the dot com boom hit and has become an “I got mine, jack” colony.
The "greed lobby" originated in Utah and was named Howard Jarvis. All of California became a real estate investment hellscape after he left his mark.
Dot com has nothing to do with it
Dot com has nothing to do with it
I get your point, but I'm talking about Palo Alto specifically.
Even in the 90s Palo Alto had SRO housing for the homeless, required section 8 housing in new developments, and a lower median income than neighboring Menlo Park or Los Altos (and I read actually MV too, though I find that hard to believe). There was more tolerance for goofball behavior, though perhaps less than the 70s or 80s.
But 21st century Palo Alto is a different beast, and much more boring. People moved here to gain wealth (rather than nerd out) and once they had it, flaunt it. It's a real shame; there are plenty of other places to do that.
Even in the 90s Palo Alto had SRO housing for the homeless, required section 8 housing in new developments, and a lower median income than neighboring Menlo Park or Los Altos (and I read actually MV too, though I find that hard to believe). There was more tolerance for goofball behavior, though perhaps less than the 70s or 80s.
But 21st century Palo Alto is a different beast, and much more boring. People moved here to gain wealth (rather than nerd out) and once they had it, flaunt it. It's a real shame; there are plenty of other places to do that.
Article seems to suggest that SF lots aren't large enough for 4-plexes to be economically feasible. I wonder what the minimum height is for this to work. Five stories perhaps?
The SF supervisor Mandelman who was mentioned in the article has been against all of Weiner's housing bills, so he has zero credibility in my book.
The SF supervisor Mandelman who was mentioned in the article has been against all of Weiner's housing bills, so he has zero credibility in my book.
I lived in a two-unit townhome in SF. The lot on one side was a large single family. The lot on the other side was an eight unit apartment. All the lots were the same size. They even all had parking.
The lot sizes are not a physical problem. They may be a political problem (ie. the issue is people don’t want new tall buildings built).
The lot sizes are not a physical problem. They may be a political problem (ie. the issue is people don’t want new tall buildings built).
Reading about opposition to multi-family housing reminds me of opposition to nuclear energy.
Regulations for both are substantially higher than those imposed on the conventional choice, making them more expensive in through self-fulfilling prophecies.
Additionally, having stopped working on them for 40 years means that the US is completely clueless about building them in an effective manner. Thus, the populace and even planners feel like the only choice is 50 year old infrastructure solutions. This also means that secondary ecosystems have developed with assumptions of the conventional choice, rendering the alternatives unable to take advantage of these secondary ecosystems.
Lastly, somehow arguments around both end up appearing far more ideological than scientific. Now, I am squarely on the nuclear/multi-family side of things, but it is particularly difficult to find consensus within the community on it.
Regulations for both are substantially higher than those imposed on the conventional choice, making them more expensive in through self-fulfilling prophecies.
Additionally, having stopped working on them for 40 years means that the US is completely clueless about building them in an effective manner. Thus, the populace and even planners feel like the only choice is 50 year old infrastructure solutions. This also means that secondary ecosystems have developed with assumptions of the conventional choice, rendering the alternatives unable to take advantage of these secondary ecosystems.
Lastly, somehow arguments around both end up appearing far more ideological than scientific. Now, I am squarely on the nuclear/multi-family side of things, but it is particularly difficult to find consensus within the community on it.
I don’t think the “land/development prices are too high to build a lot” from the developers will hold if 4plex zoning goes through. Land prices for this are high because there are extremely few opportunities to do this right now under existing zoning, under the new regime there are many more opportunities so the market tilts a bit from seller power to buyer power. As for construction costs, they suck to build because no one builds these right now so each one is basically bespoke, but if they suddenly become legal you’re going to see a cohort of developer specializing in these, learning how to do them well, and cashing in big time. You see this in other market (Portland) who have made the change already. It seems to be the SF developers are just too brain poisoned from the past entirety of their careers to see that a better world is actually possible.
Something I like about this article is how it gets a bit into the financials and the complications that arise. I would love more information and detail on this though about the costs of SFH vs quadplex vs huge apartment building and so on. Like how do costs jump when you have to switch from timber frame to steel frame, and things of that nature. Would love to learn more on this if anyone knows where it can be found.
I am of the idea that we need to focus on building new cities and more efficient roads to connect them. I don’t want to live in the Bay Area particularly, but when I have to go to SF, it sucks that sometimes it can take up to 2 hours to commute 30 miles.
As a software architect, it feels as if the common recipe for solving a scalability problem is decentralization for which you need an awesome messaging system. I do not get why we keep centralizing ourselves around the Bay Area. I am not an expert in the field so perhaps I am coming from a point of ignorance here, but I am genuinely curious as to why.
The USA built the most new cities and roads during the time it prospered, and it seems that we stopped doing that. Not long ago, Elon Musk was highlighting how fast China continues building infrastructures to satisfy the demands of their growing population, and I had noticed that too thanks to friends who have tons of awesome things to say about their visits. Why we don’t go that route? It seems like China is kicking our ass there.
As a software architect, it feels as if the common recipe for solving a scalability problem is decentralization for which you need an awesome messaging system. I do not get why we keep centralizing ourselves around the Bay Area. I am not an expert in the field so perhaps I am coming from a point of ignorance here, but I am genuinely curious as to why.
The USA built the most new cities and roads during the time it prospered, and it seems that we stopped doing that. Not long ago, Elon Musk was highlighting how fast China continues building infrastructures to satisfy the demands of their growing population, and I had noticed that too thanks to friends who have tons of awesome things to say about their visits. Why we don’t go that route? It seems like China is kicking our ass there.
> more efficient roads
It's not possible. It's a geometry problem. Cars take up too much space.
And if you increase the size of the roads well, you simply induce demand, adding more space inefficient cars to clog up the road. This is why places like LA and Houston have never solved their traffic problems.
There's only really one way to move people faster, and that's to focus on moving the person with more space efficient forms of transportation (ie. trains).
It's not possible. It's a geometry problem. Cars take up too much space.
And if you increase the size of the roads well, you simply induce demand, adding more space inefficient cars to clog up the road. This is why places like LA and Houston have never solved their traffic problems.
There's only really one way to move people faster, and that's to focus on moving the person with more space efficient forms of transportation (ie. trains).
> This is why places like LA and Houston have never solved their traffic problems.
If you put a population cap on LA or wherever, you could solve traffic with construction. Instead, the goal is to increase road capacity inline with the increased trip demand that's largely driven by population growth.
Sure, there are some trips that are taken when there's sufficient capacity, and not when there's not, and you can call discovery of those trips induced demand. But most of the demand increase is from population increase. LA is actually putting in a lot of mass transit, and it gets a surprisingly high (to me anyway) ridership, but it's pretty hard to provide a comprehensive solution to the commute needs of the area when there's no real centralization of workplaces or housing or even retail or amusement. All of those things are more or less distributed throughout the greater LA area, and people live in multi-income households, so relocating to be transit accessible for all earners is difficult. It's really hard to beat point to point time of a flexible, if congested, car vs inflexible transit lines if you have to make more than one transfer.
If you put a population cap on LA or wherever, you could solve traffic with construction. Instead, the goal is to increase road capacity inline with the increased trip demand that's largely driven by population growth.
Sure, there are some trips that are taken when there's sufficient capacity, and not when there's not, and you can call discovery of those trips induced demand. But most of the demand increase is from population increase. LA is actually putting in a lot of mass transit, and it gets a surprisingly high (to me anyway) ridership, but it's pretty hard to provide a comprehensive solution to the commute needs of the area when there's no real centralization of workplaces or housing or even retail or amusement. All of those things are more or less distributed throughout the greater LA area, and people live in multi-income households, so relocating to be transit accessible for all earners is difficult. It's really hard to beat point to point time of a flexible, if congested, car vs inflexible transit lines if you have to make more than one transfer.
That’s good too. Let’s rethink transportation.
> and more efficient roads.
The efficiency of roads is limited by the fact that the vehicles occupying them are large, individually piloted, and have slow reaction times.
Throughout is limited because, as cars go faster, they need to be spaced out more.
We have known this for seventy years. Automobile highways simply cannot work for ultra high throughput corridors.
The efficiency of roads is limited by the fact that the vehicles occupying them are large, individually piloted, and have slow reaction times.
Throughout is limited because, as cars go faster, they need to be spaced out more.
We have known this for seventy years. Automobile highways simply cannot work for ultra high throughput corridors.
Fine, let’s evolve our transportation units. We just need to rethink the problem as a whole.
I don’t want to go into conspiracy theory territory, but it does seem as if there are powerful entities that are invested in maintaining the status quo or perhaps it’s just incompetence.
I don’t want to go into conspiracy theory territory, but it does seem as if there are powerful entities that are invested in maintaining the status quo or perhaps it’s just incompetence.
It’s both. There’s a lot of “we’ve always done it this way” and “what would I ever do without taking my car everywhere???” And then there are construction companies, automobile companies, and oil and gas companies that employ a lot of people. Kind of hard to employ those people if we built more sidewalks and bike lanes, and built medium-density mixed use neighborhoods.
Where’s the lobby against the automobile industry and all the deaths that cars cause? Aren’t car wrecks the #1 cause of death of teenagers? “But utility of cars!!” Well that utility only exists because we’ve decided to create it, not that it’s actually necessary.
If in reading this comment you find yourself disagreeing, think about the alleyways and layout of Lago d’Orta for example. Oh but how do they live without 2 cars per household!?
Where’s the lobby against the automobile industry and all the deaths that cars cause? Aren’t car wrecks the #1 cause of death of teenagers? “But utility of cars!!” Well that utility only exists because we’ve decided to create it, not that it’s actually necessary.
If in reading this comment you find yourself disagreeing, think about the alleyways and layout of Lago d’Orta for example. Oh but how do they live without 2 cars per household!?
I do not find myself disagreeing or agreeing. I understand I am not knowledgeable in this space and I am just trying to find answers to my questions. I will definitely look into what you mentioned.
>I do not get why we keep centralizing ourselves around the Bay Area. I am not an expert in the field so perhaps I am coming from a point of ignorance here
The background: other cities exist and have existed. Companies can locate anywhere.
Centralization exists in many industries. It's not a phenomenon unique to tech, the Bay Area, or the United States.
Desirable cities also exist in China. The government is constantly dreaming up ways to get people to stop moving to Beijing and Shanghai.
This situation cannot be merely wished away. The tendency for an industry to concentrate in a particular city is historically broad and durable.
The background: other cities exist and have existed. Companies can locate anywhere.
Centralization exists in many industries. It's not a phenomenon unique to tech, the Bay Area, or the United States.
Desirable cities also exist in China. The government is constantly dreaming up ways to get people to stop moving to Beijing and Shanghai.
This situation cannot be merely wished away. The tendency for an industry to concentrate in a particular city is historically broad and durable.
> This situation cannot be merely wished away. The tendency for an industry to concentrate in a particular city is historically broad and durable.
We have never seen these population levels in the USA, and a country with a bigger population seems to be tackling the problem with a level of success by building more cities.
Also, perhaps those other cities need to offer incentives for the companies to move. I just don’t think we are tackling the problem the proper way.
We have never seen these population levels in the USA, and a country with a bigger population seems to be tackling the problem with a level of success by building more cities.
Also, perhaps those other cities need to offer incentives for the companies to move. I just don’t think we are tackling the problem the proper way.
Yeah, double the occupant density of the city is only going to double the congestion on the (already heavily congested) freeways.
There needs to be a serious re-think on public transportation.
There needs to be a serious re-think on public transportation.
If the CCP manages to not internally fall apart (which, IMO, it seems like it's not going to) we (US citz) are very much going to see how hilariously China has kicked our ass in the next few decades.
This seems like a good thread to link to https://missingmiddlehousing.com/ , which is a site I've seen discussed directly here on HN several times previous. I am still in the process of consolidating my opinions on this, but I did find it an interesting, useful read.
On the about page, I found
> We call them “Missing” because they have typically been illegal to build since the mid-1940s
but I could not easily find and further explanation about why this is, etc
> We call them “Missing” because they have typically been illegal to build since the mid-1940s
but I could not easily find and further explanation about why this is, etc
By coincidence, I watched this video about missing middle houses this morning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o
They go in to further detail about that on https://missingmiddlehousing.com/about/how-to-enable .
Interesting. It doesn't say they're illegal, it says they're illegal in Single Family suburbs. Its like they want the benefits of low density housing but somehow not do low density housing.
What about the increases in cars and foot traffic this creates, and how will increases to road congestion and transport services be mitigated? How will electric, sewer and water services handle this increases in utilization? There seems to be a multitude of factors at play in this.
Cars are bad. Walk, bike and take public transport --- aka learn from the large cities that already exist.
If we presume everyone drives, then all the de-zoning and other measures will never succeed, and e.g. SF is already at max density. If we believe we can make car usage go down, our current streets will be good enough for 10x growth.
If we presume everyone drives, then all the de-zoning and other measures will never succeed, and e.g. SF is already at max density. If we believe we can make car usage go down, our current streets will be good enough for 10x growth.
People are stupid if they think this will fix things.
I went to the peninsula looking at houses and the new trend is to add ADUs as part of the house or in the back.
You know why?
To help the owners pay off their $3M houses they used to be $1M 8 years ago. This then figures into the calculus of how much you can afford to buy a house for. What is an unaffordable $8000/month mortgage now becomes $6000/month. So people keep bidding higher and higher.
People in the Bay Area don’t realize that every little thing that keeps costs low gets funneled back into house prices. Interest on mortgage is tax deductible? Oh that means I can afford more house. The public schools are good? That saves me $3000/month so I can funnel that into the mortgage. Commute is shorter by 20 mins? That means $200/month extra I can spend on the house.
There is no answer except for rich employers like Google and Facebook to spread out their headquarters across the world. Too many rich engineers with their stock going up 10-20x is what is fueling the housing crunch. Or create entire new cities along 280 where there is plenty of space. Invest in new cities, not try to cram more people in the same small area.
I went to the peninsula looking at houses and the new trend is to add ADUs as part of the house or in the back.
You know why?
To help the owners pay off their $3M houses they used to be $1M 8 years ago. This then figures into the calculus of how much you can afford to buy a house for. What is an unaffordable $8000/month mortgage now becomes $6000/month. So people keep bidding higher and higher.
People in the Bay Area don’t realize that every little thing that keeps costs low gets funneled back into house prices. Interest on mortgage is tax deductible? Oh that means I can afford more house. The public schools are good? That saves me $3000/month so I can funnel that into the mortgage. Commute is shorter by 20 mins? That means $200/month extra I can spend on the house.
There is no answer except for rich employers like Google and Facebook to spread out their headquarters across the world. Too many rich engineers with their stock going up 10-20x is what is fueling the housing crunch. Or create entire new cities along 280 where there is plenty of space. Invest in new cities, not try to cram more people in the same small area.
> People in the Bay Area don’t realize that every little thing that keeps costs low gets funneled back into house prices.
Because the root cause is the demand for housing in Bay Area is far outstripping supply. You must tweak either or both of those to move the price. Addressing supply certainly does, but it might not be sufficient supply to overcome the demand. But it does help the situation.
Because the root cause is the demand for housing in Bay Area is far outstripping supply. You must tweak either or both of those to move the price. Addressing supply certainly does, but it might not be sufficient supply to overcome the demand. But it does help the situation.
My suspicion is that this might end up like more/wider streets and highways: You built it => it will be filled to capacity asap and there is no difference in the end, only more of the same (literally). Of course, this won't happen to infinity but far enough. In the end the area is just too attractive, combined with the industries there generate a lot of money.
This is called induced demand. Evidence suggests that for housing increasing supply doesn't cause demand to rise as quickly[0][1][2].
[0]: https://www.planetizen.com/news/2019/06/104783-doubt-cast-in...
[1]: https://cityobservatory.org/another-housing-myth-debunked-ne...
[2]: https://www.slowboring.com/p/induced-demand
[0]: https://www.planetizen.com/news/2019/06/104783-doubt-cast-in...
[1]: https://cityobservatory.org/another-housing-myth-debunked-ne...
[2]: https://www.slowboring.com/p/induced-demand
1) A neighborhood with a lot more people in it has important qualitative differences compared to a sprawl suburb. It can be safe, pleasant, and interesting to walk around. It can support local retail and entertainment which do not require driving to access. It can support fast and frequent transit connections to the broader metro. It can support more variation in the age, life situation, and wealth of the households who live there. This is a far cry from “more of the same.”
2) The problem we’re trying to solve here is that the people who would fill those new units to capacity are instead locked (or pushed) out. Of course if that problem is solved they will instead be here. That’s the whole point of making anything cheaper or more abundant. So that more people can enjoy it.
2) The problem we’re trying to solve here is that the people who would fill those new units to capacity are instead locked (or pushed) out. Of course if that problem is solved they will instead be here. That’s the whole point of making anything cheaper or more abundant. So that more people can enjoy it.
> it will be filled to capacity asap and there is no difference in the end
The difference is VOLUME
House prices or commute times may only fall by the slimmest of margins but the number of people who have access to whatever the resource is at the same price point will be increased.
The difference is VOLUME
House prices or commute times may only fall by the slimmest of margins but the number of people who have access to whatever the resource is at the same price point will be increased.
Yes, if SF/Bay Area is just that unique and that much more attractive to people than elsewhere, then the only solution would be to make another SF/Bay Area.
Didn’t you know the demand to live in the Bay Area is literally infinite and they could build 7 billion apartment units and the prices would continue to rise? It’s truly a special place.
You are looking at this wrong. The point here is making it easier to build larger buildings and smaller units.
Density and more building will increase land values, yes. We shouldn't strive for land values going down.
But build enough, and floor value go down. This is the efficiency of land use increasing ahead of of demand, decreasing prices.
Public housing is needed because it is quite the private sector cannot be relied upon building enough to decrease precises. Even without all he zoning bullshit, housing is still quite an inelastic marke.
Density and more building will increase land values, yes. We shouldn't strive for land values going down.
But build enough, and floor value go down. This is the efficiency of land use increasing ahead of of demand, decreasing prices.
Public housing is needed because it is quite the private sector cannot be relied upon building enough to decrease precises. Even without all he zoning bullshit, housing is still quite an inelastic marke.
You’re quite right that every saving ends up getting funnelled into mortgage payments.
> Too many rich engineers with their stock going up 10-20x is what is fueling the housing crunch.
But you’ve missed the mark here. We haven’t seen rich engineers push up the price of Teslas or iPhones or Xfinity because these things are all in plentiful supply. If there were only 1000 iPhones in the world, they would cost a fortune and all be owned by rich people or speculators. And that’s the situation with housing, not just in the Bay Area but across much of America and Western Europe. The majority of the housing stock is owned by the baby boomers who neglected the need to build new housing for their children. And where does all this tech wealth end up? In that generation’s bank accounts when they sell or rent.
The people with means are not the problem. The people ripping them off are. They might even be your own parents.
> Too many rich engineers with their stock going up 10-20x is what is fueling the housing crunch.
But you’ve missed the mark here. We haven’t seen rich engineers push up the price of Teslas or iPhones or Xfinity because these things are all in plentiful supply. If there were only 1000 iPhones in the world, they would cost a fortune and all be owned by rich people or speculators. And that’s the situation with housing, not just in the Bay Area but across much of America and Western Europe. The majority of the housing stock is owned by the baby boomers who neglected the need to build new housing for their children. And where does all this tech wealth end up? In that generation’s bank accounts when they sell or rent.
The people with means are not the problem. The people ripping them off are. They might even be your own parents.
It won't move prices much by itself, but it's still more people living on the same amount of land, which counts for something.
The actual answer is to tax land at it's current market value instead of based on it's purchase price. Then it wouldn't be so attractive to park all the money in housing.
Jobs aren't a problem. Bay Area housing has been a mess since we'll before the internet and other parts of California, where jobs are nowhere near as good, have the same problem.
Jobs aren't a problem. Bay Area housing has been a mess since we'll before the internet and other parts of California, where jobs are nowhere near as good, have the same problem.
Google is not the cause of the housing crisis. It’s purely demographic. Count up all the people that graduated high school in your town and subtract the number of people who died, and that’s how many houses you need to build that year. Simple demographics and this figure has been ignored in most Bay Area cities for fifty years.
Most of the people graduating in bay area cities are forever priced out of living in their hometowns already. Tech is largely to blame at this point because it fuels the extreme valuations. Without tech, prices would still be high because of lack of new supply for the growing population, but we left that price zone years ago.
I don't think we should be pointing any fingers at locally employed people who purchase a home to live in while we're still allowing foreign investors to buy up multiple properties they'll never step foot in.
>The percentage of California single-family homes bought in all-cash transactions has climbed in the past decade from 10 to 25 percent—and many of those are investors from Asia.
https://calmatters.org/housing/2018/03/data-dig-are-foreign-...
>The percentage of California single-family homes bought in all-cash transactions has climbed in the past decade from 10 to 25 percent—and many of those are investors from Asia.
https://calmatters.org/housing/2018/03/data-dig-are-foreign-...
People buy homes in Menlo Park with all cash because there will be multiple bidders and not being contingent on mortgage approval is the only way to win the bidding.
Most of them then go and get a mortgage.
The calmaters article has zero data about "investors from Asia". It's an assumption.
Most of them then go and get a mortgage.
The calmaters article has zero data about "investors from Asia". It's an assumption.
The median resident doesn't work in tech; even here we're only something like 15% of the population. It's mostly cash investors who don't necessarily live here that can sustain these prices, at least for the moment.
Ehh I think it’s a little more complicated than that, and I’ve argued this for years, that Google et al certainly plays a part. Consider their infamous busses, that allow employees who simply can’t fathom the idea of living in Mountain View to easily live in SF and commute. Without those I think employees wouldn’t be shielded from the consequences of the whole “live in the city, commute into the suburbs” thing.
What is "infamous" about a bus? It's a workaround for the Bay Area's awful/nonexistent transportation system. Why aren't you carping about VMWare's "infamous cars" or the millions of cars driven every day to other companies without buses?
Anyway the buses only explain partially how Googlers and other tech employees can survive the housing crisis, not what caused it. The cause is extremely simple. Births - Deaths = Growth. Don't overthink it.
Anyway the buses only explain partially how Googlers and other tech employees can survive the housing crisis, not what caused it. The cause is extremely simple. Births - Deaths = Growth. Don't overthink it.
Leaving the Bay Area was worth it simply to avoid expending emotional energy on arguing about housing policy to this extent, particularly to unconsciously defend a decision to live there. Continuing to live there seems to condemn one to this attitude and approach to life, and life is way too short to have constant knife fights on HN over which major capitalist entity screws over homeless people harder (with some prejudice mixed in throughout the thread from working at one of them).
Maybe the market just sucks at housing in general. Keep fighting about it instead of admitting the situation is hopeless, I guess, and those of us who know better will snap up the $160k four bedroom mansions until you figure it out.
Maybe the market just sucks at housing in general. Keep fighting about it instead of admitting the situation is hopeless, I guess, and those of us who know better will snap up the $160k four bedroom mansions until you figure it out.
> What is "infamous" about a bus?
They're considered a symbol of the class divide. Not a cause, but just a visible display of the income inequality present in the city. Poor people don't get a "workaround" for the the Bay Area's awful/nonexistent transportation system, they have to either rely on private cars or take public transit anyways.
They're considered a symbol of the class divide. Not a cause, but just a visible display of the income inequality present in the city. Poor people don't get a "workaround" for the the Bay Area's awful/nonexistent transportation system, they have to either rely on private cars or take public transit anyways.
Which is kind of nuts considering that most people on those busses can't afford the South Bay houses they're commuting past. Otherwise there'd be no bus.
disclaimer: the windows were shot out when I was riding the Google bus a couple years back
disclaimer: the windows were shot out when I was riding the Google bus a couple years back
Eh, 20% of households in the Bay Area earn under $36k/year. Obviously shooting out bus windows isn't the right approach, but I think you may be underestimating just how much of a divide there is between even average tech workers and lower class people living in the region.
The division between long time Californian landowning families and 20-something immigrant engineers somehow never comes up.
Someone's whose been making 250k before taxes isn't poor by any stretch. But they're nowhere near affording a house in Mountain View, hence the busses.
Someone's whose been making 250k before taxes isn't poor by any stretch. But they're nowhere near affording a house in Mountain View, hence the busses.
I'm sorry but but a single person making nearly an order of magnitude more than a low income household in the same metro is more than just not poor. There is worlds of difference between not getting to live in the neighborhood you want compared to being severely rent burdened, having a horrible commute, and having to deal with a subpar living living situation in whatever handful neighborhoods have apartments remotely in your price range.
Also, a quick glance at zillow listings looks to me like someone making $250k/year could easily afford to rent an apartment in Mountain View and would have a good shot at buying a cheaper condo there too. Sure buying a single family home might be out of reach, but it is hard to feel too much sympathy about that
Also, a quick glance at zillow listings looks to me like someone making $250k/year could easily afford to rent an apartment in Mountain View and would have a good shot at buying a cheaper condo there too. Sure buying a single family home might be out of reach, but it is hard to feel too much sympathy about that
>But they're nowhere near affording a house in Mountain View, hence the busses.
The buses are because they want to live in the city rather than essentially suburban Mountain View. It's not like SF is cheap housing.
The buses are because they want to live in the city rather than essentially suburban Mountain View. It's not like SF is cheap housing.
This problem really does require competent city planning and a willing cohort of politicians to step up and make some dramatic, timely changes (good luck with that tho). The market cannot and will not figure this out, unless we define solution as "whatever the wealthy want to do is fine, homelessness and rents higher than a mortgage be damned".
> explore the benefits of getting rid of a land use policy designed to keep people of color and working class families out of certain neighborhoods.
The article provides no reference to this claim of racism. I personally find it more likely that these zoning laws are simply to control density.
The article provides no reference to this claim of racism. I personally find it more likely that these zoning laws are simply to control density.
Is the bigger problem availability or pricing?
Where I live (in the US) increasing housing availability drives up housing prices proportionally. The way that works is that demand is fairly constant due to people moving in driving up the population (about 22.4% decade over decade) but there aren’t geographic limitations on construction. Real estate is a fixed resource though and you can only build so many houses before filling an area and pushing out the commute. In the spaces left over, after large scale housing developments, come the numerous large apartment complexes. The increased number of multi family dwellings drives up the price of single family houses. I have seen this pattern repeated various times in both median and extremely wealthy areas. Consequently, avoiding new construction either results in depreciation or merely delays the same pattern even by up 15 years.
Where I live (in the US) increasing housing availability drives up housing prices proportionally. The way that works is that demand is fairly constant due to people moving in driving up the population (about 22.4% decade over decade) but there aren’t geographic limitations on construction. Real estate is a fixed resource though and you can only build so many houses before filling an area and pushing out the commute. In the spaces left over, after large scale housing developments, come the numerous large apartment complexes. The increased number of multi family dwellings drives up the price of single family houses. I have seen this pattern repeated various times in both median and extremely wealthy areas. Consequently, avoiding new construction either results in depreciation or merely delays the same pattern even by up 15 years.
> The increased number of multi family dwellings drives up the price of single family houses.
Increased demand for single family homes drives up price of single family homes.
People moving in drives up price of land and dwelling units, obviously because people need a place to live.
The only thing that can move price down is demand decreasing (which will not happen if people are migrating in) or supply increasing sufficiently to accommodate demand.
You obviously live in one of the most in demand places in the US right now, and so almost no amount of supply will keep up with demand to cause prices to stop going up. But at the end of the day, price is always a function of supply and demand.
> Consequently, avoiding new construction either results in depreciation or merely delays the same pattern even by up 15 years.
Places that are not desirable to live in simply do not have construction. Why would people want to invest in areas that they predict will depreciate or stagnate? There is no construction in Cairo, IL, but they are not avoiding construction to prevent prices from increasing.
Increased demand for single family homes drives up price of single family homes.
People moving in drives up price of land and dwelling units, obviously because people need a place to live.
The only thing that can move price down is demand decreasing (which will not happen if people are migrating in) or supply increasing sufficiently to accommodate demand.
You obviously live in one of the most in demand places in the US right now, and so almost no amount of supply will keep up with demand to cause prices to stop going up. But at the end of the day, price is always a function of supply and demand.
> Consequently, avoiding new construction either results in depreciation or merely delays the same pattern even by up 15 years.
Places that are not desirable to live in simply do not have construction. Why would people want to invest in areas that they predict will depreciate or stagnate? There is no construction in Cairo, IL, but they are not avoiding construction to prevent prices from increasing.
Increased demand drives up construction rates before it drives up prices. The only thing close to what you are describing is approximate commute distance.
I do not know what commute distance has to do with anything. You can build a million dwelling units 5 hours west of Austin in the desert, and they will not sell for much if at all.
> Increased demand drives up construction rates before it drives up prices.
The rate of construction will go up if prices are going up, or the entities doing the construction believe prices will go up (and there is capacity to increase rate of construction, of course). These are all very fluid measures, but all are a function of supply and demand.
There is no situation where increase in supply of a good alone by itself causes the price of the good to increase.
> Increased demand drives up construction rates before it drives up prices.
The rate of construction will go up if prices are going up, or the entities doing the construction believe prices will go up (and there is capacity to increase rate of construction, of course). These are all very fluid measures, but all are a function of supply and demand.
There is no situation where increase in supply of a good alone by itself causes the price of the good to increase.
None of that reflects reality here. Higher prices slow construction rates in an immediate area only to drive construction further out.
If the probability that the cost of (land + permits (politics) + labor + supplies) will be more than the projected sale price is sufficiently high, then it can cause a decrease in construction.
But that is irrelevant to the fact that more supply of a good relative to demand will not cause prices to rise. This might not be easily evident over 1 year, but on a longer timescale, if supply and demand is not behaving as expected, then there will be arbitrage that someone will likely take advantage of.
It is possible that the high price of land in a highly desirable area is something there is a lot of demand for itself. The only way to bring prices of individual dwelling units down in this case is to build more dense housing, and that involves a lot of politics.
But that is irrelevant to the fact that more supply of a good relative to demand will not cause prices to rise. This might not be easily evident over 1 year, but on a longer timescale, if supply and demand is not behaving as expected, then there will be arbitrage that someone will likely take advantage of.
It is possible that the high price of land in a highly desirable area is something there is a lot of demand for itself. The only way to bring prices of individual dwelling units down in this case is to build more dense housing, and that involves a lot of politics.
> The only way to bring prices of individual dwelling units down in this case is to build more dense housing, and that involves a lot of politics.
That has never occurred here. Increased availability results in higher prices. The only exception was the housing crash of 2008 when banks found themselves holding tremendous quantities of properties they didn’t want.
This isn’t the west coast. Geography for new construction is nearly unlimited. If the price of construction is too high in one area then nobody will build there when instead they can build everywhere else.
If you want to decrease housing prices here you stop allowing construction, both residential and commercial, which redirects growth to other areas, but that only works if exclusivity does not set in.
Perhaps it’s the inability of people on the west coast to tell the difference between pricing and availability that allows prices to run away to astronomical numbers.
That has never occurred here. Increased availability results in higher prices. The only exception was the housing crash of 2008 when banks found themselves holding tremendous quantities of properties they didn’t want.
This isn’t the west coast. Geography for new construction is nearly unlimited. If the price of construction is too high in one area then nobody will build there when instead they can build everywhere else.
If you want to decrease housing prices here you stop allowing construction, both residential and commercial, which redirects growth to other areas, but that only works if exclusivity does not set in.
Perhaps it’s the inability of people on the west coast to tell the difference between pricing and availability that allows prices to run away to astronomical numbers.
Not sure where you're referring to but as an example the population density of the top 10 wards of Tokyo are 51k, 50k, 46k, 44k, 41k, 41k, 41k, 41k, 40k, 40k per square mile. San Francisco's is 17k. So arguably, by those comparisons, there's room for 2x to 3x the people in the same space.
SF is more walkable than most USA cities. Tokyo is more walkable than SF.
SF is more walkable than most USA cities. Tokyo is more walkable than SF.
Tokyo has a great subway/rail system but it honestly doesn't feel especially more walkable than SF to me except for in some particular areas. (And, of course, SF walkability varies quite a bit by area as well.)
Just a friendly reminder that walkability is not the only metric for quality of life.
Where I live is considerably larger than SF at well above 900,000 people but only a pop density of a bit above 2.5k per square mile and with plenty more land to grow into.
It's received wisdom on HN that the Bay Area housing crisis is caused by NIMBYs and restrictive zoning laws.
On the other hand my sense, based on anecdata, is that a large proportion of the condos constructed in the past 15-ish years in eastern SF (Embarcadero, Rincon, etc.) and SOMA/Dogpatch are owned by absentee landlords as investment property. Since these folk are mostly rich SV types (or wealthy overseas investors), they can afford the eye-watering prices. Their renters are also well-paid techies, so they can pay the hyper-inflated rents.
So I believe the housing crisis is instead a result of society deciding that no one actually has a right to a home of their own. Instead, it is in fact a good thing to engage in literally rent-seeking behavior[0] and we should all be in a race to accumulate the most wealth we can to pass down to our offspring, so that they can continue this cycle.
If my analysis is correct, then more construction will just result in more of the same. Rich people buying 2 and 3rd homes that they rent out to people who are here for the short term and can afford inflated rents.
It seems to me a good first step would instead be to slap a Vancouver-style 15% property tax on any home that is not occupied by the owner (not just foreigners). Of course, there is no way in hell Californians will actually do something that requires actual self-sacrifice, so that's never going to happen.
( I have more anecdata about SV residents buying 2 or 3 houses in the Austin area in order to capitalize on the real estate boom caused by other SV ex-residents moving there, further driving up costs in the area. But let's restrict the discussion to SF Bay Area for now).
This theory is obviously based on feels rather than data, since I don't know of any way to actually get ownership/residence data broken down this way. That would probably violate all kinds of privacy laws.
I would love to be disabused of my notions with data. Not motivated-reasoning "studies" by think-tanks who have vested interests, but actual data.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking (the rent seekers in this case being all the homeowners who resist any property tax reform which would affect their bottom line)
On the other hand my sense, based on anecdata, is that a large proportion of the condos constructed in the past 15-ish years in eastern SF (Embarcadero, Rincon, etc.) and SOMA/Dogpatch are owned by absentee landlords as investment property. Since these folk are mostly rich SV types (or wealthy overseas investors), they can afford the eye-watering prices. Their renters are also well-paid techies, so they can pay the hyper-inflated rents.
So I believe the housing crisis is instead a result of society deciding that no one actually has a right to a home of their own. Instead, it is in fact a good thing to engage in literally rent-seeking behavior[0] and we should all be in a race to accumulate the most wealth we can to pass down to our offspring, so that they can continue this cycle.
If my analysis is correct, then more construction will just result in more of the same. Rich people buying 2 and 3rd homes that they rent out to people who are here for the short term and can afford inflated rents.
It seems to me a good first step would instead be to slap a Vancouver-style 15% property tax on any home that is not occupied by the owner (not just foreigners). Of course, there is no way in hell Californians will actually do something that requires actual self-sacrifice, so that's never going to happen.
( I have more anecdata about SV residents buying 2 or 3 houses in the Austin area in order to capitalize on the real estate boom caused by other SV ex-residents moving there, further driving up costs in the area. But let's restrict the discussion to SF Bay Area for now).
This theory is obviously based on feels rather than data, since I don't know of any way to actually get ownership/residence data broken down this way. That would probably violate all kinds of privacy laws.
I would love to be disabused of my notions with data. Not motivated-reasoning "studies" by think-tanks who have vested interests, but actual data.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking (the rent seekers in this case being all the homeowners who resist any property tax reform which would affect their bottom line)
The number of people who want to move in to live and work in the Bay Area so vastly exceeds the supply of new housing that it is like a Sotheby’s auction where only the richest can win. This is reinforced by the fact that it takes so long to get permission to build anything that you can only make money by developing super luxury property.
In a well-functioning city you can make money building anything from mid-market up. Affordable housing is the stuff that was mid market 10-20 years ago, or luxury 20-40 years ago.
If you want to see this in the real world, just look at the market for cars.
More here: https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...
In a well-functioning city you can make money building anything from mid-market up. Affordable housing is the stuff that was mid market 10-20 years ago, or luxury 20-40 years ago.
If you want to see this in the real world, just look at the market for cars.
More here: https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-...
[deleted]
Since you bring up the notion of Vancouver's empty homes and speculation taxes I'll follow up with the impacts of that:
* These taxes added 8000+ 'empty' homes to the rental pool overnight.
* Many "luxury" condos in development changed into purpose built rental for locals.
* The vacancy rate barely budged and remained stubbornly low.
So while it was definitely worth while to bring in these taxes in order to instantly create more housing, and change the nature of what sort of housing was being created, effectively nothing has really changed in the grand scheme of things. Vancouver still has a housing scarcity problem, and near zero vacancy, and still needs to build much more housing.
I encourage SF to do the same sort of things that Vancouver has done, but they will also need to increase apartment development massively.
* These taxes added 8000+ 'empty' homes to the rental pool overnight.
* Many "luxury" condos in development changed into purpose built rental for locals.
* The vacancy rate barely budged and remained stubbornly low.
So while it was definitely worth while to bring in these taxes in order to instantly create more housing, and change the nature of what sort of housing was being created, effectively nothing has really changed in the grand scheme of things. Vancouver still has a housing scarcity problem, and near zero vacancy, and still needs to build much more housing.
I encourage SF to do the same sort of things that Vancouver has done, but they will also need to increase apartment development massively.
Rent seeking refers to economic rent, which is not the same thing as "housing rent". It has a very specific definition when used in the context of economic rent seeking. Renting out houses for people to live in is not rent seeking.
According to certain economic philosophies, all rent on land (but not buildings) is economic rent.
Exactly, you can even rent seek by buying a plot of land and intentionally keeping the number of units below what demand would suggest. E.g. you have a plot with enough demand to house 20 people but you only build a single family house for 4 people (2 parents 2 children) denying 16 people the possibility to live there. The land is still priced as if it could support 20 people and you make your money off of the sale of the land. This is what people buy into when they buy their house as an "investment". They bank on population growth and increasing demand. If upzoning is impossible then you gain nothing from selling because you have to pay taxes and then buy another property that costs the same amount (which you cant afford because of the taxes), turning the real estate wealth into paper wealth that has to be paid (your mortgage) for but is difficult to draw from except via reverse mortgages.
Economic rent takes its name from and is a generalization of land rent; land rent isn't just an example of economic rent, it is the paradigmatic example.
You're basically half way through re-deriving Georgism from first principles. Here's a good (but long) primer on the subject:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
>society deciding that no one actually has a right to a home of their own
I feel this argument is a nice way to phrase that neighborhoods should never change. There is a limited amount of land. For everyone to have long term housing we need to build. We need to build until there are more units than what rich people can afford to monopolize. Rent control, historical preservation, they're just ways to restrict growth and I hate it. I am not sure people should have a right to a home if that prevents growth. It just creates a new set of haves.
I feel this argument is a nice way to phrase that neighborhoods should never change. There is a limited amount of land. For everyone to have long term housing we need to build. We need to build until there are more units than what rich people can afford to monopolize. Rent control, historical preservation, they're just ways to restrict growth and I hate it. I am not sure people should have a right to a home if that prevents growth. It just creates a new set of haves.
Rich SV types don’t seek housing because landlords appear to rent it to us. We seek housing because we get jobs. Each SV type who rents a new home is one who’s not competing for an existing home.
If you want to put a stop to the kind of development that is actually causing SV types to materialize, that would be offices. Offices are are generally popular and unobjectionable.
If you want to put a stop to the kind of development that is actually causing SV types to materialize, that would be offices. Offices are are generally popular and unobjectionable.
Prop 13 killed tax revenue so local governments must obtain it through commercial property. It's pretty obvious what the problem is. A pro job bias that makes sure there are more jobs than housing.
I don’t think the populist spirit is making an inference as complex as “we need to get the tax revenue somewhere, better not object to offices even though they also create traffic.” The bureaucrats might, but the bureaucrats don’t have that much power; even when they support a housing development they get overridden by the community.
So keep building more and more homes for rich people to buy until inflated rents collapse and everyone has affordable housing.
Maybe Oakland will do it and become an economic superstar...
I like the idea of building massive apartment complexes in the Bay Area. It was a PITA place to live 30 years ago and it's worse now
The thing is, if we can build giant ant mounds in just a few places it'll save the central coast and California north of the Golden Gate from destruction.
Step two would be to connect the giant metro areas to the rest of the state via a dirt road.
The thing is, if we can build giant ant mounds in just a few places it'll save the central coast and California north of the Golden Gate from destruction.
Step two would be to connect the giant metro areas to the rest of the state via a dirt road.
When I read articles like this, where the solutions proposed are to make it more efficient (legally, operationally, fiscally) for more people to live in smaller places, I'm curious how that resolves with others' sense of the desire for privacy.
I realize the privacy conversation here usually revolves around ad tech, but for me at least, it's more general than that. And I find that the denser the population, no matter how optimal it is, creates more constraints for me as a human being.
There's a sweet spot in the human equation for me, when I am the most liberty to enjoy self determination and free well, but also rub shoulders socially with enough of the rest of mankind that I enjoy the magnification that happens when we work together.
So I applaud efforts to get people in equitable homes--I have a married daughter who takes care of my wonderful wonderful 20mo grand twins, and I fear and angst for their future housing prospects in this country--but if they're just cages for rent in the end, did we really get the real prize?
I realize the privacy conversation here usually revolves around ad tech, but for me at least, it's more general than that. And I find that the denser the population, no matter how optimal it is, creates more constraints for me as a human being.
There's a sweet spot in the human equation for me, when I am the most liberty to enjoy self determination and free well, but also rub shoulders socially with enough of the rest of mankind that I enjoy the magnification that happens when we work together.
So I applaud efforts to get people in equitable homes--I have a married daughter who takes care of my wonderful wonderful 20mo grand twins, and I fear and angst for their future housing prospects in this country--but if they're just cages for rent in the end, did we really get the real prize?
A multi family home in practice is much larger than a comparably priced single family home. They can both be owned, or rented
There's so much to object to about the idea that Earth is overpopulated. Then you get it and it hits you like a ton of bricks. The signs are everywhere and couldn't be more clear. But we're addicted to growth and efficiency, ignoring our limits, and our addiction blinds us to seeing what's plainly all around.
When you prevent housing from being constructed in cities, the families that would've lived there don't disappear; they sprawl elsewhere and — as confirmed by statistics — go on to have more children than they otherwise would've.
Calculate a standard of living index for every square mile on earth. Then add a slider that only shows you all areas greater than the chosen standard of living. When you crank it all the way up to California living standards the earth does look overpopulated.
Of course when all we want is the mere existence of humans then there can be as many additional humans as rats on the planet and they'll get to live the same quality of life.
Of course when all we want is the mere existence of humans then there can be as many additional humans as rats on the planet and they'll get to live the same quality of life.
Even if the population went down dramatically, we should should still stay dense. Density is good. Mutual defense did jump-start density before, let's hope something other than violence can cause it this time.
Car Suburbia is damaging and wasteful no matter the population size.
Car Suburbia is damaging and wasteful no matter the population size.
Here's one definition I like: if not everyone can live comfortably and happily, even with infrastructure densification using current tech, without pushing the environment over carrying capacity then we're overpopulated.
Could everyone in the world own property without pushing the environment to the brink? Probably not.
Could everyone in the world own property without pushing the environment to the brink? Probably not.
The primary objection is that "overpopulation" is badly defined when it comes to humanity.
It's a taboo topic because of people's fears and anxieties that it triggers.
A (cold) rational perspective sees that many (if not most) challenges facing society share a root cause of there being simply too many people.
A (cold) rational perspective sees that many (if not most) challenges facing society share a root cause of there being simply too many people.
Earth is not overpopulated. The problem is that certain places have too much population density. If everyone spread out across the world there wouldn't be any of these issues. For a variety of reason people can't or won't spread out.
Spreading out would be the worst case scenario for the environment. (And I'm afraid we might see it due to easy remote work)
A single apartment building uses far fewer resources per person than the equivalent number of people would if they all had 10 acre lots in the countryside. The habitat destruction alone would be an ecological disaster.
A single apartment building uses far fewer resources per person than the equivalent number of people would if they all had 10 acre lots in the countryside. The habitat destruction alone would be an ecological disaster.
It's not that there isn't space for all the humans, but that we are very industrious and consume an impressive level of resources. I think it is reasonable to be concerned when a significant fraction of the planet's energy budget is diverted by a single species.
> Earth is not overpopulated
Beg to differ. Exhibit A: climate change. Your solution would not ameliorate climate change. In fact it would likely exacerbate it. We need as much of the land as possible to be rewilded(left alone to maximize CO2 absorption and heal the planet). And stop having babies. Do you really want to bring a child into the nightmare we are barreling towards?
Beg to differ. Exhibit A: climate change. Your solution would not ameliorate climate change. In fact it would likely exacerbate it. We need as much of the land as possible to be rewilded(left alone to maximize CO2 absorption and heal the planet). And stop having babies. Do you really want to bring a child into the nightmare we are barreling towards?
Plants are carbon neutral, not carbon sinks. They don't put the fossil fuels back into the ground because they decompose before they're buried.
Wow, this is so exactly wrong and dangerously so. Any land humans use at above hunter-gatherer impact is highly damaged. The goal is always thus to use as little land as possible.
Proposals like these, while admirable, usually miss the mark and have little to no impact on housing availability because they fail to accept that housing development isn't just about zoning.
Impact fees, planning regs (traffic, parking, etc), planning delays, NIMBY fights, labor costs...these are all inputs into the question of whether a multifamily development makes economic sense for a developer.
There is a formula under which you can build market-rate and/or affordable housing (sometimes the same) and when that formula checks out, you see lots of development.
All of that has to work out to a cost per door and that cost has to be recouped in rents that pay for opex and debt. The fourplex in the article would cost $562,500/door. A very basic calc of the necessary rents would be $4,950.
California, particularly San Francisco, has pressures at every step of that formula. So if the Bay Area wants more housing, it has to be willing to look at the problem holistically.
I'm not suggesting that everything has to be Texas-style free markets, but to solve the problem one has to be willing to admit that it may require something a bit more comprehensive that simply changing zoning.