California’s New Housing Laws: Here’s What to Know

[ocman]

Here’s a neighborhood in Burlingame with a mixture of houses, duplexes but mostly apartment buildings. The feel of the place is like any other upper middle class suburb in bay area California. There are certain height limits that still perserve the “feel” of a typical homely suburban neighborhood even though it is really dense living.

https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1...MoQpx96BAhcEAg

[Crawford]

Right, but Burlingame is old, and rich, and kinda old school WASPy. That part of the Peninsula feels like a bizzaroland East Coast suburban area.

So somewhere like Cupertino probably won't end up looking like Burlingame. And Burlingame probably won't change much from how it currently looks.

[10023]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think it would necessarily decrease the price per square foot. I would actually expect the price per square foot to increase, but the average price per unit to decrease.

If it’s about turning SFH into multi-family, it would create more units not larger units, so price per unit and price per square foot would move in the same direction (down). There would just be a greater number of units and more aggregate value.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by 10023

If it’s about turning SFH into multi-family, it would create more units not larger units, so price per unit and price per square foot would move in the same direction (down). There would just be a greater number of units and more aggregate value.

He might have been talking about price per square foot of land, not living space.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

If it’s about turning SFH into multi-family, it would create more units not larger units, so price per unit and price per square foot would move in the same direction (down). There would just be a greater number of units and more aggregate value.

If you have a $1 million dollar house and you split it into two and sell each unit for $500k, the average price per unit has been cut in half, but the price per square foot is the same.

[10023]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If you have a $1 million dollar house and you split it into two and sell each unit for $500k, the average price per unit has been cut in half, but the price per square foot is the same.

I don’t think that’s what this law allows.

I think what it does allow, for example, is for the owner of an 1,800 square foot house on a quarter acre lot to build an additional 950 accessory unit at the back of the lot. So on the same land you now have two units with 2,750 square feet of living space, instead of one unit and 1,800 square feet. The price per square foot would probably decline (the original house has lost much of its backyard), but the square footage has increased by 50% and so this can still create value.

Same thing if a single-story house adds a floor and makes this a separate unit. But I’m pretty sure adding square footage of living space is part of the idea, not merely subdividing the existing structure.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I grew to love the Japanese aesthetics as well. They're very good on it.

You fetishize it but you have never been to Japan (or Cupertino for that matter). You just have opinions. Tokyo is one of my favorite cities in the world, and I often compare it favorably to my own city, but the housing stock there is a weak point. Everyone knows this. It's mostly generic postmodern boxes, not traditional architecture. Many houses are built to be disposable - to last one human lifetime. It's not something that California homeowners are looking to for inspiration. Sorry to inform you of this. In fact, any halfway decent suburb in California has much higher quality housing stock than 90% of Tokyo. And now you know.

[mhays]

Its advantage is its urban form, not the construction quality or aesthetics.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by mhays

Its advantage is its urban form, not the construction quality or aesthetics.

Honestly, aesthetics are overrated when it comes to urbanism. When you go to the really old sections of a lot of Mediterranean cities, most of the buildings are pretty plain outside of the area around the town square. This makes sense, because the buildings are jammed so close together there is literally no way to see the facades from the streets. The view that people engage with is the "streets" - the pedestrian walkways that you travel down.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don’t think that’s what this law allows.

I think what it does allow, for example, is for the owner of an 1,800 square foot house on a quarter acre lot to build an additional 950 accessory unit at the back of the lot. So on the same land you now have two units with 2,750 square feet of living space, instead of one unit and 1,800 square feet. The price per square foot would probably decline (the original house has lost much of its backyard), but the square footage has increased by 50% and so this can still create value.

Same thing if a single-story house adds a floor and makes this a separate unit. But I’m pretty sure adding square footage of living space is part of the idea, not merely subdividing the existing structure.

I think the law only disallows zoning a lot for single-family units. I don't see why it's likely that the price per square foot would decrease. If the demand for space continues to be strong, it will increase. The law appears to be intended to address the price per unit, which is what the true problem is in California.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don’t think that’s what this law allows.

I think what it does allow, for example, is for the owner of an 1,800 square foot house on a quarter acre lot to build an additional 950 accessory unit at the back of the lot. So on the same land you now have two units with 2,750 square feet of living space, instead of one unit and 1,800 square feet. The price per square foot would probably decline (the original house has lost much of its backyard), but the square footage has increased by 50% and so this can still create value.

Same thing if a single-story house adds a floor and makes this a separate unit. But I’m pretty sure adding square footage of living space is part of the idea, not merely subdividing the existing structure.

The law will allow up to four structures on the subdivided lot but you're more likely to see duplexes, add-ons, converted garages and the like, all still subject to local codes and regulations.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don’t think that’s what this law allows.

I think what it does allow, for example, is for the owner of an 1,800 square foot house on a quarter acre lot to build an additional 950 accessory unit at the back of the lot. So on the same land you now have two units with 2,750 square feet of living space, instead of one unit and 1,800 square feet. The price per square foot would probably decline (the original house has lost much of its backyard), but the square footage has increased by 50% and so this can still create value.

Same thing if a single-story house adds a floor and makes this a separate unit. But I’m pretty sure adding square footage of living space is part of the idea, not merely subdividing the existing structure.

What your describing is the ADU law that went into effect a few years back (and has been a great success in the LA area. What this new law does is allow SFR lots to be divided into 2 separate lots which can each have 2 dwellings on them. There are some restrictions such as not being forced into historic neighborhoods (HPOZ zones) as well as minimum lot requirements

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by mhays

Its advantage is its urban form, not the construction quality or aesthetics.

Which is why this response by yuri was ignorant nonsense:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

It will become Latin America, Southern Europe, Japan.

California will not become any of those things because this law does not fundamentally alter the urban form. Even if every lot in a neighborhood is subdivided, you're still not going to get wall to wall SFHs in 1000sqft lots. But more importantly, that's NOT what California homeowners want.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The law will allow up to four structures on the subdivided lot but you're more likely to see duplexes, add-ons, converted garages and the like, all still subject to local codes and regulations.

...and I assume HOA by-laws too.

Here's a planned new development in the hinterlands of Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley; I can't imagine this development even allowing converted garages. I actually wish this wasn't being built: https://deerlakeranchliving.com/

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

...and I assume HOA by-laws too.

Here's a planned new development in the hinterlands of Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley; I can't imagine this development even allowing converted garages. I actually wish this wasn't being built: https://deerlakeranchliving.com/

Maybe we will see a proliferation of HOAs as an unintended consequence of this law...

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Maybe we will see a proliferation of HOAs as an unintended consequence of this law...

Oh man I hope not. Then you end up with something like Irvine.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/20/u...sing-laws.html

Has California found the answer? Or is this a bandaid?

Its a Band-Aid but it will help. Its not attacking the the true causes and just aiding the symptoms.

Its not like California is confined by land issues, there is no reason why homes in the Central Valley are going for 500k+ on average.

California needs to address its property taxes (the lock in mechanism is severely flawed) as well as other zoning and tax issues. This will help in LA and they Bay area for sure and remote work becoming more common should help as well.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd take a Japanese suburb 1000 times over a US one, or I would if I spoke Japanese. Lifestyle and covenience would trump trees.

I think a lot of people on this forum need to realize that the vast majority of people disagree with their preferences.

Most people want more space not less. this is quite obvious as people get wealthier they nearly universally get larger and larger and more private homes and estates.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by edale

It's definitely going to be interesting to watch how California's suburbs evolve with these new housing laws. From a Midwest or East Coast perspective, most of LA and SF's suburbia is already quite dense. Even upper middle class subdivisions have homes crammed in there at densities I find totally odd for suburbs. To think of these neighborhoods now getting even more subdivided and packed in...Idk, I just don't know who would want to live in places like that. Personally, I don't see the point of living in the burbs if you don't even have a little space and privacy. That type of living situation is the worst of both the urban and suburban worlds. Beyond growing the housing stock, maybe these new housing laws will also bring housing prices down by simply making many suburban areas less appealing.

Welcome to LA and San Jose and soon enough all western cities.

Not dense enough to be walkable, a car is still a necessity, but people crammed in at moderate-high density resulting in total vehicular gridlock.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Maybe we will see a proliferation of HOAs as an unintended consequence of this law...

Not to be a Debbie Downer since HOA's aren't the greatest thing for urbanism, but places that have no city government sorta need them. As far as the new law goes, no way somebody else is gonna live on my lot...that is mine!