OT: California Dreamin': Density is the Future.

[Elefantino]

Born and raised in Oakland. Lived in the Bay Area until I was 35, then left in 1993. Returned from the East Cost 20 years later. It is not the same state, and it goes beyond home prices, traffic, homelessness and overcrowding. There's been an attitudinal change, and I think my perspective is only partly due to having been a pre- and post-internet resident. We stood it for five years and then cashed out and left for good.

I miss my riding buddies. I miss some relatives. I miss seeing the Giants live.

And that's it.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by JasonF

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.

There would be more room for parking if everyone didnt need 2+ spaces for their giant luxury SUV's.

Single-use zoning in our cities is the worst and just perpetuates the space, parking and need to use a car for everything. Southern California will run out of water before they solve this though.

[jm714]

SB9 is just another example of state over-reach.

Back in 2012 the state did away with redevelopment laws. When they did that they eliminated the tax increment that came with it that was mandated to be used for low income housing. At the time I was working for a city that was in the process of acquiring 36 four-plex’s. We had already acquired 19 of them at an average price of $580k. The neighborhood had only one way in and looped back around with two interior streets. It was a hotbed for drug and gang activity.

Our plan was to acquire all 36 properties and scrape them off then enter into a deal with a non-profit low income home builder for 250 units. The deal we secured included veteran housing, job training and day care.

But then in his infinite wisdom Gov Brown signed away redevelopment because the teacher unions hated that school district’s didn’t get a portion of the tax increment.

Too this day those 19 lots sit vacant and no units built to replace them.

[woodworker]

This is a result of politicians and social engineers thinking that they can combat homelessness and unaffordable housing by overriding local control and the free market.

I live in North County San Diego, coastal. The liberal element here has been trying to foist "affordable housing" and density on the area, overriding local resistance for quite a while. Now they are doing it through the state.

Of course they've never studied economics and the free market and have no idea what they're talking about. For example, they've allowed for density bonuses in relation to infill developments along the coast. Those extra units are supposed to help with the problem. It's like spitting in the ocean. Those extra units aren't "low income" at all, and developers just use it as a way to get a better return on the money they paid for raw land. What it has done is make traffic worse because the existing infrastructure can't handle it.

There's plenty of land to build on around here--it's just not as desirable because it's not as close to the Coast. Go figure: a limited supply of a desirable product (Coastal property) results in a higher price, which means that it will never be "affordable housing." But there's an unfortunate reflexive trend in local liberal politics that we need to "share in the pain" by wedging density into our neighborhoods rather than continuing to plan communities a bit farther inland, where you can build more units with better infrastructure to support it.

I consider myself to be a liberal in a number of ways, but that aspect of modern American liberalism--the ill-informed idea that you can fix virtually all free-market problems through government intervention--drives me nuts, particularly when it derives from the vague goal of "equality." Some you can; some you can't.

(A counter-example would be using taxes, incentives and penalties to address and curtail externalities, but instead we've repeatedly given into corporate interests so that they avoid paying those costs to society overall. Here's where government involvement actually could be useful, but it only grabs a few of the available tools in the toolbox).

Ok, sorry, end of rant. Just tag me: Annoyed on the Coast.

[Mike V]

Must have not been built to code. Six feet minimum between wall. Where in OC?

Originally Posted by 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

[GregL]

Originally Posted by Mike V

Must have not been built to code. Six feet minimum between wall. Where in OC?

Hyperbole for emphasis. A quick look on Google Street View shows ~8-10 feet between homes on his street. Still way too close for my comfort.

Greg

[bicycletricycle]

High density life is low quality life.

[pdonk]

As a recovering public sector planner who is now a developer that works in a Growth Plan context, all I can say is Greenfield density minimums and a greenbelt has increased land value exponentially during the past 15 years in the toronto area.

Combine that constraint with a consumer that does not want density and prefers granite counter tops to energy-efficient upgrades and you have a perfect storm for prices going crazy.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

High density life is low quality life.

That type of thinking has yielded catastrophic results.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ange-nightmare

[Jaybee]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

High density life is low quality life.

The vast majority of people on the planet live in high density urban environments. There are marked advantages in resource efficiency, community development, and economic development recognized by living in cities. I'm not aware of any correlation of self-reported happiness with living space. In fact, suburban Americans self-report some pretty mediocre happiness.

I'm curious where the 8 billion people that will be here by 2023 are supposed to live if not in high density environments.

[buddybikes]

God I feel sooooo lucky found my daughter (Aspergers and other hypersensitivity issues) and boyfriend a house in Western MA with 13 acres. And no it wouldn't support dense housing, this land is one big piece of granite!
Internet connection and small tractor, occasional train to NYC - and they (hopefully) will happier than ever.

[bicycletricycle]

Your laundry list is impressive but unpersuasive

Originally Posted by Jaybee

The vast majority of people on the planet live in high density urban environments. There are marked advantages in resource efficiency, community development, and economic development recognized by living in cities. I'm not aware of any correlation of self-reported happiness with living space. In fact, suburban Americans self-report some pretty mediocre happiness.

I'm curious where the 8 billion people that will be here by 2023 are supposed to live if not in high density environments.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

High density life is low quality life.

+1 I hope I never have to go back to living in an apartment. Wouldn't want to live in a densely populated, big city either, like NYC.

[ORMojo]

https://worldhappiness.report/ed/202...oss-the-world/

This is an urban vs rural study, so it doesn't explicitly consider "suburban," but the findings are more complex than "any correlation of self-reported happiness with living space." I understand that this thread was started as a discussion on density, but density is just one factor in living satisfaction, and "living space" is not a synonym for density.

I am greatly over-simplifying this, but my reading of the study is that happiness is greater, and does rise faster, in urban settings compared to rural settings . . . to a point, and that varies by region/country. North America is one region where that difference seems to all but disappear, and on some measures, show a higher level of happiness in the rural settings. ("in 101 of the 150 surveyed countries (67%), the average life evaluation ['happiness'] of the urban population is significantly higher than the average life evaluation of the rural population. However, none of the countries in this category can be found in Oceania and Northern America, while in the majority of Northern and Western European countries there is no statistically significant difference in how positively the urban and rural population evaluate their lives." emphasis added)

Although it will take some time, it will be very interesting to see the long-term effect of remote work patterns (largely initiated as a result of the pandemic). There are ~260 employees where I work, and I just finished chairing the agency committee to write our new hybrid work policy, which will allow nearly everyone to apply for permission to work up to nearly 100% remote post-pandemic.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by MikeD

+1 I hope I never have to go back to living in an apartment. Wouldn't want to live in a densely populated, big city either, like NYC.

i think the pandemic has changed a lot of people's minds, even hard core NYC'ers about living in the city. not only does communicable disease spread like wildfire in densely populated urban centers that share crowded transportation systems and public spaces, but when you need to confine yourself for whatever reason to your home, a little space is golden.

I also do not buy the higher density equals higher taxes which translates to better public services like schools. in theory that works, but in practice, as i am witnessing, it fails miserably.