|
FMguru posted:That's the problem all over the Bay Area - new apartment construction has been at the high/luxury end (fewer studios and 1BRs, more condos and townhouses). The SF skyline is full of construction cranes building giant apartment towers...that they'll sell you for seven figures. Things like the Blu tower right near the Bay Bridge onramp - 21 floor tall skyscraper, with six condos on each floor. Not exactly easing the demand for housing in the area. Luxury apartments are worth a shitload more $/sqft so as long as people think they'll sell there's no reason to build any other kind of housing.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:It sounds like the Bay Area is trying to be Manhattan without the public transportation infrastructure and affordable surrounding suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:2k$ for what? There is huge variation in price between older and new buildings. 70s-era class B (probably) 1BR apartments which, incidentally, had rents go up 10% this year. So that part is true. But that's what I'm saying. $2100 was the typical price I was looking at and that map says $2400 which strikes me as probably closer to the price for the newer units on the market than the median.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Why, it's almost as if the San Francisco Peninsula has severely limited space, all of which is built up! Seriously, New York City proper has been building upward for the last century and a half. The San Francisco Peninsula from, say, San Mateo southward got congested only in the last 10-20 years. As a result, the housing stock (and the zoning laws) is mostly 1950s-1960s California ranches rather than Boston three-ups or townhouses or actual apartment buildings. You've got zoning laws that were written to encourage those California ranches, enforced by cranky neighbors who moved into towns full of California ranches and want them transformed into McMansions, not apartments. And of course people can live down South or across the Bay where there's more room, but at that point you have to have a transit system that connects sprawling single-use suburbs to sprawling office parks, which is waaaay less sustainable than one that connects dense housing to dense urban development. good thing clever californians prevented the BART expansion back in the day to south bay and marin county.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
The Bay Area really needs a regional transit authority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:The Bay Area really needs a regional transit authority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Would it be possible to institute that via a state-level proposition? That's probably the only way you COULD do it. Then watch as the Central Valley votes no because "not my state tax dollars!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Would it be possible to institute that via a state-level proposition? I'm sure the Sacramento solution for Bay Area Transit will work well. as long as you like binder clips!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
FMguru posted:That's the problem all over the Bay Area - new apartment construction has been at the high/luxury end (fewer studios and 1BRs, more condos and townhouses). The SF skyline is full of construction cranes building giant apartment towers...that they'll sell you for seven figures. Things like the Blu tower right near the Bay Bridge onramp - 21 floor tall skyscraper, with six condos on each floor. Not exactly easing the demand for housing in the area. No one ever builds cheap housing. New housing is always expensive. The problem with the Bay Area is that NIMBYs have been blocking everything for so long that there is no intermediate housing stock. It's all either dilapidated or "luxury".
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:No one ever builds cheap housing. New housing is always expensive. The problem with the Bay Area is that NIMBYs have been blocking everything for so long that there is no intermediate housing stock. It's all either dilapidated or "luxury". Everyone wants to live in the city but nobody wants any taller buildings than were there when they came and if they do get approved it's so expensive that we might as well build luxury to maximize profits. Pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Who opposes new buildings? Is this another case of "gently caress you, got mine"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
I would probably oppose new buildings if I was living in SF. Clutter/overpopulation blows. If that means population centers become more spread out then awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:Who opposes new buildings? Is this another case of "gently caress you, got mine"? Often yes. That's what happens in LA all the time, but they're pretty much doing the same there as in SF, which is just building luxury appts/condos because the property is so insanely expensive. There's still fights against luxury high-rises because it ruins the view of luxury houses in the hills. Rich people problems. Of course the rich people also fight against infrastructure improvements to public transit but that's a whole different issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:I would probably oppose new buildings if I was living in SF. Clutter/overpopulation blows. If that means population centers become more spread out then awesome. Enjoy your life in Houston.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Enjoy your life in Houston. Ironically Houston's problem is that you can't stop anyone from building anything and there are no geographical restrictions keeping the metro area from enveloping all of south Texas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:I would probably oppose new buildings if I was living in SF. Clutter/overpopulation blows. If that means population centers become more spread out then awesome. places like the Peninsula also have lots of busy bodies who get outraged over trying to change the neighborhood with high density, mixed use properties or even mass transit project. I remember reading a angry letter to the editor about how the Caltrain upgrade project would damage Burlingame's special historic eucalyptus trees, even though said trees are actually a invasive species imported from Australia. etalian fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:I would probably oppose new buildings if I was living in SF. Clutter/overpopulation blows. If that means population centers become more spread out then awesome. There were several propositions in sf that had arguments against that said "don't vote for this we have too many people  " I voted for that poo poo as hard as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
etalian posted:places like the Peninsula also have lots of busy bodies who get outraged over trying to change the neighborhood with high density, mixed used properties or even mass transit project. Places like the peninsula are basically going to be incredibly attractive due to location (relatively great access to both the south bay employers, peninsula employers, and SF), so nobody wants to change anything that might make their house prices not go up. In fact that's basically it for everywhere. It's a nice side effect of housing being a major source of retirement funds (in theory) - even a 10% reduction in price can be a stupid amount of money, like say if your house is suddenly shifted in to a poorer school boundary or affordable housing is built in your previously top 10% school. Of course it's really short term thinking, at least to anyone with kids, or who doesn't plan on retiring back to some other country or some other state. I have a feeling I'm not describing a majority of the folks in the Bay Area. Eucalyptus trees were also a major issue for the Oakland hills fire, too. They ought to charge more for fire insurance/fighting in that area if they want to keep those things. Especially if we don't get oodles of rain this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Eucalyptus trees were also a major issue for the Oakland hills fire, too. They ought to charge more for fire insurance/fighting in that area if they want to keep those things. Especially if we don't get oodles of rain this year. They actually cut a bunch of them down a couple years ago specifically for that reason. Of course all the local hippies threw a fit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Ironically Houston's problem is that you can't stop anyone from building anything and there are no geographical restrictions keeping the metro area from enveloping all of south Texas. That would have been my point, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Just saw this incredibly depressing graphic: The thing that often doesn't get mentioned in lists like this, is that it lists prices for market rate units only, and ignores rent controlled units (and I'm pretty sure it's prices for 2 bedroom units as well). San Francisco for example has around 350,000 housing units, of which 170,000-200,000 have rent control...so half or more of SF's population is actually not paying ultra insane rents like you see on those kinds of rent rankings (and how many market-rate units are even on the market in SF right now? Several thousand at most? Not much). And that's why SF is not in fact 100% populated by rich people, despite how it might appear when seeing numbers like that. Rent is still high for most people of course, but not quite that ridiculous. For example, I'm in a studio apartment in the Sunset district, right across from the beach. It has a yard, mini kitchen and a bathroom, so it's not like its bare-bones, and it's "only" $900 a month...which is quite cheap compared to current market rate prices for a studio in SF, even those in the middle of the ghetto. Rah! fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Speaking of which I was at the University Town Center in Irvine yesterday looking for a place to live next year. I balked when they said every room was at least 2k/month, even the studios.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Rah! posted:The thing that often doesn't get mentioned in lists like this, is that it lists prices for market rate units only, and ignores rent controlled units (and I'm pretty sure it's prices for 2 bedroom units as well). San Francisco for example has around 350,000 housing units, of which 170,000-200,000 have rent control...so half or more of SF's population is actually not paying ultra insane rents like you see on those kinds of rent rankings (and how many market-rate units are even on the market in SF right now? Several thousand at most? Not much). And that's why SF is not in fact 100% populated by rich people, despite how it might appear when seeing numbers like that. Rent is still high for most people of course, but not quite that ridiculous. For example, I'm in a studio apartment in the Sunset district, right across from the beach. It has a yard, mini kitchen and a bathroom, so it's not like its bare-bones, and it's "only" $900 a month...which is quite cheap compared to current market rate prices for a studio in SF, even those in the middle of the ghetto. A lot of the cities on that list do not have rent control. In any event, rent control prevents you from loving current tenants and the point of the charts is to show the cost to move, not the cost to stay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:They actually cut a bunch of them down a couple years ago specifically for that reason. Of course all the local hippies threw a fit. Really? They're invasive with strong allelopathic effect that crowds out pretty much any native plants. Surely the local hippies would be happy for the chance to plant some fire resistant Californian oak species? GhostofJohnMuir fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
People are so loving stupid about eucalyptus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Speaking of which I was at the University Town Center in Irvine yesterday looking for a place to live next year. I balked when they said every room was at least 2k/month, even the studios. Housing anywhere near UCI is insanely priced. You might have to commute in from Santa Ana or Costa Mesa every day. My cousin used to live off Newport Beach in the off season for less than $600 for a room but I don't know how he got that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
It's probably worse for me since I don't have a car, so I'm basically stuck to the ACC apartment complexes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:A lot of the cities on that list do not have rent control. In any event, rent control prevents you from loving current tenants I wasn't implying that every city has rent control, I know it's relatively rare. But I take issue with the fact that lists like that one constantly get published with the title "median rent", but without making it clear what's actually getting measured, and without taking something like rent control into account (which is a huge oversight in a city like SF, where half the population does not pay market rate prices). And then people get the wrong idea after seeing said lists, and say dumb things like "wow, poor people can't afford to live in San Francisco!"  Boot and Rally posted:the point of the charts is to show the cost to move, not the cost to stay. That makes more sense. But all I saw was a screenshot of a list titled "median rent", with no other info included.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Really? They're invasive with strong allelopathic effect that crowds out pretty much any native plants. Surely the local hippies would be happy for the chance to plant some fire resistant Californian oak species? Nope. Trees good. Cutting down trees bad. Case closed. Also there was some use of  herbicide to keep them from growing back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:Nope. Trees good. Cutting down trees bad. Case closed. Do you know which agency was responsible for the removal, or have a link to an article about it or something? I'd be interested in reading about their approach to public outreach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Rah! posted:I wasn't implying that every city has rent control, I know it's relatively rare. But I take issue with the fact that lists like that one constantly get published with the title "median rent", but without making it clear what's actually getting measured, and without taking something like rent control into account (which is a huge oversight in a city like SF, where half the population does not pay market rate prices). And then people get the wrong idea after seeing said lists, and say dumb things like "wow, poor people can't afford to live in San Francisco!" The thing about poor people is that they don't remain frozen in time. They fall in love, have children, break up, grow up, and lose their jobs just like everyone else. With the San Francisco rental market, the only choices they have after major life events are to 1) deal with it or 2) move out of San Francisco. It's not really social mobility if their current, rent controlled place is their only option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Building additional housing capacity helps everyone even if all the additional housing capacity is luxury, unless all the additional housing capacity is filled by people moving into the region from outside it. As long as anyone within the region is moving into that new housing, they are leaving behind whatever they were living in before, and someone moves into that, etc. etc. Vacancies act to lower prices. Moreover, even if all of the luxury housing is filled in by immigrating people, it's still helping everyone unless those immigrating people would not have moved in were it not for the new luxury housing. Because if they're coming anyway, then they're adding to demand which will drive up prices regardless. Naturally, it's better if new capacity is added at every level, and deliberately offering below-market housing to people of limited means helps you avoid having to spend quite so much on transportation infrastructure to support all your lower-wage workers having to commute in from far away, while also improving their quality of life, so yeah it's good. But many folks in SF and the bay area seem to miss the fact that what is really killing us on housing costs right now is not techies or dot coms or luxury housing or gentrification etc. etc. but just the very simple and straightforward laws of supply and demand: the Bay Area's population is growing and we have failed for decades to add supply to keep up with the increasing demand. Without across-the-board governmental price fixing on all units, which I don't think we're quite ready for politically, prices must rise in the face of capacity squeeze. We need those high-rises and if them being luxury high-rises is the only way to attract developers to navigate our ridiculously terrible zoning and permitting situation, then so be it. It's a hell of a lot better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Building additional housing capacity helps everyone even if all the additional housing capacity is luxury, unless all the additional housing capacity is filled by people moving into the region from outside it. Well, seeing how 30%+ of luxury condos are second homes, the impact of new luxury building will be highly mitigated. quote:Now, 48Hills has done the property-records legwork and has the data to show for it: On average, 39 percent of condos built since 2000 have absentee owners, and for newer buildings like One Rincon Hill, that number is 50 percent or above.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Do you know which agency was responsible for the removal, or have a link to an article about it or something? I'd be interested in reading about their approach to public outreach. It was a FEMA grant jointly to EBRPD, UC Berkeley, and the City of Oakland. I don't have a good, comprehensive article handy at the moment but I can try to dig around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:It was a FEMA grant jointly to EBRPD, UC Berkeley, and the City of Oakland. I don't have a good, comprehensive article handy at the moment but I can try to dig around. This lead me to these exciting links: http://sutroforest.com/eucalyptus-myths/ http://milliontrees.me https://oaklandnorth.net/2011/10/31/after-1991-fire-oaklanders-debate-growth-of-eucalyptus/ quote:The Hills Conservation Network is a small group of concerned Oakland Hills residents who do not want to see the Eucalyptus cut down. Director Dan Grassetti says the parks service should better manage the undergrowth beneath Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, and acacia trees to prevent fires from spreading up the trees, but should not remove the trees. The GG emission lawsuit is a joke because of the VOCs that Eucalyptus produce while alive. Also some people wanted them to use a thinning-out process rather than a clear-cutting one so that views wouldn't be effected, which I actually do feel has some ground.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
When my wife went to Berkley there were some tree sitters but it was for oak trees, not eucalyptus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_oak_grove_controversy
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, seeing how 30%+ of luxury condos are second homes, the impact of new luxury building will be highly mitigated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Building additional housing capacity helps everyone even if all the additional housing capacity is luxury, unless all the additional housing capacity is filled by people moving into the region from outside it. Though this is ignoring the unique costs associated with the California market (ie, rent control and Prop 13 makes it so that vacated properties might be more expensive than the ones they move into).
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Have any cities ever tried extra-high property taxes that only apply to people's second homes? It seems like such a proposition would be a slam dunk at the ballot box. San Francisco had a measure this year that was basically this and it got annihilated. quote:Proposition G would impose an additional tax on the total sale price of certain multi-unit residential properties that are sold within five years of purchase or transfer. The following table shows the tax rates that would apply: Just look at all of those exceptions. It basically carved out the tax to only apply to flippers. And yet it lost 55%-45% (granted, that was out of only 170k votes cast so only a difference of about 15k votes).
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
Shouted my voice hoarse when I went to a protest against the proposed tuition hikes in the UC system today. We marched across campus and occupied the administration building. It felt good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 23:25
|
|
