Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbanite
The other ones I used were Contra Costa Center and to a lesser extent, Concord. Couple examples in the D.C. area as well.
Who represents the opposition to shopping mall/big box redevelopment? Every institutional owner here worth their salt who has large retail exposure has big redevelopment plans in their back pocket. It's going to be a race to start selling residential and office space in, around, and over those second-tier malls before they're left with a useless shell.
|
Yeah Walnut Creek and Concord are other examples of suburban cities there that builds housing, and they are about the only ones too. Bay Area cities, especially the Inner Bay Area, has been extremely slow in aiding the housing issue. I think a lot of owners in CA would like to do the same thing as GTA, but the problem is the residents who've already made it by owning a house in expensive coastal CA or other high dollar areas continue to vote down many rezoning/upzoning measures that get put in place.
The red tape to even building a highrise amongst a row of highrises is too much. In LA, there was a proposal for a residential highrise along Ventura Blvd that was in the middle of commercial highrises, yet residents were able to block it. The reason was because it was apparently going to block views and give extra shadows. Now what's going to be built is half the size of the proposal (or had half the units, one of the two). That made absolutely no sense considering where it was going to be built. Another example is Playa Vista on the west side. Before the development, Playa Vista was essentially a blank canvas and was mostly greenfields. Somehow nearby neighborhoods were able to block many proposals, so now Playa Vista is a short low-rise district with really high housing costs that has a Home Depot with a gigantic empty parking lot. The same thing happens in the Bay and it's completely ridiculous.