OT: California Dreamin': Density is the Future.

[XXtwindad]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/b...te-bill-9.html

"So far only Oregon has passed a state-level ban on single-family house zoning. If California’s S.B. 9 gets final passage and is signed, it would add a state of 40 million to the list.

In California, where the median home price recently eclipsed $800,000 and more than 100,000 people sleep outside each night, a vision of a single-family home with a yard to enjoy the sun is encoded in residents’ dreams. The move to pass zoning reform has been a yearslong odyssey with the twists and turns of a screenplay.

Single-family-only zoning is something of a California creation: In 1916, Berkeley became what was probably the first U.S. city to restrict neighborhoods to one-family homes. A century later it’s become a bedrock value that homeowners across the nation euphemistically describe as maintaining “neighborhood character.”

[JasonF]

There are no easy answers to this problem. We live in Larchmont, which is a neighborhood in the middle of the city. Downtown, K-town, the studios, Beverly Hills, Century City, etc...are all 20 minutes away (or closer) in rush hour. So it is a desirable place to live and there's a lot of interest from builders.

It's one thing to build an apartment building in a neighborhood zoned for such things - where the developer can also build an underground garage. But having Sacramento impose on our neighborhood a density requirement "by right" that doesn't require local approval is a bridge too far.

Here's a picture of our little home. All the property lots are small. Cramming a 4 unit structure on one of these lots is a bad idea, and not because of "nimbyism". Where the hell are all these new residents going to park? Since the lots are small there would be no space for a driveway/parking lot and on-street parking is already full. I get that the housing shortage needs to be addressed but to impose an arbitrary set of requirements on a neighborhood that was built 100 years ago to accommodate single family homes is not practical.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by JasonF

There are no easy answers to this problem. We live in Larchmont, which is a neighborhood in the middle of the city. Downtown, K-town, the studios, Beverly Hills, Century City, etc...are all 20 minutes away (or closer) in rush hour. So it is a desirable place to live and there's a lot of interest from builders.

It's one thing to build an apartment building in a neighborhood zoned for such things - where the developer can also build an underground garage. But having Sacramento impose on our neighborhood a density requirement "by right" that doesn't require local approval is a bridge too far.

Here's a picture of our little home. All the property lots are small. Cramming a 4 unit structure on one of these lots is a bad idea, and not because of "nimbyism". Where the hell are all these new residents going to park? Since the lots are small there would be no space for a driveway/parking lot and on-street parking is already full. I get that the housing shortage needs to be addressed but to impose an arbitrary set of requirements on a neighborhood that was built 100 years ago to accommodate single family homes is not practical.

Designing neighborhoods around cars is what created a lot of this mess in the first place. A neighborhood that’s already a century old was presumably designed around pedestrians - meaning that it’s a perfect fit for more density and public transportation solutions.

The far-flung “exurbs” are just not environmentally sustainable.

P.S. That’s a lovely home.

https://medium.com/radical-urbanist/...s-b3bf9e6bfafc

[jimcav]

We used to live in Hillcrest, a great walkable San Diego neighborhood. As we were leaving in 2003, there were smaller SFH lots like above that because multi-unit places, with 1-car per unit parking under in one case that was near our house. We left before I saw many completed

My old neighbor just told me our old house is being sold by the couple that bought it. Apart from great ROI for them, the interesting thing was they turned down an offer form a developer who wanted to turn it into a 4-5 unit place.

My neighbor a year ago wanted to get a deal together with him, the couple that bought our former house, and the neighbor behind them--those 3 little lots and lots could have been a great multi unit condo bldg.

Back when I was 1st dating my wife in DC, we both lived in high rise appts and we had about an equal # of dates where we drove vs took the metro. It is easier when the infrastructure exists from the start, but many of us are just used to having our own car, not that it is really necessary, and it could be incentivized to be otherwise.

[tomato coupe]

Paywall ...

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Paywall ...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...alifornia/amp/

https://cayimby.org/sb-9/

And an opposing viewpoint: https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/gue...or-california/

[cgolvin]

Very difficult problem, but I too think that a statewide mandate is unlikely to be a good solution, local perspective is necessary.

I live some miles west of @JasonF and my neighbors would scream bloody murder at the prospect of MDUs replacing homes. OTOH, smaller homes that sell in my neighborhood frequently get bought by developers who raze perfectly good stock in order to build something 3x the size and 10x as ugly, so if an MDU were well-designed I might consider it less of an eyesore. And the light rail system is only a mile+ walk (might as well be 10 for a majority of Angelenos).

But density can increase in various ways. One solution I have seen in a neighborhood just to the west of us is to split a single family lot in half and build two houses, each of which is larger than the single home that was there previously since they're 2 story. These are done with good design and still provide a similar sense of space to the owners, though of course the yard is smaller. There is enough street parking in this area to deal with the expanded density, though I'm not sure that would be the case were every lot converted in this way.

It also seems apparent that there is and will continue to be a significant glut of commercial real estate. I don't know enough about construction to contrast the cost of repurposing these spaces to housing versus the cost of demolition and new build, but I'd be surprised if it's prohibitive. What had long been a mall in my neighborhood is in the process of being turned into commercial space, leased by Google … who, I understand, is now trying to get out from under the decade+ lease they signed. Many of these commercial spaces tend to be close to public transit and amenities which make their repurposing even more attractive.

[jkbrwn]

^On that note, an ugly 1980s office building in Pasadena on Los Robles and Cordova has just been converted to apartments… except they’re ginormous ultra luxury apartments with Italian marble floors and all of them are upwards of $1,000,000. Seems like a real missed opportunity. Hoping that with the slew of empty office buildings in Pasadena, some affordable apartments will be built…

[Seramount]

'high-density infill' is the new city council mantra here.

screw that, I don't want to live in a human anthill...

[Spdntrxi]

Density sucks.. My house is pretty damn close to zero lot in my opinion already and I'd hate to be any closer to my neighbors.

F'that. Kalifornia can stick it..

[witcombusa]

Ten acre lots minimum. There's plenty of room in the USoA. Just spread out and breathe. People are not meant to literally live on top of each other.

[Mike V]

I moved from SoCal so I didn't have to smell my neighbor from 3 doors down farts. I'm not ever going back to that ever.

[HenryA]

California has never been sustainable where the huge populations centers are. California is responsible for de-watering the southwest and that is not going to get better either.

Climate change or simply irresponsible demands on the resource- take your pick. I’m going with the later. Adding more people in already dense urban areas is some central planner’s dream and the people’s nightmare.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by HenryA

California has never been sustainable where the huge populations centers are. California is responsible for de-watering the southwest and that is not going to get better either.

Climate change or simply irresponsible demands on the resource- take your pick. I’m going with the later. Adding more people in already dense urban areas is some central planner’s dream and the people’s nightmare.

The water situation is a real problem, but not insurmountable. Particularly because urban water consumption is a very small part of the state's total. Additionally, homes along the California coast are much less carbon-intensive because they need so little heating or cooling. There are environmental challenges, but also huge environmental benefits.

[GregL]

My best friend from college moved to Orange County in the mid-90s. I visited him a year or two later. His lawn was so small, it could be mowed with a scissors. If he wanted to get a neighbor’s attention, he just had to open a side window and knock on the wall of the house next door. Worse from my perspective, the traffic and road infrastructure were horrible for road cycling. He tried his best to convince me to move west and work with him, but no way I could deal with CA. Upstate NY may have snow and ridiculous taxes, but the life experience is so much more peaceful. I can leave my home or office by bike and be on quiet, rural roads in 5-15 minutes. Priceless!

Greg