OT: the housing crisis in the Bay Area (and beyond...)

[XXtwindad]

Perhaps nowhere in the US has the battle over affordable housing reached such a fever pitch as in the Bay Area. One possible attempt to mitigate the problem, SB50, would change zoning ordinances to allow for denser building around "job rich" areas and adjacent to transit hubs.

Contra Costa and its affluent suburbs would seem to be the most impacted. Almost every local city council has opposed the measure.

From Walnut Creek Mayor Cindy Silva:

“Most of the people who came to California from New York in the 19th century wanted more wide open space. They didn’t want to live in apartment buildings,” said Walnut Creek Mayor Cindy Silva.

She defended single-family homes as intrinsic to the personality of the state: “It’s not so much that it’s sacrosanct, but it’s how we evolved.”

Interestingly enough, due to populations less than 600,000 bring exempt, one of the most affluent counties in the country is exempt - Marin County.

There are some talented thinkers and writers on this site. I'm interested to hear from others.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfc...w-13834033.php

[Mikej]

So, just a not in my area type of thing?

[FlashUNC]

It's a fig leaf argument from the burbs. We all know the real reason. And I say that as someone who's part of the problem having moved here in the last half decade.

But you can't freeze communities in amber, particularly affluent suburbs that don't want to ever change (ahem, Mountain View.)

The cascade effect across geographies and socio-economic levels has been stunning to see happen.

There should be an effort to preserve the character and unique nature of these communities, but there has to be some recognition too that housing needs to increase substantially to reduce the incredible issues we're seeing.

[jimcav]

sometimes i daydream about using my GI-bill and staring over in a new career. To me it seems everything is reactive: example near me in San Diego county: population goes up, schools get stupid-crowded, they build a new school. Too bad it can't be better designed from the get-go. But the jobs need to be better placed so that residential development can follow. When I was first stationed out here, it was easy to drive to the mountains in Idyllwild, now it is practically non-stop tract home suburbia through Temecula, Menifee, Hemet, with many of those people doing long commutes into San Diego or Riverside etc. Maybe if i went back and studied urban planning I'd learn there be some worse consequence of business expanding with satellite locations in other areas, but right now it seems like the large employee companies are too consolidated and competition for homes nearby just pushes folks farther and farther, with larger commutes etc.

[zmalwo]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

She defended single-family homes as intrinsic to the personality of the state: “It’s not so much that it’s sacrosanct, but it’s how we evolved.”

Let's see how many houses she has in the bay area, and if there's any actuary here please let us how much value per house would lose once tall buildings are approved. It's not about "preserving" the tradition. tall mansions significantly lowers single family house value in an area like SF because tall buildings allows much more capita per area. When you see your house or houses value going up 10 folds in a decade no house owners wants to lose that money. I bet those officials owns lots and lots of houses in SF area. in the end it's all about money of those who make the rules. IMHO.

[prototoast]

Disclaimer: I own a single family home in Contra Costa County. I also have a strong preference for more rural living.

Density restrictions aren't making places better. Contra Costa County kind of sucks. From a biking perspective, I like that I have easy access to Mount Diablo, but I go out of my way to avoid the majority of roads in the county, because they're too narrow, with high traffic, and with either no shoulder or cars parked all along the street. I don't know what vision they think they're going for, but it's not a smart one. The new developments going in around San Ramon and Livermore are downright dystopian to me (for those of you not in the area, picture identical 3,500 sq ft homes on 5,000 sq ft lots, packed 2-3 deep in housing developments).

The quote you highlighted from the story about people moving to California in the 19th century really highlights how ridiculous is. First, that somehow California should still be trying to emulate the vision of people who have been dead for over 100 years, and second, because that vision is already gone. There are still decent open spaces (protected state/regional land), but the vast majority of single family homes are packed in tightly with other single family homes--they're not coming with a lot of land. The single family homes near downtown Walnut Creek / BART are garbage--very expensive garbage, but they tend to be very small, run down, and rented out to commuters who want easy access to public transit. It's hard to imagine a worse design than that.

Density isn't really the problem in the area. What could actually improve quality of life is to have more density, more mixed zoning, and better public transit. You want to put people near where they want to be. These aren't farming towns anymore, and they're not going to be in the future.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by zmalwo

Let's see how many houses she has in the bay area, and if there's any actuary here please let us how much value per house would lose once tall buildings are approved. It's not about "preserving" the tradition. tall mansions significantly lowers single family house value in an area like SF because tall buildings allows much more capita per area. When you see your house or houses value going up 10 folds in a decade no house owners wants to lose that money. I bet those officials owns lots and lots of houses in SF area. in the end it's all about money of those who make the rules. IMHO.

It may feel like that in the short term, but it is not inevitable. Look at land in Manhattan, Singapore, Hong Kong, or Tokyo. High density housing can make housing less scarce, and push down the value of your property, the fact that your lot can then be used for a multi-story, multi-unit building thus makes it more valuable. So much of the resistance to development in the Bay Area feels like a fight for something that's already gone, or never actually existed.

[Ken Robb]

I was a real estate broker in San Diego for 36 years. One of the aspects of choosing a home that was hardest for buyers to properly evaluate was length/difficulty of commute. Many people were willing to add 15-20 minutes or more each way if they could get a "nicer/bigger" home farther out. Some of this may have been partly due to the person doing the commuting not being the only person involved in choosing the home.

For years I commented to people in and out of the RE business to imagine what our Clairemont neighborhood would be worth as raw land rather than a 1959-69 area of tract housing. It is close to beaches, shopping, downtown sporting venues, etc. Well, a few years ago people owning homes there with ocean/Mission Bay views began remodeling, adding second stories, etc. Then since that showed the neighborhood was on the upswing owners of non-view properties decided that it made sense for them to improve their homes too rather than move to a newer area farther out.

About 30 years ago we got our first luxury high-rise condo building downtown. The prediction was that it would appeal mostly to people who worked downtown and wanted to avoid commuting from suburban areas. It enjoyed modest success and that led to more new condos downtown. The people buying them wanted more shops and restaurants near their new condos so the whole area became a hotbed of urban renewal.

The funny thing is that while this was happening there were many new office buildings and industrial parks built out in the suburbs. Now many downtown dwellers commute AWAY from downtown to work and rush hour traffic runs opposite to the way it did 30-40 years ago. It seems that lots of downtown residents are there for the hip urban lifestyle and they don't mind commuting to their suburban workplaces.

A big challenge for planners of mass transit has to be how to solve the problem of "the last mile". It's great to ride a train to work if you are close enough to walk from home to the station and from the station to work. Once upon a time my office was in Rockefeller Center and economics forced me to live on Long Island. The LIRR was ok but it got me to Penn Station where I had to catch a subway uptown so my commute was about 75 minutes each way. That got me to move to Forest Hills/Jamaica in Queens where my "Junior One-bedroom" was affordable, included underground parking, and was a one block walk to the IND subway which stopped in the basement of my office building. It worked but I looked forward to a time when I could own a house with a yard.

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by Ken Robb

I was a real estate broker in San Diego for 36 years.

So, we now have our resident scapegoat


It seems like a hugely complex issue with a multitude of contributing factors and underlying causes. I'm not a CA citizen, but I would be against a policy here in NH that allowed the state to take control of the housing market like that.

On the other hand, if I own my house in Walnut ridge, and I retired, and I wanted to convert it into a 2 or 3 unit property so that I could live in it, and rent out the other units for income, I think I should have the right to do that within reason (maintaining the previous appearance and footprint, providing adequate off street parking, etc.) . If local codes prevent that, then I suppose this law may make sense to give people that freedom.

At a broader level, I don't really see the problem with housing affordability. Many parts of the country have sub 5% unemployment rates and better cost of living than the bay area. My memory is foggy, but pretty sure the declaration of independence listed life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness as unalienable rights. Don't remember it including the right to live in a beautiful climate.

[pdonk]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

So, we now have our resident scapegoat

Actually I'm actually the scapegoat - a planner that works for a developer.

This topic is rich with material from:
eminent domain
constitutional law
climate change
market demand
land supply
urban design
NIMBY and BANANA
transportation planning
economic development
social planning
demographics
urban history
neighbourhood evolution

When you draw a venn diagram showing good planning it is really just a giant blobwith no easy point of intersection visible under the layers.

Have so much to write, but need to focus on work.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

At a broader level, I don't really see the problem with housing affordability. Many parts of the country have sub 5% unemployment rates and better cost of living than the bay area.

A lot of this has to do with the types of jobs in the Bay Area, and the types of jobs in other parts of the country. It's not hard for a doctor to find work in most parts of the country, but it's not so easy for people in high tech fields. Web developers are fairly mobile, but for someone doing artificial intelligence research, outside of the bay area, realistic job prospects really only exist in a few key cities.

Personally, I came to the Bay Area for work. I am an economist and I could probably find work in most major cities (particularly Washington and New York, but housing costs aren't much different there), but it would be a challenge for me to find work in probably 40 of the 50 states.

Aligning jobs and housing is a real challenge, but the evidence overwhelmingly shows that restricting the housing stock doesn't lead to a proportionate dispersion of jobs.

[unterhausen]

the state doesn't really have to take control of the market, just get out of the way. The historic village center of the township I live in could not be built today due to zoning laws. This is true in a lot of places.

Density isn't going to bring undesirable people in most areas, it probably will bring nice walkable spaces that might not be so unsustainable though. And density doesn't mean just high rise buildings, in Europe there are a lot of very densely built towns that only have 3 story buildings. Certainly beats the exurban hell that most of NoVa has become.

[Elefantino]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

It's a fig leaf argument from the burbs. We all know the real reason.

It's the unspoken reality, even in Oakland and Berkeley.

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

And I say that as someone who's part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is the people who sell for astronomical prices, particularly as the result of bidding wars, which has artificially driven up the cost of all real estate and further exacerbated the affordable housing problem. I'm talking about all the tech bros who flip homes for fun because they've got nothing else to do.

I'm also looking in the mirror. However, I'm never coming back so I do not feel guilty.

[avalonracing]

I'd like to live in the Bay Area over any other place in this country but the housing costs are nuts. My solution... anyone who is physically able but chooses not to take advantage of the great weather and outdoor attractions should be required to move to someplace else where they can happily play their video games and watch Netflix in climate-controlled comfort.

-Frustrated in Maryland where it was 84ºF and humid last week and 47ºF and raining this morning.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

It's a fig leaf argument from the burbs. We all know the real reason. And I say that as someone who's part of the problem having moved here in the last half decade.

But you can't freeze communities in amber, particularly affluent suburbs that don't want to ever change (ahem, Mountain View.)

The cascade effect across geographies and socio-economic levels has been stunning to see happen.

There should be an effort to preserve the character and unique nature of these communities, but there has to be some recognition too that housing needs to increase substantially to reduce the incredible issues we're seeing.

This is an interesting statement. Why do you identify as "part of the problem?" Is it your relatively recent tenure in the Bay Area? Income level? Occupation? Ethnicity? Other?