OT: California Dreamin': Density is the Future.

[qnz]

Originally Posted by jtakeda

How would housing density cause the area to become more expensive?

What is a few years? Do you remember when rent was $700 for a 1 bedroom apartment? If not you’re really seeing the tail end of the issues that are triggering all of the talk of building more units in the city. SF used to be a mid size city with average growth but exploded in the last 15ish years.


Also you don’t think the roads are gridlocked now? I used to be able to drive from Richmond to SF in 40 minutes at rush hour.

Not to be too mean but coming in after a huge wave of displacement and economic/demographic change and then saying alright stop now it’s good is a little selfish.

I’ve come to understand that the nature of cities is to evolve and trying to stop development or evolution is futile. Of course public transport and infrastructure can always be improved but to try and limit the population of city you just moved to is a little ironic.

A few years is 3 years here. I am looking at the Bay Area thru the lens of an outsider. I understand that SF natives are passionate because this is their home and they are being priced out. I saw the same explosion in growth in NYC.

NYC is on the opposite spectrum when it comes to building. Developers were given abatements (tax incentives) from the city to build in the past 10 years. Kind of like how Mission Bay suddenly sprang up with all these new rentals; this was everywhere in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens and they were condos. While it was nice that I could buy a new condo in NYC and not pay property tax for 15 years, it got really really crowded that it wasnt enjoyable for me anymore.

I didn't say housing density would cause the city to become more expensive. I said housing density would make SF feel like NYC but still be more expensive than Manhattan.

Do I think the roads are gridlocked now? No, not really. Manhattan at midnight is just as crowded as the 101 at 5pm. If SF become more dense, then I believe that is what traffic will evolve to.

TLDR; new high density units will allow young people to buy, but at what cost to personal space and traffic.

[XXtwindad]

S.B. 9 was signed into law by Newsom. "Brown" is definitely the new gold. Backyard lots are being converted into new units. I've seen a number of projects like the one on my ride today. It remains to be seen whether it mitigates the housing crunch or does anything to solve the inequity issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/b...a-housing.html

"Two days after surviving a California recall election, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 9. By legalizing duplexes statewide and allowing people to subdivide single-family lots, S.B. 9 effectively ended single-family zoning in a state of 40 million whose identity is predicated on the suburban idyll.

But that was just the latest in a yearslong effort — one mirroring efforts around the country — that ushered in dozens of state housing laws that streamline construction of backyard units, require cities to plan for higher-density development and strip them of power if they fail to comply.

When you add S.B. 9 to earlier rules for backyard units, California has paved the way for some 2.5 million new housing units — about 25 years’ worth at the state’s current pace of building — in existing single-family neighborhoods, according to an analysis by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley.

“These laws have opened up entire communities that had been largely walled off,” said Ben Metcalf, managing director of the Terner Center. “Even if it starts slow, we are solidly on a path to a very different California.”

[Spdntrxi]

neighborhoods were not made to handle the amount of cars for parking....

newsome sucks

[pasadena]

Newsom also vetoed AB1238 (decriminalize jaywalking) and AB122 (cyclists idaho stop bill)

[fiamme red]

A couple of interesting stories about the "California Forever" development:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/vi...sm-from-locals

https://calmatters.org/economy/2024/...ever-promises/

Greenbelt Alliance, a Bay Area nonprofit that’s dedicated to protecting open space, is among the opponents of the proposed new community. It also belongs to Solano Together, a coalition of opponents to the project, and is collecting funds for a planned competing ballot initiative if California Forever’s initiative qualifies for the ballot.

“It is pretty bold to include a promise to ‘protect and improve open space and agriculture’ in an initiative that simultaneously asks voters to approve development of over 17,000 acres of open space and agriculture,” said Sadie Wilson, director of Planning and Research at Greenbelt Alliance...

[cash05458]

I think a lot of this stuff...at least here in Vermont...comes down to walk the walk...Vermont is extremely liberal...but about every time something is suggested to perhaps build some houses in a community, folks rise up...complain and are able to throw that development into years of gov tape...it doesn't take much...likewise via jobs or anything...it took St. Albans 26 years from beginning to end to actually get a damn walmart...26 years...that would be the second walmart in the entire state mind you.

Our super helpful liberal state who believes in a rehab etc has been arguing for ten years now about who will let a youth rehab center be built in their area...the entire bed count would be 4! 4 children! Think of that...but each community it comes up to put in, they all gather to vote it down...saying it would ruin their hood etc...same goes with everyone being concerned about homelessness here...any measure folks come up with or try to build, it's destroyed via local laws...true not in my back yard stuff while pretending liberal love to want to help and squawk off about and yak about how virtuous they are but it just can't be here etc...endless.

[MikeD]

I don't get this housing shortage. California has been losing population, so who's buying up the real estate and raising up the prices and rents? Wall Street, foreign investors, speculators, uber rich is what I think; plus government imposed costs like costly permits and red tape. Building more housing isn't going to solve the problem unless you level the playing field. Just my $.02.

[Louis]

For some reason the Eagles' "The Last Resort" has been stuck in my head lately.

"they put up a bunch of ugly boxes and..."

[fa63]

California's population loss is a bit overblown. And when the housing shortage is as severe as theirs is, a few hundred thousand people moving out of a state with almost 40 million people isn't going to solve the crisis.

Originally Posted by MikeD

I don't get this housing shortage. California has been losing population, so who's buying up the real estate and raising up the prices and rents? Wall Street, foreign investors, speculators, uber rich is what I think; plus government imposed costs like costly permits and red tape. Building more housing isn't going to solve the problem unless you level the playing field. Just my $.02.

[vespasianus]

Originally Posted by fa63

California's population loss is a bit overblown. And when the housing shortage is as severe as theirs is, a few hundred thousand people moving out of a state with almost 40 million people isn't going to solve the crisis.

I know lots of people who have moved to CA. If you are in tech, the salaries are highly competitive and housing is not really an issue. Lots of options.

The Bay Area, has issues, sure, but it is still a wonderful place that is a great place for innovation and technology. In the end of the day, places with great educational institutions, will always win.

[5oakterrace]

Originally Posted by cash05458

I think a lot of this stuff...at least here in Vermont...comes down to walk the walk...Vermont is extremely liberal...but about every time something is suggested to perhaps build some houses in a community, folks rise up...complain and are able to throw that development into years of gov tape...it doesn't take much...likewise via jobs or anything...it took St. Albans 26 years from beginning to end to actually get a damn walmart...26 years...that would be the second walmart in the entire state mind you.

Our super helpful liberal state who believes in a rehab etc has been arguing for ten years now about who will let a youth rehab center be built in their area...the entire bed count would be 4! 4 children! Think of that...but each community it comes up to put in, they all gather to vote it down...saying it would ruin their hood etc...same goes with everyone being concerned about homelessness here...any measure folks come up with or try to build, it's destroyed via local laws...true not in my back yard stuff while pretending liberal love to want to help and squawk off about and yak about how virtuous they are but it just can't be here etc...endless.

Vermont is fascinating. The folks running for Burlington town council are either progressives ( I am not sure what that means) or Democrats. No Republicans. No one identified as moderate. Many towns have a major, not unique to Vermont, homeless/drug problem. I know folks who will not go downtown as a result. So retail businesses compete with the big boxstores (across the river in New Hampshire in some locales) and with e-commerce. Complain about panhandlers and you alienate potential local customers. So one town in Vermont says - we cannot deny people their rights to panhandle, but across the river the neighboring NH town says - panhandlers cannot go on main Street. No lawsuit has been filed. The differences in main Street are obvious. Where you gonna go if you have a choice?

Downtowns are in rough shape. So how does Vermont manage? Dependence on the 2nd home, skiing and vacation crowd ($$$). The local stores sell esoteric stuff that only those with extra money, so to speak, will buy. So we will be "progressive" but depend on the wealthy to visit and spend. That is painting with broad strokes and oversimplification - but I think there is a grain of truth in there somewhere.

[Mike V]

Originally Posted by vespasianus

I know lots of people who have moved to CA. If you are in tech, the salaries are highly competitive and housing is not really an issue. Lots of options.

The Bay Area, has issues, sure, but it is still a wonderful place that is a great place for innovation and technology. In the end of the day, places with great educational institutions, will always win.

25 k jobs loss since the beginning of the year. All resulting in better stock earnings. Talk is there are much more to come. High inflation and taxes make those worth a little less to people. High interest rates are keeping people from selling and upgrading. Strict regulations on new homes make builders weary of building new developments. Housing market is being predicted to get worse before better.

[benb]

I think it wasn't really on my radar when this thread started but we are increasingly having similar issues and debates in MA. Housing is very expensive, apartments are very expensive. Demand is high to live here, jobs are excellent and the economy is strong but it's very difficult for the middle class & working class to afford to live here.

One way the state is trying to force things on communities that don't necessarily want more density is a law that if you are served by the MBTA for bus/rail/subway you are forced to zone some high density areas of town.

My street was recently changed to be mostly high density zoning. Weirdly my house (I live in a Duplex) was not included in the high density zone. We already have higher density condos at the other end of the street. So basically our street was "low hanging fruit".

But meanwhile on the street there are a bunch of $1-3M houses (our duplex is pushing $1M/unit now too), a bunch of offices/businesses, a baseball field, etc.. and zero open lots. So the idea that a bunch of new units will be built anytime soon is pretty much nonsense.

Other zones they opened up have challenging water or wetlands issues.

I think a lot of the proponents of forcing this don't realize this is pissing into the wind, but then you see younger people talking online about things like rent control & forcing landlords or other land owners to give up their properties to build higher density housing. It gets really close to them talking about revolution, it's pretty ugly.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mike V

25 k jobs loss since the beginning of the year. All resulting in better stock earnings. Talk is there are much more to come. High inflation and taxes make those worth a little less to people. High interest rates are keeping people from selling and upgrading. Strict regulations on new homes make builders weary of building new developments. Housing market is being predicted to get worse before better.

The Bay area companies hired like drunken sailors all through Covid. They haven't even come close to laying off enough people to get back to 2019 levels.

25k loss across all those companies is absolutely nothing at all for the Bay Area. Google and Meta snatched up like 200k people between the two of them over a 3-4 year period before these layoffs. They hired so many people some of them never even did any work before getting laid off because they hired so fast they didn't even figure out what people were supposed to be working on. These companies hire you based on whether they think you're worthy, not to fill a specific role. Then after they decided you're worthy they try to place you into a team. It's a pretty bizarre hiring process.

The press made a big deal about this but it's an absolute blip on the radar.

[jimcav]

Originally Posted by MikeD

I don't get this housing shortage. California has been losing population, so who's buying up the real estate and raising up the prices and rents? Wall Street, foreign investors, speculators, uber rich is what I think; plus government imposed costs like costly permits and red tape. Building more housing isn't going to solve the problem unless you level the playing field. Just my $.02.

if it is true on an absolute total state population, it definitely isn't true at our (and I think many suburban) local levels. We moved to our area in 2011--more kids in school each year, the city built a new high school in the intervening years, far fewer "vacancy" signs on apartment buildings I drive past, and ongoing, multiple developments of multi-story apartment style condo homes in several communities within 5-10 miles of my house during the last few years. The people moving in seem to be single, educated or double income 'white collar' families.

We've been in the same neighborhood 14 years now, the turnover has been older folks who retired or just went to be near grandkids, good for them as home prices have gone up 100% in about 10 years. Replacing them are families with school-aged or about-to-be-school aged kid(s) -so more people per SFH than previous.

As is typical, these communities raised a fuss about the projects, but they are going up in all directions.