-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NYTimes: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
- Thread starter Tripon
- Start date
- Status
I wouldn't say it is just supply that is a cause of the issue of Bay Area housing, but lack of supply of affordable housing. There are luxury apartments available for those who can afford to pay top dollar, while those making relatively average wages can't keep up.
I'm actually wondering why the development laws have not been repealed or at least modified? It seems to be a growing problem but its being held back due to laws made decades ago.
I'm actually wondering why the development laws have not been repealed or at least modified? It seems to be a growing problem but its being held back due to laws made decades ago.
San Francisco proper is tiny. There's basically nowhere to build without knocking down neighborhoods and a significant portion of those neighborhoods are built on sand and landfill that doesn't support high rise physics.
And that's ignoring subjectives like architectural character, which San Francisco has a very legitimate claim to and is unlike any other us city.
And that's ignoring subjectives like architectural character, which San Francisco has a very legitimate claim to and is unlike any other us city.
You get affordable housing by increasing supply. The problem is that the upper classes don't want that supply to exist.
NIMBYism is a huge problem in Urban development. The cities that escape this issue normally due so because their zoning/development restrictions are codified at the state level, not local, and thus can't be warped.
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/28/6063679/the-biggest-thing-the-blue-states-are-screwing-up
The current movements to increase affordable housing at least in SF is about protecting existing housing, not create new one.
SF and its surrounding areas need to build much of everything, because the current situation is pricing almost but the very wealthy out.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They don't need to be high rises. There's a lot of stupid zoning restrictions that artificially keep stock low. Like set back rules and floor height restrictions.
Sectorseven
Member
Maybe this is crazy, but would it make sense to start building man made islands?
teruterubozu
Member
Much of San Francisco is already built on man-made landfill.
Making up for the decades of neglect, yes.
It's not just SF BTW, we are facing the same situation here in L.A. I just want a 1 bed room apartment and I'm looking at 1,200-1,300 a month for it. That's almost half of my salary.
Escape Goat
Member
How many sq ft?
Sectorseven
Member
Huh, couldn't they do more of that? Some islands built for condensed living with easy public transport out.
What's the price for a townhouse/condo out there to split 2/3 ways? (Just out of curiosity.)
I think it's a generational thing. The upscale urbanites who remained in cities through the era of white flight now want to defend the "character" of their neighborhoods against what they see as corporate developer greed, but in time these people will die out and will be replaced by yuppies who just want a place to live. The new progressive activism against wealth inequality might help accelerate that, though.
The fact that a lot of these old houses are, frankly, shit should also help. Old houses that haven't had interior remodeling done suck. I'm lucky, i'm in a 100+ year old townhouse, but my landlord did work 5 years ago.
The fact that a lot of these old houses are, frankly, shit should also help. Old houses that haven't had interior remodeling done suck. I'm lucky, i'm in a 100+ year old townhouse, but my landlord did work 5 years ago.
They're mostly not all that stupid and properly designed to help protect quality of life for residents and homeowners. However now they help protect a significant number of millionaires and exclude many formerly tenable professions and classes like teachers, working class families and so on. High rise development ALWAYS benefits developers and here in Seattle "urban densification" is presented as a panacea but in reality just means wealthy Amazon couples can have a two bedroom condo, two cars, in a neighborhood with insufficient transit and parking in buildings with parking exemptions based on a lie about bicycles and light rail. Oh and something something percentage of affordable units(lol).
PS I lived in San Francisco for the better part of a decade and was part of the problem.
Depends on the area. Roughly 2,200 to 3,500. You are still looking to spend roughly a grand just on rent alone. You might be able around $800 or so on rent and utilities if you find a room to rent in a family house.
It also doesn't help that you have multiple gajillion dollar companies in the area basically throwing the housing market out of whack because they pay people from other states with degrees to come sit and manually delete emails out of the spam log for large amounts of money.
Large parts are with landfills. They have a bit of a problem with liquefaction where the ground really isn't very stable on top of this being an earthquake prone area.
Jeez. My area (NOVA) is high but there's plenty being built in the outer areas- you can still find rooms for 5-600 and townhouses/apartments/etc a decent chunk under 2K to split.
Lol. I'd do sexual favors for a 1br apartment for 1,200 to 1,300 in San Jose. You could barely get a studio for that, and you'd probably be rubbing elbows with gang bangers and Crack heads at that price.
Sectorseven
Member
I don't know if they're the same thing, but I'm thinking of something on the scale those islands China has been building. I was under the impression it was new technology.
GameAddict411
Member
It's not crazy considering some countries are already doing that.
Escape Goat
Member
That doesn't seem unreasonable at all, especially not in a city like L.A. Not sure what your expectations are here.
You can get really nice townhouses in Torrance, for example, for about 1500-1700/month. 3 stories 2 bdrm
My expectations is to not drive for two hours to work and back and to pay for a decent place to live. I'm not asking to live in the nicest area, but I'm looking at these prices in the Valley, which was traditionally one of the cheaper areas to live in in the city.
I didn't even check areas like downtown or West Hollywood because I know they start at $1,600 for studios.
teruterubozu
Member
It's been that way forever in L.A. though. The last time I saw a decent place for under $800 was in the 1990s.
Eh, outside of Downtown/Belltown/Pioneer Square densification means 6 story mixed use which I'm pretty OK with and studies seem to indicate is the 'right' way to create density.
Goro Majima
Kitty Genovese Member
This is always a fascinating subject politically because it's often liberals fighting amongst themselves. NIMBYism seeking to preserve culture, character, and history vs. environmentally beneficial sustainable high rise development and more affordable housing for the average joe.
I don't even know how politicians begin to navigate that quagmire.
The problem now is that it'd take years and years of development to alleviate the supply issue.
I don't even know how politicians begin to navigate that quagmire.
The problem now is that it'd take years and years of development to alleviate the supply issue.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I like how San Francisco looks, so I hope it gets left alone. Let the tech culture adapt and expand elsewhere.
titiklabingapat
Member
Part of it too is diet racism. Those opposed to affordable housing usually try to sell it as trying to 'preserve the character of the neighborhood' but it really means they don't want poor people near them and minorities are disproportionately poor.
I think it would do the US some good if rich people had to interact with poor people more often.
Dr Duncan Steel
Member
If we don't have enough land to build property to build on, only one direction to go then -- Up.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Today we will pretend that San Francisco is a city which isn't bounded on 3 sides by bodies of water. The only solution in Hong Kong was to build up, and San Francisco doesn't want to build up. So they're stuck.
The problem is with the suburban sprawl in the surrounding Bay Area. It's the same problem LA has except that LA is a flat desert but the Bay Area is intersected by San Francisco Bay and further bisected by extremely hilly terrain.
The problem is with the suburban sprawl in the surrounding Bay Area. It's the same problem LA has except that LA is a flat desert but the Bay Area is intersected by San Francisco Bay and further bisected by extremely hilly terrain.
milanbaros
Member?
You can have extremely high density with 5 or 6 floors.
I was looking at 400-550 sq ft.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Funny how people from these areas that are all about inclusion and equality don't want more variety of housing and incomes into their area. Hmm.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
yeah I took a trip out to San Francisco for the first time a few weeks ago and was shocked at how small it actually seemed in terms of land area
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
How bout not building in San Francisco? Move to any other city and do it you rich fucks.
I remember while I was in Vancouver BC, a neighborhood got low income apartments cancelled because it'd "threaten the neighborhood"
the apartments cost was 1.2 million each
Did she sell her arms to be able to make a down payment on the lease?
Yoda
Member
I think this problem is in part, due to gentrification. Without new development, the only people being punished are those who are in the bottom 90-95% of income ( or w/e sub 500k is). That's high, most tech workers don't make anything close to that, neither do most doctors, etc... The zoning regulation is basically turning it into mecca for globalist elites (think downtown manhattan), but unlike manhattan, this isn't a "true" supply and demand, supply is artificially constrained and if it weren't, SF would be an order of magnitude more affordable than it is now.
- Status