|
The Glumslinger posted:We had a ballot initiative in 2018 to repeal Costa-Hawkins and it lost badly, 38%-62%. It seems highly unlikely that it will get repealed in the new near future From Medium article linked above: quote:The Senator’s office conditioned acceptance of our affordable housing standards on a provision that would enable the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to lower affordable housing requirements only a year after the requirements kick in. We cannot accept this. One year is not sufficient time to assess such impacts. And it is not clear enough which standards would be used to make those decisions even after passage of more time. ~~~~~ Weembles posted:Are affordable housing advocates saying that we need to reform the Ellis Act and repeal Costa Hawkins, or are they saying that we cannot do anything at all until we do so? Affordable housing advocates think that without at least some movement on that, or stronger general provisions in the bill to prevent gentrification, most development is going to go to wealthy people who weren't housing vulnerable, while at best not doing anything to ameliorate the displacement of the people currently getting screwed. It's better than the 2019 version, but still likely to have the same problems. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jan 30, 2020 |
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:The lawyers can afford to gum up any redevelopment, it’s the poor people who get evicted from projects enabled by laws like SB50 so another featureless, modern, “luxury” building can sit half empty for years on end. Unless I'm mistaken, SB50 doesn't allow for tear downs of rental property in order to put up a new building on the same lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:"Should we kill single family zoning?" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But as long as the discussion is developer-centric  " that gets built into most arguments without actually saying it.This is at least pretty transparent when you shave it down: nrook posted:streamlined approval process Unleashing microapartments was tried in Seattle. The rent floor didnt go down, it was just applied to the prison-cell apartments and everything else went up. If you allow "developers" to have their way everyone will be living in stacked crates hong kong style because thats the "best return on investment per commodifies square foot for our backers". Of course the turf game will be framed as "families living in houses is a crime against progress!" More regulations should be applied to new construction. Make everything long-term livable and modern. This includes parking, sound proofing, and a minimum square footage per unit. There is no reason to give the game away so a Wall Street (or foreign) investor can have a better income. New 20 story building? Sure. Every unit between 400 and 1000 sq ft, one parking spot built per unit, insulated, sound proofed(ish), etc. If these things were planned for family living long term there would not be such a driven need to standalone houses. No one wants to live long term in a 200 ft rectangle where you hear your 7 neighbors kids, dogs, fights etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:More regulations should be applied to new construction. Make everything long-term livable and modern. This includes parking, sound proofing, and a minimum square footage per unit. There is no reason to give the game away so a Wall Street (or foreign) investor can have a better income. New 20 story building? Sure. Every unit between 400 and 1000 sq ft, one parking spot built per unit, insulated, sound proofed(ish), etc. Did you miss the part where nonprofit developers can’t get the break-even price floor below like 500k per unit for a relatively modest apartment in SF and LA metros? This is the “no bread? Then let them eat cake” of housing takes
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
Edit: Oh, nevermind. There's no point in making this thread shittier than it already is. Weembles fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 04:22
|
|
|
gonger posted:Did you miss the part where nonprofit developers can’t get the break-even price floor below like 500k per unit for a relatively modest apartment in SF and LA metros? This is the “no bread? Then let them eat cake” of housing takes I mean I guess giving up and giving in is good too. Uproot everyone and build! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
p sure no one, including the state congressmen advocating for sb50, is pushing for microapartments
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:"Should we kill single family zoning?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:More regulations should be applied to new construction. Make everything long-term livable and modern. This includes parking, sound proofing, and a minimum square footage per unit. There is no reason to give the game away so a Wall Street (or foreign) investor can have a better income. New 20 story building? Sure. Every unit between 400 and 1000 sq ft, one parking spot built per unit, insulated, sound proofed(ish), etc. If these things were planned for family living long term there would not be such a driven need to standalone houses. No one wants to live long term in a 200 ft rectangle where you hear your 7 neighbors kids, dogs, fights etc. Now this is a NIMBY. See the difference between this and the anti-SB50 posts from Jaxyon earlier? There's parking minimums; there's the pathological fear that any new apartment building will somehow turn LA into Hong Kong (usually you just hear people suggest it'll turn LA into Manhattan, so this is a bit next-level); there's the visceral fear of urban environments. If I saw the phrase "the character of the neighborhood" I'd score myself a bingo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
Imagine if we lived in a world without NIMBYS and San Francisco looked like the Brooklyn. That'd be great. That's how dense the city needs to be (ignoring everything around it) if the city were to actually build enough to meet demand and return prices to something resembling national medians, btw that's how ridiculous claims like "there's no shortage, we can just take vacant units to provide housing for everyone!" are. LA isn't going to find 1.5 million housing units under the couch cushions. If a city like San Fran were to take the steps necessary to remediate the shortage it would necessarily look very different, but would be much better for everyone. Squalid fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Meanwhile, San Luis Obispo effortlessly slides in under the 50,000 population limit SLO city and county are like the NIMBY capital of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
nrook posted:Now this is a NIMBY. See the difference between this and the anti-SB50 posts from Jaxyon earlier? There's parking minimums; there's the pathological fear that any new apartment building will somehow turn LA into Hong Kong (usually you just hear people suggest it'll turn LA into Manhattan, so this is a bit next-level); there's the visceral fear of urban environments. If I saw the phrase "the character of the neighborhood" I'd score myself a bingo. Yeah that's the poster others were referring to with "one or two actual NIMBYs in the thread"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I mean I guess giving up and giving in is good too. Uproot everyone and build! You could’ve at least picked a city with SB50-scale height limits.  It doesn’t have to be full concrete jungle to allow meaningfully more people to live in a place. Barcelona has similar land area to SF. Meanwhile the western half of SF is mostly detached suburban single family residences in a city that supposedly gives a poo poo about displacement. 
gonger fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I mean I guess giving up and giving in is good too. Uproot everyone and build! is the conclusion we're supposed to draw from this that these sorts of living conditions don't already exist in california but instead represent some grim future where single-family dwellings are outlawed? because you are hilariously misguided if so. maybe less skyscrapers but adding multi-hour commutes on clogged highways because our density is so low. look at this hellscape; is that a shadow from a building i see falling across a street? what savages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
What with sea level rise should we be building apartments in SF?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 06:49
|
|
|
MarcusSA posted:SLO city and county are like the NIMBY capital of the world. Somehow read that as 500,000 people in SLO, I'm an idiot who really needs to think before posting The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 07:01
|
|
|
HelloSailorSign posted:What with sea level rise should we be building apartments in SF? san francisco itself is pretty well elevated and can handle surprising amount of sea level rise without ending up underwater. the rest of the bay, however, gets hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 07:07
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I mean I guess giving up and giving in is good too. Uproot everyone and build! It's pretty disingenuous to imply that any increase in density at all would be instantly cage apartments for everyone. It's entirely possible to have more density than we have now, especially in outlying areas, and still have reasonable places to live. This is a random residential street an 8-minute walk from Pittsburgh/Bay Point BART. I think we can all agree that's low-density:  It's in walking distance of a Safeway and a few fast food places, but only because it's right next to BART, which has a small commercial area adjacent. Go a tad bit further out and you're looking at walking a half hour for the same, because the streets meander and have nothing but single-family homes. There's not really any reason to put another grocery near them because there just aren't that many people who'd use it. You can get to downtown SF (Embarcadero station) in about 50 minutes after you board the train. Here's an apartment block at the edge of Moscow proper, about 15 minutes' walk from Khovrino Metro in the northwest. From Khovrino Metro you can get to the center of Moscow in 25 minutes, but realistically you won't go there because you don't work in the Kremlin. If you go instead to, say, Moscow State University, in the southwest of the city, your trip would be about 50 minutes. Ignoring that you'd be stupid for not just living somewhere closest to MSU, we'll call this roughly equivalent to living in Pittsburgh:  This is a SCARY TALL BUILDING. Ignoring that streets in the area have a lot of green space and are generally designed more for pedestrians than cars, let's focus on the building alone and conclude that, because the building is a high-density residential structure, that the interior is nothing but cage apartments. This isn't true though: apartments in the area are fine. A larger, fairly nice apartment looks like https://www.cian.ru/rent/flat/225164737/ Let's say you can't afford that place. 80k RUB/mo is approaching the average salary in Moscow, so it's well out of reach for many if we assume you pay 1/3rd your salary in rent and live alone. The same is very much true of those houses in Pittsburgh, but whatever. Let's assume you get a more reasonable 30k/mo place a few metro stops away, which presumably means a cage apartment: https://www.cian.ru/rent/flat/225064012/ Well, no, that's still fairly reasonable. Not palatial by any means, but entirely livable. Ignoring the odd decor and strange plumbing fixtures (that's Russian apartments for you), it's about on par with studios I've lived in. Let's say this is still too expensive, and too cramped to boot. You'll probably want to look at a traditionally more working-class area, since apartments <20k/mo in the northwest are few and far between and generally tiny. You'll accept having to take a 20-minute bus to the metro, but will still be able to walk to a variety of shops and have an hour commute to MSU: https://balashikha.cian.ru/rent/flat/224924521/ None of these are cage apartments. They're not amazing places, but they're in a country that generally has a lower standard of living than the US, a large amount of terribly-built housing stock (the Soviets were cheap), and has even more income inequality than we do. Having lived in in both the bay area and Moscow though, the latter felt much more like it was designed to be a livable place for a large amount of people concentrated in a small reason. I feel that a large part of that is that Moscow tends to have high-density residential structures throughout that are well-served by basic commercial infrastructure and extensive transit. That sort of urban landscape is incompatible with the detached home in car country we have in much of the region.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 07:32
|
|
|
gonger posted:You could’ve at least picked a city with SB50-scale height limits. Isn't that area mostly landfill? Can it support heavier buildings?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 08:54
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Isn't that area mostly landfill? Can it support heavier buildings? that's the sunset/golden gate park/richmond/presidio and no, it's not built on landfill; they were basically a field of sand dunes before being covered with housing. not sure what the deeper geological situation is but assume the lack of height in the districts is due to zoning and not due to engineering concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 09:05
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Isn't that area mostly landfill? Can it support heavier buildings? No - you're thinking of downtown / bayview, piers and docks areas. The avenues and up toward the GG Bridge are solid ground. Hilly, but solid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 09:05
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Isn't that area mostly landfill? Can it support heavier buildings? I’ve seen maps that indicate that area is more susceptible to liquifaction than some other parts of SF, but it isn’t because it’s built on landfill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 09:18
|
|
|
It has better geology than much of the Financial District.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 10:45
|
|
|
nrook posted:Now this is a NIMBY. See the difference between this and the anti-SB50 posts from Jaxyon earlier? There's parking minimums; there's the pathological fear that any new apartment building will somehow turn LA into Hong Kong (usually you just hear people suggest it'll turn LA into Manhattan, so this is a bit next-level); there's the visceral fear of urban environments. If I saw the phrase "the character of the neighborhood" I'd score myself a bingo. nrook posted:streamlined approval process That was fast. Ive never owned a home and probably never will be able to, but I think the push by pro-real-estate, pro-wall-street assholes to cage people while making them pay rent is gross. Real estate investment people will continue to push towards the "cages and rent" because it always works for them. It is up to the people that will have to live in the spaces to psuh back. Again - that Seattle example was a real thing and just a couple years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 11:18
|
|
|
MarcusSA posted:SLO city and county are like the NIMBY capital of the world. The refrain around here is that downtown can't get taller because that would "block the views." You know, the views from…the top of the parking structure??? The views you can just go two blocks to see, because downtown is tiny???
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
Anyone who even says the word "views" in relation to new construction should be shot on the spot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Anyone who even says the word "views" in relation to new construction should be shot on the spot. Whatever you say Mr. Crocker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Whatever you say Mr. Crocker. California's housing and homelessness crises can only be the work of FAIRIES
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
make sure never to bring up tokyo in these density discussions it’s either the status quo or illegal HK migrant worker dormitories for everyone
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:That was fast. The core issue is that it is loving expensive to build new housing. You can't just hand-wave away the fact that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit to build new apartments. In a market economy, developers will only build when they can make a profit. They are not a charity. So to stimulate housing construction you either need to: 1) Reduce the cost to build by removing regulations and restrictions (ie SB50) 2) Subsidize developers via tax breaks and other mechanisms 3) Build massive amounts of government housing a la NYCHA People advocating for #1 are not pro-wall street assholes, they're pro housing development. Just because it allows developers to build more doesn't mean that they're trying to line developers pockets. The point is to make it easier and cheaper to build the millions of housing units needed in California. Seph fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
I like 3, let's go with 3. Developers aren't a charity, so they can go gently caress themselves and we'll pay for it ourselves without being profited off of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
Yeah #3 please
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I like 3, let's go with 3. Developers aren't a charity, so they can go gently caress themselves and we'll pay for it ourselves without being profited off of. Agreed, but the cost would be enormous. Like $100B+ to get rid of the housing shortage just in California. I'm not sure if that is politically feasible without some aid from the federal government (lol). The best path IMO is a blend of #1 and #3 where we reduce bureaucracy enough so that the market handles mid and high range construction and the government builds massive amounts of low income housing across the state. I dont think we'd ever reach a point where construction is cheap enough that market rate housing is affordable for low income people. Seph fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
Seph posted:The core issue is that it is loving expensive to build new housing. You can't just hand-wave away the fact that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit to build new apartments. In a market economy, developers will only build when they can make a profit. They are not a charity. Likewise, is someone is arguing for removing regulations on site contamination or indoor air quality they’re not pro-slumlord developers, they’re pro-housing development. Or taking steps to reduce construction wages isn’t anti-worker, it’s pro-housing development. Seph posted:Agreed, but the cost would be enormous. Like $100B+ to get rid of the housing shortage just in California. I'm not sure if that is politically feasible without some aid from the federal government (lol). And of course if we deregulate California enough then private investors will decide to use their own $100B+ on housing and do it in a way that helps communities and individuals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Likewise, is someone is arguing for removing regulations on site contamination or indoor air quality they’re not pro-slumlord developers, they’re pro-housing development. You don't think there are people making bad faith arguments in the NIMBY side? This state is filled to the brim with shitheads and we all know it. I don't think pointing that out is going to convince someone who believes that we need to build more housing to sit on their hands until The Revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Likewise, is someone is arguing for removing regulations on site contamination or indoor air quality they’re not pro-slumlord developers, they’re pro-housing development. Jesus christ, no one is talking about letting developers build housing on contaminated sites. Please take that hyperbolic BS elsewhere. It's things like upzoning that can reduce costs astronomically. Or reforming CEQA to get rid of the many frivolous lawsuits that developers have to fight. There are also "impact fees" that average around $25k/unit which are basically arbitrary fees imposed by local governments. There is a shitload of bureaucracy and litigation that happens with every development project that doesn't benefit anyone but local interest groups and lawyers. That's what needs to go, not stuff like fire code that actually saves lives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Weembles posted:You don't think there are people making bad faith arguments in the NIMBY side? My frustration is how these conversations center the wealthiest communities first, so we talk about rebuilding Palo Alto or Outer Sunset or Venice and great that’s cool. So the problems and solutions are entirely warped by that focus. The reason developers aren’t building in Oakland or Richmond at the scale required aren’t mainly zoning, and when there are zoning issues there are lots of good reasons, like fire or climate change or industrial waste. If further deregulating housing gets a bunch of new building in those cities I’d be worried what kind of housing was built. And I know that when someone ITT posts “we should deregulate housing” they mean only the bad regulations but a lot of the people agreeing with you in the real world are very eager to tear down all the regulations they can. But when the options proposed basically are: 1. Deregulate until Palo Alto looks like a big city 2. Buy out Palo Alto to build public housing Then it’s obvious why the options either seem insanely pro-developer or massively expensive. Seph posted:Jesus christ, no one is talking about letting developers build housing on contaminated sites. Please take that hyperbolic BS elsewhere. Developers already do build on contaminated sites, it’s not hyperbole it’s status quo. Hunter’s Point is a good recent big example. But yes it’s not that you personally want to deregulate in harmful ways but how the lens of what deregulation means shifts as we move from wealthy communities to poorer ones and from ITT to politics at large. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Seph posted:Agreed, but the cost would be enormous. Like $100B+ to get rid of the housing shortage just in California. I'm not sure if that is politically feasible without some aid from the federal government (lol). It's probably closer to a trillion. (1-2 million units at 0.5 million each, and probably the same every next few decades.) Despite the nimby whining from Fringe and company, sb50 really appears to be both basically unobjectionable and unlikely to solve the problem on its own. I still don't see how if something as simple as relaxing zoning can't pass, people think these same congresspeople are going to vote for a massive restructuring of our housing stock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Spazzle posted:I still don't see how if something as simple as relaxing zoning can't pass, people think these same congresspeople are going to vote for a massive restructuring of our housing stock. It's basically accelerationism. If the bill you want isn't up for a vote, reject it on the basis that it might sap political will to do the thing you want, no matter how inoffensive it is. If that will isn't there, then it eventually will be there when the problem gets so bad that people start getting radicalized.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 18:05
|
|