HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 7:50 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
The one in SF looks roughly 1,000 times nicer. But I don't understand the housing preferences of most.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 7:55 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I'm not saying multifamily lowers property values, but rather the only way you could make SFH cheaper is by making CA less desirable. And I don't think the housing shortage can really be fixed via multifamily, as that doesn't appear to be in short supply.

Yeah, obviously in SF and the like, urban-style multifamily holds great appeal. But I'm not sure that the same people bidding up $2 million ranches in Cupertino will be persuaded to live in multifamily.
I certainly haven't seen evidence of multi-family not selling? Do you have some links of condos on the peninsula selling for low price per sqft amounts? Or listing for low price per sqft amounts and not selling?

(I'd be curious to buy them and rent them out if they exist, but I've never seen such a thing)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 8:20 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
While I understand the historic roots of the belief that allowing multi-family zoning lowers property values, I am not sure there's any evidence to suggest this is the case - when talking about market-rate development anyway.
I don't see the issue that way at all. I see the issue that you have established neighborhoods of single family homes and if you asked the owner-occupiers of those homes if they want multifamily housing plopped down in the middle of the existing neighborhood, they are likely to say, "No." If you disagree, then what we should do in each case is, in fact ask them and, by all means, rezone any that say, "Yes."

It doesn't matter to me so much why they say "No"; whether it's property values or more cars on the streets or the appearance of the neighborhood or some other quality of life issue. The point is why should outside decision-makers come in and disrupt what the existing residents paid for and are happy with, especially when I maintain it isn't necessary since there really are plenty of places to site multifamily buildings (along commercial strips, brownfields, parking lots etc etc) which take up much less land than tracts of single family houses (isn't that the point?).

What hardly exists, and therefore is very expensive, is places to put new single family homes with short commutes to downtowns in the environmentally pleasant coastal strip of California. There's plenty of land out in the CV. The northern third of the state is almost entirely rural and empty (but we are warned about people living in the "urban/rural interface" and the ever-present danger of TREES). But west of the coastal hills/mountains, where the climate is moderate and the beach access good and the California dream was created, and especially with a short drive to your SF or LA or SD office, it's really gonna cost you.

Last edited by Pedestrian; May 3, 2021 at 10:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 8:21 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
I certainly haven't seen evidence of multi-family not selling? Do you have some links of condos on the peninsula selling for low price per sqft amounts? Or listing for low price per sqft amounts and not selling?

(I'd be curious to buy them and rent them out if they exist, but I've never seen such a thing)
"Low" is relative in this case I bet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 8:53 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I don't see the issue that way at all. I see the issue that you have established neighborhoods of single family homes and if the asked the owner-occupiers of those homes if they want multifamily housing plopped down in the middle of the existing neighborhood, they are likely to say, "No." If you disagree, then what we should do in each case is, in fact ask them and, by all means, rezone any that say, "Yes."

If doesn't matter to me so much why they say "No"; whether it's property values or more cars on the streets or the appearance of the neighborhood or some other quality of life issue. The point is why should outside decision-makers come in and disrupt what the existing residents paid for and are happy with, especially when I maintain it isn't necessary since there really are plenty of places to site multifamily buildings (along commercial strips, brownfields, parking lots etc etc) which take up much less land than tracts of single family houses (isn't that the point?).

What hardly exists, and therefore is very expensive, is places to put new single family homes with short commutes to downtowns in the environmentally pleasant coastal strip of California. There's plenty of land out in the CV. The northern third of the state is almost entirely rural and empty (but we are warned about people living in the "urban/rural interface" and the ever-present danger of TREES). But west of the coastal hills/mountains, where the climate is moderate and the beach access good and the California dream was created, and especially with a short drive to your SF or LA or SD office, it's really gonna cost you.
The fact of the matter is however that the vast majority of the U.S.'s traditional urban areas were built after razing something much lower density. There are some counter-examples, like a lot of Upper Manhattan, which went right from farmland to apartment blocks. But for the most part there was an intermediate state which was somewhat lower density, which later made way for urban development. It's just that all of this came to a (largely) screeching halt around 1920 or so).

There's also the question of what level the "veto power" should be exercised. Doing it on the level of the local government (city-wide) makes some sense. But plenty of cities empanel individual neighborhoods to have veto power over developments even if they are in the greater interest of the city at large. How is a "neighborhood" determined? Does someone get veto power over something within 10 blocks? What about an underused office park with no residents right next door? Going down that route gets projects blocked because a homeowner is concerned there might be a shadow cast along their lawn or something.

The way zoning is done in the U.S. is so strange to me, because it runs so contrary to our supposed values. Instead of the rights of private property owners to do whatever they wish with the property, it impanels the rights of the community at large to make decisions about what you should and should not be able to do. It's socialistic in a certain sense, though it's also quite arbitrary, because rather than put projects up for a democratic vote it basically empowers the loudest voices and biggest busybodies to set policy.

I'm not sure what noting there's almost nowhere left to build new single-family homes in the Bay Area is meant to show. There's almost nowhere to build new single-family homes around New York. Or Tokyo. Or Toronto. All this means is if you wish to live in the area and you don't have lots of money (or a rich parent) you have to admit homeownership is an impossible dream. Which is fine, as owning a home is not for everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 9:12 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
On this discussion about San Francisco’s love affair with SFH, what if the upzoning started around Downtown and slowly eats from the edges the SFH zones?

I guess the backlash would be smaller while SF could easily add 50k or even 100k units without any major changes in the landscape while all those new units could relieve a bit the housing costs in the area.

It’s funny how the US is widely regarded as a capitalist jungle in Brazil while it’s housing market is much more strict and regulated than down here in Brazil where construction is tied linked to demand.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 9:19 PM
badrunner badrunner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I mean, look at it this way: Real estate is an asset, and zoning constrains what can be done with that asset. If the square footage your home is on could also be used to build a wider number of things (a larger home, a mini-apartment building with 6 renters, consolidated as part of a larger acquisition for a new mixed-rate development, etc.) you will come out with more money in the end.
Are homeowners in Cupertino clamoring to subdivide their lots or build multifamily housing so that their properties would be worth more?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 9:22 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Are homeowners in Cupertino clamoring to subdivide their lots or build multifamily housing so that their properties would be worth more?
There must have been some fear that they would/will, or else there'd be no reason to have the zoning laws.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 9:28 PM
badrunner badrunner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
On this discussion about San Francisco’s love affair with SFH, what if the upzoning started around Downtown and slowly eats from the edges the SFH zones?

I guess the backlash would be smaller while SF could easily add 50k or even 100k units without any major changes in the landscape while all those new units could relieve a bit the housing costs in the area.

It’s funny how the US is widely regarded as a capitalist jungle in Brazil while it’s housing market is much more strict and regulated than down here in Brazil where construction is tied linked to demand.
What's funny is how every proposed solution to recalcitrant homeowners exercising local, bottom-up regulatory control involves some type of heavy handed, top-down government initiative to overrule local control for the "greater good" of society at large.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 9:54 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
What's funny is how every proposed solution to recalcitrant homeowners exercising local, bottom-up regulatory control involves some type of heavy handed, top-down government initiative to overrule local control for the "greater good" of society at large.
Heavy handed, top-down government initiative are what those extremely strict zones are. And not for a greater good of society, but for the sake of some wealthy control freak that believe he owns the whole neighborhood.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 10:11 PM
badrunner badrunner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Heavy handed, top-down government initiative are what those extremely strict zones are. And not for a greater good of society, but for the sake of some wealthy control freak that believe he owns the whole neighborhood.
Nope. That's just local government working for the benefit of local residents, obviously. They have the money, they have the political clout, locally. That's how the real world works, buddy.

They like their neighborhoods the way they are. People like you want to overrule local control because you think you know what's best for everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 11:00 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
On this discussion about San Francisco’s love affair with SFH, what if the upzoning started around Downtown and slowly eats from the edges the SFH zones?
That's largely what's happening. A lot of the close-to-downtown single family home areas burned down in 1906 and were replaced with denser construction. But now it's being replaced with denser still in places like South of Market and on the eastern side of the city along the Bay. And those areas are mostly light industrial regions now so only the die-hard NIMBY's object.

In the 1950s they bulldozed large swaths of the Western Addition which was single family homes that survived the fire and much of that is now midrise multifamily too.

But the historic and now upscale close-to-downtown neighborhoods like the Haight, Noe Valley, the Castro, and parts of the Mission Districts are where the fight will be intense and I think the developers will lose in those areas. Then there's the western half of the city which is single family housing of more recent vintage. There are numerous places there where multifamily could be built without being very disruptive and it should be . . . . on commercial streets and in places like the Balboa Reservoir about which I recently posted. There's no need to plop a midrise apartment building down on a street of single family homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 11:33 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Nope. That's just local government working for the benefit of local residents, obviously. They have the money, they have the political clout, locally. That's how the real world works, buddy.

They like their neighborhoods the way they are. People like you want to overrule local control because you think you know what's best for everyone.
Are you stating 100% of dwellers in those neighborhoods support those policies or it’s just a majority/plurality of unoccupied people who have enough free time to meddle with local politics?

I’m pretty sure a good number of owners wouldn’t mind to sell their property for a big development company with deep pockets.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 11:48 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,177
Basically the entire Sunset/Outer Sunset District feels way under-scaled, to me. Most of the buildings are fairly plain, two story structures, and the whole area seems like it could handle quite a bit more density. Even if you primarily focused on the commercial corridors, you could add quite a bit of new housing. In a land constrained city like SF, you can't devote an entire quadrant to neighborhoods that look like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7546...7i16384!8i8192

It's structurally dense and looks impressive from an aerial, but on the ground it's underwhelming and almost suburban. SF should upzone this area and let it evolve into something modern and more substantial than what it is.

I know that area is famously foggy and cold, and not super desirable, but surely new housing there would be absorbed quickly nonetheless. Hell of a lot better to live in the foggy Sunset than out in Valejo or something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 12:00 AM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
On this discussion about San Francisco’s love affair with SFH, what if the upzoning started around Downtown and slowly eats from the edges the SFH zones?

I guess the backlash would be smaller while SF could easily add 50k or even 100k units without any major changes in the landscape while all those new units could relieve a bit the housing costs in the area.

It’s funny how the US is widely regarded as a capitalist jungle in Brazil while it’s housing market is much more strict and regulated than down here in Brazil where construction is tied linked to demand.
My understanding is in San Francisco proper it's not so much about being opposed to building multifamily, but widespread opposition to building anything taller than 40 feet outside of Downtown/NOMA. That really puts the kibosh on adding a significant number of housing units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 12:07 AM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
Are homeowners in Cupertino clamoring to subdivide their lots or build multifamily housing so that their properties would be worth more?
Even if only 10% of homeowners in Cupertino want to, why should the remainder be able to block them from doing so?

I mean - I hate doing this, because I sound like a libertarian - but what gives your neighbor the right to tell you want to do with your property?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
What's funny is how every proposed solution to recalcitrant homeowners exercising local, bottom-up regulatory control involves some type of heavy handed, top-down government initiative to overrule local control for the "greater good" of society at large.
Every solution? Absolutely not. You can go the Japanese model and have nationwide zoning. Or you could go the Houston model and have minimal zoning.

Once again, if zoning existed a century earlier, literally no U.S. cities would have ever been built. Virtually every mixed-use, urban neighborhood in the U.S. is a legacy of the pre-zoning era, because development by consensus (which is effectively what is required in the U.S.) is an unworkable process.

In my own city, I have seen multi-million dollar projects which have been defeated - which had widespread community support, and passed all zoning variance hearings - because a single rich person with deep pockets took it to court and the judge found the city granted the variances in an improper way. In one case it wasn't even a resident - it was an absentee landlord who lived in NYC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 12:31 AM
badrunner badrunner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Are you stating 100% of dwellers in those neighborhoods support those policies or it’s just a majority/plurality of unoccupied people who have enough free time to meddle with local politics?

I’m pretty sure a good number of owners wouldn’t mind to sell their property for a big development company with deep pockets.
You obviously have no idea what these neighborhoods are like. Homeowners are very involved. They are not "meddling" in local politics. They are the only ones who actually have a vote! The ones meddling are outside housing activists and developers.

It just comes down to this: You simply don't have the votes to change local zoning laws. You don't even have a say in the matter. The people who live there do. Buy them out then you'll have a say (that would be an actual market based solution). So how do you break the grip that NIMBYs have in local government? Without involving some top down intervention at the state or federal level? What's your solution?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 12:43 AM
badrunner badrunner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Even if only 10% of homeowners in Cupertino want to, why should the remainder be able to block them from doing so?

I mean - I hate doing this, because I sound like a libertarian - but what gives your neighbor the right to tell you want to do with your property?
That's beyond libertarian, that's anarcho-capitalist. Why can't I blare music in the middle of the night, or build an observation tower that looms over the backyards of my neighbors? It's my property, right? I mean, if I want to subdivide my quarter acre suburban lot into 20 micro units for low income residents, who's to stop me? I don't care about how it affects my neighbors' property values or quality of life, because I won't be living there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Once again, if zoning existed a century earlier, literally no U.S. cities would have ever been built. Virtually every mixed-use, urban neighborhood in the U.S. is a legacy of the pre-zoning era, because development by consensus (which is effectively what is required in the U.S.) is an unworkable process.
Huh? There are mixed-use projects and neighborhoods being built today in US cities, even in California, in places that are zoned for them...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 1:00 AM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
That's beyond libertarian, that's anarcho-capitalist. Why can't I blare music in the middle of the night, or build an observation tower that looms over the backyards of my neighbors? It's my property, right? I mean, if I want to subdivide my quarter acre suburban lot into 20 micro units for low income residents, who's to stop me? I don't care about how it affects my neighbors' property values or quality of life, because I won't be living there!
1) That's not anarcho-capitalist. This was literally how the country worked 100 years ago, lol. The right to private property meant that you could do what you wanted with it.

2) Playing loud music is not regulated by zoning laws. If there is an ordinance against loud music, you have to follow it whether or not you are a property owner.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 1:13 AM
badrunner badrunner is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
1) That's not anarcho-capitalist. This was literally how the country worked 100 years ago, lol. The right to private property meant that you could do what you wanted with it.
Those property owners ARE doing exactly what they want with it.

Again, where is the evidence that all these California homeowners in places like Cupertino want to turn their neighborhoods into multifamily housing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:33 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.