|
Leperflesh posted:No, it needs to specifically target land for eminent domaining that isn't already occupied by housing for poor people. Because if there is the slightest bit of wiggle room, history shows us that evicting the marginalized, poor, undesirable, or (especially) non-whites in order to "revitalize" is the way things wind up going. To long, didn't watch version: it is cheaper and politically easier to redevelop poor neighborhoods (that were built before parking minimums were a thing), so things like SROs and row houses often get knocked down for redevelopment and in the end we usually end up displacing comunities and replacing them with less total units. CopperHound fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Sep 27, 2019 |
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
CopperHound posted:This is a good time to plug donoteat1 for lessons on how just building more leads to worse outcomes for poor people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:In my local, rich NIMBY area, they recently demolished some cheap, lovely old light industrial and commercial strip-mall type buildings, built in the 1960s and 1970s when nobody cared, near the I-5. In their place, they built about 10,000 units of mid-rise apartments. Along the freeways and major streets in the suburban parts SoCal, there are easily hundreds of these places that noone would miss, and don't displace any homes. The Bay Area in specific, and California in general, seems to be allergic to ground level retail with housing on top. The new construction in Sunnyvale and along North First street in San Jose has like 1 retail space per 1000 living units. It is usually a dentist or something too. It is baffling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:The Bay Area in specific, and California in general, seems to be allergic to ground level retail with housing on top. The new construction in Sunnyvale and along North First street in San Jose has like 1 retail space per 1000 living units. It is usually a dentist or something too. It is baffling. I blame people not traveling to places that have that, and seeing how nice it is to be able to walk to things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
I blame capitalism and the rich.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Or the literal hundreds of acres of brownfields available for development, but aren't of interest to private development because the
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Basically every single-family detached house with a back yard has room for a separate structure of the type we're talking about; and, as detailed in the linked article, this also covers attached conversions such as garages. You're trying to reposition this as "a second house" but we're talking about like 350 square foot cottages and converted garages with mini-kitchens and stuff. And "the very wealthiest" in this case I guess is 55% of California households. (contemplates the 20-degree slope of her back yard)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:The Bay Area in specific, and California in general, seems to be allergic to ground level retail with housing on top. The new construction in Sunnyvale and along North First street in San Jose has like 1 retail space per 1000 living units. It is usually a dentist or something too. It is baffling. it's become illegal in many parts of the us, the blog "granola shotgun" talks about this in depth, for example here
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:The Bay Area in specific, and California in general, seems to be allergic to ground level retail with housing on top.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
When it works it's probably the ideal, most effective use of space, bu retail first story can be tricky to do right (in terms of placing businesses there that will actually do well). When I lived in LA a couple years ago, a lot of those lovely faux-italian apartments in Chinatown/DTLA had a ton of vacant storefronts in their retail spaces the entire time I was living there, which probably represented a non-trivial loss of revenue for the developer, as opposed to an apartment, which would have probably been filled. I get why more of them wouldn't want to take that risk, particularly in the bay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:where politicians aren't actively discussing sending the homeless to concentration camps I hadn't heard about this until I read today's LA Times article about Bakersfield. It's really horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:When it works it's probably the ideal, most effective use of space, bu retail first story can be tricky to do right (in terms of placing businesses there that will actually do well). The guy who builds those is a real peace of poo poo and the reason why Trump visited LA recently for fundraising. It was great a few years ago when one of them burned down during the bulding process and nobody got in trouble and everyone in the city was like "lol".
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Also watching the people in this thread complain about ADU's when most of my poorest friends have done well with them here in LA, and the actual rich people loving hate them and build HOA's to stop them, is really something. Turns out if your family struggled to get a house in Inglewood you're actually a bougie slumlord, got it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or the literal hundreds of acres of brownfields available for development, but aren't of interest to private development because the and also the potential billion dollar cleanup liabilities, not that that stopped those guys in san francisco from just going ahead and slapping houses down on unfinished superfund toxic dirt
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:When I lived in LA a couple years ago, a lot of those lovely faux-italian apartments in Chinatown/DTLA had a ton of vacant storefronts in their retail spaces the entire time I was living there, which probably represented a non-trivial loss of revenue for the developer, as opposed to an apartment, which would have probably been filled. I get why more of them wouldn't want to take that risk, particularly in the bay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Maybe it's the boiling frog method of getting high density housing. Add one ADU, add a second, allow them in the front yard, start building second stories on them, connect them together for more efficient use of A/C and heating. Before you know it, we've finally got enough housing and/or recreated Kowloon walled city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:Maybe it's the boiling frog method of getting high density housing. Add one ADU, add a second, allow them in the front yard, start building second stories on them, connect them together for more efficient use of A/C and heating. Before you know it, we've finally got enough housing and/or recreated Kowloon walled city. You'd have to put like 10 identical houses vertically on top of your property to be a solution to housing density. However it's one of the better solutions people have until we actually get people building arcologies on top of rail stations or at least pass real density laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:it's become illegal in many parts of the us, the blog "granola shotgun" talks about this in depth, for example here All of the examples in that post are about adding renters to additional rooms that don't have kitchens. There is one tiny house example based on being able to setup in your parents backyard. Another one has a guy camping in work's backyard? All of these are preposterous. No solution to housing problems involves continuing to create an underclass of renters to pay the mortgages of previous generations. Start with the most spread out neighborhoods, condemn the properties, eminent domain them and build dense, tall buildings around public transportation. Jaxyon posted:Also watching the people in this thread complain about ADU's when most of my poorest friends have done well with them here in LA, and the actual rich people loving hate them and build HOA's to stop them, is really something. Happy to hear your friends making the best of a bad situation. It is still mustard on a poo poo sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Good job on sneering at people trying to make the best of a bad situation while you propose solutions that are at least a decade away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:The Bay Area in specific, and California in general, seems to be allergic to ground level retail with housing on top. The new construction in Sunnyvale and along North First street in San Jose has like 1 retail space per 1000 living units. It is usually a dentist or something too. It is baffling. I remember that the lady who owns Vallco was planning on knocking it down and replacing it with this sort of thing, and she wanted taxpayer funding to do it... Except she also owns the retail/housing complex on the other side of the road and it is loving empty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:Happy to hear your friends making the best of a bad situation. It is still mustard on a poo poo sandwich. Of course it is. LA needs to build massive amounts of publicly funded housing and attach it to services, and that's *just* to fix the homeless problem, then another ton on top of that to address the folks who are on the edge of homelessness within 2-3 rent increases so rent prices can get down. But going out on a limb to poo poo on the band-aid that puts money in the pockets of oppressed people, thrwarts Nimby's, and doesn't gentrify neighborhoods as "lol cali liberals strike again" is also real stupid. This was all already happening/built, but it was mostly illegal and lots of people were open to getting taken advantage of. The "LOL cali liberals" is all the people on FB, nextdoor, etc, protesting the poo poo out of any homeless housing with "I fully support the plight of the homeless and agree we should be building housing, but my neighborhood isn't the right place and also the city didn't do all it's homework better stop everything".
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
quote:Good job on sneering at people trying to make the best of a bad situation while you propose solutions that are at least a decade away. Good job on market-based solutions like handing more money and power to existing landlords who still benefit from Prop 13, while stroking off to how progressive you are for doing it. If this is CA's idea of an acceptable left-wing housing proposal, then either you're all a bunch of loving cowards or Reaganites confused about what "left" means. quote:You reported it, right? Abso-loving-lutely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Good job on market-based solutions like handing more money and power to existing landlords who still benefit from Prop 13, while stroking off to how progressive you are for doing it. If this is CA's idea of an acceptable left-wing housing proposal, then either you're all a bunch of loving cowards or Reaganites confused about what "left" means. Literally nobody proposed that as the end-all be-all of CA housing policy. Enormous and stupid strawmanning here. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Sep 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Good job on market-based solutions like handing more money and power to existing landlords who still benefit from Prop 13, while stroking off to how progressive you are for doing it. If this is CA's idea of an acceptable left-wing housing proposal, then either you're all a bunch of loving cowards or Reaganites confused about what "left" means. you have to consider how these proposals will effect class dynamics. It's easy to frame landlords as the ultimate enemy of renters, but you can't let private homeowners off the hook for their responsibility in this mess. The single family homeowner is the probably greatest enemy of the renter that has ever existed. Through their domination of local government boards and organizations they have systematically poisoned housing policy and attacked renters at every opportunity. ADUs might not be an adequate solution to the housing shortage, however they create the possibility of changing the class dynamic in local neighborhood politics. They introduce a class of renters into areas that were previously exclusively inhabited by homeowners, and that creates the possibility that they will be able to make their interests heard. Smashing the political power of the single family home owner is probably the greatest and most important political challenge in addressing the housing shortage. These kinds of policies don't solve the problem, but they contribute towards a solution, even if in only a small way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Squalid posted:you have to consider how these proposals will effect class dynamics. It's easy to frame landlords as the ultimate enemy of renters, but you can't let private homeowners off the hook for their responsibility in this mess. The single family homeowner is the probably greatest enemy of the renter that has ever existed. Through their domination of local government boards and organizations they have systematically poisoned housing policy and attacked renters at every opportunity. ADUs might not be an adequate solution to the housing shortage, however they create the possibility of changing the class dynamic in local neighborhood politics. They introduce a class of renters into areas that were previously exclusively inhabited by homeowners, and that creates the possibility that they will be able to make their interests heard. Smashing the political power of the single family home owner is probably the greatest and most important political challenge in addressing the housing shortage. These kinds of policies don't solve the problem, but they contribute towards a solution, even if in only a small way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Good job on market-based solutions like handing more money and power to existing landlords who still benefit from Prop 13, while stroking off to how progressive you are for doing it. If this is CA's idea of an acceptable left-wing housing proposal, then either you're all a bunch of loving cowards or Reaganites confused about what "left" means. I want ADUs only until we finish the 100-story brutalist blocs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Say what you will about landlords, at least there is support for renters having basic legal rights and habitability protection, because landlords in general are professionals and not "regular" homeowners and we feel like it's okay to treat them as businesses. Imagine the petty dictators who refuse to follow basic human decency (along with landlord laws) once every homeowner becomes a landlord on the side. As soon as anyone tells the homeowners that those laws actually do apply to them, can you guess how fast those protections will be gutted, to every renter's detriment? probably not, because most homeowners are never going to build ADUs in the first place? The guy who said this probably won't have much effect is right, but all of the effects it will have will be positive. Anything that helps California build itself out of the hole its dug itself is good.  This is where California is now. Just to get prices sane, you have to somehow find enough units to fill up the light blue bars which represent all the homes that were needed, but never built. Anyone who thinks they can fill that deficit of hundreds of thousands of missing homes just by seizing vacant units is living in a fantasy. California needs to more than double the rate it builds new homes and this obviously contributes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Say what you will about landlords, at least there is support for renters having basic legal rights and habitability protection, because landlords in general are professionals and not "regular" homeowners and we feel like it's okay to treat them as businesses. Imagine the petty dictators who refuse to follow basic human decency (along with landlord laws) once every homeowner becomes a landlord on the side. As soon as anyone tells the homeowners that those laws actually do apply to them, can you guess how fast those protections will be gutted, to every renter's detriment? I am sorry but the idea that our state government is non-responsive to professional landlords but will suddenly start tripping over themselves to listen to a smattering of ADU owners who want to become backyard tyrants is just not a realistic concern.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:But going out on a limb to poo poo on the band-aid that puts money in the pockets of oppressed people, thrwarts Nimby's, and doesn't gentrify neighborhoods as "lol cali liberals strike again" is also real stupid. This was all already happening/built, but it was mostly illegal and lots of people were open to getting taken advantage of. It isn’t going to do any of that. Also, either NIMBYs are all powerful and they wanted this, or they couldn’t stop this. In the latter case, it should have gone further. In the former case it will be people in Palo Alto renting to college students, not helping the people you think it will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
The North Tower posted:I want ADUs only until we finish the 100-story brutalist blocs. I know this is an edgy thing to shitpost these days, but as a landscape architect and a urban planner working to design and build public spaces in urban centers, let me tel you that is a formula for disaster in the USA. We’re trying to remove the blighted, Corbusian dystopias of the world - not make more. You will create more problems than you solve. An adequate solution that could be implemented in the real world actually requires nuance, diplomacy and a collective willingness to do so - all of which are in extremely short supply in America today. The poster above upthread makes a very good critique of the residential homeowner - class politics abounds in the neighborhood planning committees. Want to make a difference? Get involved in whatever group makes decisions in your community, go to their meetings and educate yourself about the nuanced details of local issues. You should also spend some time learning about planning if you want to be taken seriously. The kinds of systemic change necessary to reform cities takes engagement and accountability at so many levels its staggering; you can make a difference, but understand it’s a long game. Assuming we live long enough for it to have made any difference. That’s my TED talk, don’t forget to tip your waitress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Also watching the people in this thread complain about ADU's when most of my poorest friends have done well with them here in LA, and the actual rich people loving hate them and build HOA's to stop them, is really something. Ah i see the ADU defender has logged on
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It was great a few years ago when one of them burned down during the bulding process and nobody got in trouble and everyone in the city was like "lol". If you're talking about the DaVinci apartment building fire in DTLA they caught the guy responsible and sent him to jail for 15 years. It was a vigilante taxi cab driver who burned the place down to protest police brutality of black people. The city also sued the developer for $20m for failing to have any security or enough water on hand. Weird case all around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:for failing to have any security or enough water on hand. (Yea I know enough water to keep it from getting that bad, but that was one serious fire that resulted).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:The Bay Area in specific, and California in general, seems to be allergic to ground level retail with housing on top. The new construction in Sunnyvale and along North First street in San Jose has like 1 retail space per 1000 living units. It is usually a dentist or something too. It is baffling. This interests me because I'm in the mid-Peninsula and I see a lot of housing-over-retail in Redwood City and some in San Carlos. The problem seems to be that they're charging really high prices for the retail rents; the one in San Carlos stood vacant long after the housing was spoken for, and I think it wound up being law offices or something else equally non-retail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Anza Borrego posted:I know this is an edgy thing to shitpost these days, but as a landscape architect and a urban planner working to design and build public spaces in urban centers, let me tel you that is a formula for disaster in the USA. We’re trying to remove the blighted, Corbusian dystopias of the world - not make more. You will create more problems than you solve. Stick to plants, mate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Stick to plants, mate. Yeah, ok buddy will do 🙄
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Anza Borrego posted:I know this is an edgy thing to shitpost these days, but as a landscape architect and a urban planner working to design and build public spaces in urban centers, let me tel you that is a formula for disaster in the USA. We’re trying to remove the blighted, Corbusian dystopias of the world - not make more. You will create more problems than you solve. lmao it’s a very simple solution to a very simple problem. Bulldoze some fuckin’ mansions and build high-density housing. It’s the only solution. bUt It CrEaTeS mOrE pRoBlEmS tHaN iT sOlVeS 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:bUt It CrEaTeS mOrE pRoBlEmS tHaN iT sOlVeS
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
From my stay in California so far, its easy to blame landlords, and lets be honest most of them should be run through the guillotine. But, the main issue I see is that California has the single family home mentality that will be extremely hard to get rid of, and with that comes a bunch of people that will also block new housing as their houses would lose their value. They all want to solve the issue, "just not near my house thank you".
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Did they have like several small lakes available? Because that pyre was like 3/4 as tall as the skyscraper across from it. It scorched freeway signs across the damned 110, and melted the glass on the nearest office building. It may not have made any difference to the outcome, but that shouldn't be an excuse to dodge the fine for violating an OSHA rule for fire safety on the jobsite. They would pay that if they got caught even without any fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 23:20
|
|
