Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you're confusing a "want" and a "need". Let's also be clear that whether or not Neutrino's post says the "SF Bay Area", his source is only talking about San Francisco (feel free to reference it and you'll find I'm correct). And that's fine because San Francisco is certainly a catalyst to much of the Bay Area housing costs which rise and fall in relation to the prices in the city. I am thankful to Neutrino for posting it as it shows the misnomer of people trying to blame all their ills on those evil tech companies (which couldn't be further from the truth).
Those of us who have lived in the area for any length of time know that "affordable" is what the market commands. If it wasn't affordable, then no one would be buying houses or renting. In addition, the thought that you are going to drive down housing and rental costs in such a highly desirable and compact area is nothing more than a pipe dream (and most people who have lived here for any length of time know this...hence you have complete resistance to any thought of building "up"). You need look no further than the amount of units that were put into SOMA. And the results after those massive amount of units were put into existence? A continuation of the same high rents people complained of. I think it's clear that the experiment failed miserably. It did nothing whatsoever to bring costs down. And that's because no one ever looks at the other piece of the puzzle. Namely that coastal cities are desirable to live in and that without some restriction on the amount of people that enter San Francisco or the industry that enters the area, the city is doomed to have some of the highest costs in the nation. If we had vast areas of land to build on (like some parts of Texas), you might have a case...but we don't. Those that know that this is nothing but a short term fix and no solution whatsoever, would disagree with the notion that this is a "need". It is clearly a want for people that got here recently.
We have rent control restrictions, and every time a luxury high rise is built, the contractors are required to build low cost housing (not sure if you knew that). None of this seems to have helped bring down costs (and some would argue it's done the exact opposite). Of course the first thing that happens is the low income families flock to them and the lucky few get them. Of course that does nothing to help the Middle Class (but they typically get kicked to the curb on things like this). Ultimately the only thing that would happen if more housing/rental units were built is all the people that live in the outlying areas would simply flock back to the city (similar to these low income families), instantly occupy all the units, and it would simply open up those outlying areas. Then the people that move in there would be making the same complaints that people are making now (that seems rather obvious to me, but clearly not to others).
As for your Bay Meadows example, you may have felt a better job could have been done on it. But the bottom line is, that area was built the way it was because the community there wanted it that way (and that's the way it should be).
I look at it like comparing 24 Hour Fitness to the Bay Club. 24 Hour Fitness does nothing to control the amount of people that enter their facilities. In fact, they do everything in their power to bring in as many people as possible (screw the current members). They run outrageous deals to get in everyone ($19 initiation fees and $19 per month...come on down!!). The end result being lines to wait for treadmills and the rest of their equipment, a very crowded, highly inefficient, and unpleasing environment to work out in. The Bay Club has a much higher priced initiation and higher monthly dues. It's a very enjoyable experience for those that are members. There are also members that got in when prices were a little lower, and locked in on lower monthly fees. The atmosphere is more relaxed, you can get an efficient workout in, and all and all, it's an enjoyable experience. They appreciate both sets of members. Sure there are people that complain and say they want to be members of the Bay Club. And that's life. There are some that sacrifice because they want that experience and maybe foresake going out to dinner a couple of times a month because they're not in the same income levels as the others. And there are others that say, no thanks...they can think of better way to spend their money than to use it on a health club membership. That's a choice that an individual can make for themselves. Clearly the exclusivity comes from being able to afford something and it's no different than living in the city. And there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone needs to live in the city, nor am I going to shed a tear because someone can't live here. There are plenty of places my wife and I can't afford also. I have a client who has a Bentley. I can't afford that either. And you know what...I'm fine with that. I've never been into class envy and to a large extent, that's all this is.
I'm not confusing it...I even qualified my statement to put this entire thread in the correct context:
Quote:
The point is, this thread is really a hypothetical one about what should be done in the area if we want to address the overall housing needs of today (and really, yesterday, because of our gigantic backlog), and of the future.
Also the bay area housing market is very, very restricted. I wouldn't use points about "what the market wants" in such a confined market. If things were less restricted, you could make your points... But they're not. Fact of the matter, there is a big housing need not being met by the market, and under normal free (or more free) market circumstances, things would correct. We have artificial limitations on what (and where) things can be built here (for better or worse - I do agree some regulation is a good thing).
And again, also, I wouldn't be so confident in stating that things are the way they are because that's "what people want"...a lot of people want more housing options (especially middle class options). And I don't see each development coming to a popular vote, so I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. I'd wager that most people are pretty oblivious to how developments come together, and of the decisions of what units go where.
What does happen often is that projects often start out very ambitiously, and are scaled back over time when complaints come in (it only takes one determined person, or a small group of determined people, to complete bring down a project). There are countless examples of this happening... I'd bet the majority of Bay Area projects in the last few years have gone through this ambitious plan -> complaints -> scale back scenario.
A few people != "what the majority want". Which is not what this topic is about anyway (as I stated in the beginning of my last two posts now).
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 04-02-2016 at 04:57 PM..
I'm not confusing it...I even qualified my statement to put this entire thread in the correct context:
And my point is, it doesn't matter because it won't change a thing. SF is a highly desirable and compact area which will always have a very high COL. Yours is simply an artificial way for a short term fix but not a solution in any way. The only way things will ever change is if we stupidly drive businesses out of town, or put some sort of restriction on the people entering the area.
Or of course, use force, and go full blown Socialism.
Again, you make it seem like this is the first time the topic has come up. It's not. It's been talked about for quite some time and if people weren't resistant to it, these things would have already happened. But as stated, there were a massive amount of units put in SOMA and it did nothing. I'm not sure how much more proof you need. A "few people" don't out rule a majority. But that takes work, it takes convincing people that it's actually is a solution (which clearly is a hard sell, because it's not). You talk about the future need and you really can't logically make a claim without putting into play my aforementioned comment how that could be possible. I think low unemployment is great. And most people I know don't want an overpopulated city. So to me, I'm with Ruth. Work on mass transit. People won't have a problem at all living outside the city as long as there are efficient ways to get here (and we don't have morons blocking buses).
And this is straight from Neutrino's article....
Even though everyone says they want more housing, the people who live there don't necessarily like bigger buildings. Or more construction. Or anything that changes the city in any way.
The city is in trouble because San Francisco does not want to build the housing that could sustain both the new, well-paid residents and the other residents
Sounds like a majority to me. People can make whatever claim they want about their feelings on it. Ultimately, inaction is the same as saying you'd just like nothing to be done about it.
And part of those restrictions you talk about (i.e. rent control) are the very thing that distorts this market and is a source of frustrations for many. Do you think if suddenly 72% of available rental units in the city were clear of rent control that the median rental would be as high as it is? Over the short term, that would have a significantly greater impact than what you're proposing (again though, still not a solution because there isn't one). And btw, that went to vote and was voted down. Can I assume this is part of the government regulation that you think is good?
P.S. I'm friends with someone who is very well versed on those projects. His were never "scaled down". What happens is a lot of bribery and arm twisting, and those projects get built. I couldn't believe all the back room shenanigans that went on with one of the biggest projects in the city (and I'm not going to mention them for obvious reasons). I guess I was naive to think that anyone is above taking a bribe (but even I was shocked and amused by it).
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 04-02-2016 at 05:56 PM..
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,110,566 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
Also the bay area housing market is very, very restricted. I wouldn't use points about "what the market wants" in such a confined market. If things were less restricted, you could make your points... But they're not. Fact of the matter, there is a big housing need not being met by the market, and under normal free (or more free) market circumstances, things would correct. We have artificial limitations on what (and where) things can be built here (for better or worse - I do agree some regulation is a good thing).
Well, most of the limitations are natural. For example, San Francisco is bounded on three sides by water. San Jose is bounded by hills on the east and west (well, to the west it is also other "cities", but they are basically suburbs of San Jose).
The artificial limitations are due in part to the fact that you have to set aside some zones for commercial and industrial properties. You can't have a city with nothing but residential zones, because then there would be no room for city services to be located in and a lot less tax revenue to fund them.
So really you guys who want a SFH are the ones who should leave, and those of us who like density should stay, because density is the only way to grow a city within physical limitations like in SF and SJ.
Quote:
What does happen often is that projects often start out very ambitiously, and are scaled back over time when complaints come in (it only takes one determined person, or a small group of determined people, to complete bring down a project). There are countless examples of this happening... I'd bet the majority of Bay Area projects in the last few years have gone through this ambitious plan -> complaints -> scale back scenario.
More in SF than SJ. We're building denser in SJ. SF should follow suit.
Last edited by neutrino78x; 04-02-2016 at 09:17 PM..
Well, most of the limitations are natural. For example, San Francisco is bounded on three sides by water. San Jose is bounded by hills on the east and west (well, to the west it is also other "cities", but they are basically suburbs of San Jose).
The artificial limitations are due in part to the fact that you have to set aside some zones for commercial and industrial properties. You can't have a city with nothing but residential zones, because then there would be room for city services to be located in and a lot less tax revenue to fund them.
So really you guys who want a SFH are the ones who should leave, and those of us who like density should stay, because density is the only way to grow a city within physical limitations like in SF and SJ.
More in SF than SJ. We're building denser in SJ. SF should follow suit.
Partially agree Neutrino, but the minute you go into some people need to leave, that reeks of intolerance. I think within the San Francisco city limits, we're find on city services. We have some work to do in regards to the overall Bay Area
"A survey by Mercer, a "global human resources consulting firm," evaluated 230 cities based on 39 different factors, including things like media prevalence and censorship, currency and banking services, medical accessibility, public services including transportation, politics, and more. The company then released its 18th annual worldwide Quality of Living survey.
While some places on the list are not surprising—first place, for example, has gone to Vienna for the last seven years—some are. San Francisco is the highest-ranked American city on the survey"
Well, most of the limitations are natural. For example, San Francisco is bounded on three sides by water. San Jose is bounded by hills on the east and west (well, to the west it is also other "cities", but they are basically suburbs of San Jose).
The artificial limitations are due in part to the fact that you have to set aside some zones for commercial and industrial properties. You can't have a city with nothing but residential zones, because then there would be no room for city services to be located in and a lot less tax revenue to fund them.
So really you guys who want a SFH are the ones who should leave, and those of us who like density should stay, because density is the only way to grow a city within physical limitations like in SF and SJ.
More in SF than SJ. We're building denser in SJ. SF should follow suit.
I think we need to be realistic, of course, and obviously not just tell people to leave.
As long as we can build as densely as possible when we have opportunities, that would be helpful.
Also, I do get the limitations, especially the natural ones. We do only have a finite amount of land - That said, they shouldn't be an excuse, either, though - and there are still many great opportunities for development all over the Bay Area that could be built densely (former parking lots, "brown" lots, abandoned industrial/shipping areas).
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,110,566 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
I think we need to be realistic, of course, and obviously not just tell people to leave.
Yeah but dude, SFHs are only going to get more expensive if we build densely. SFHs are antithetical to building densely. They will get more rare and thus get more expensive. And therefore, people are forced out, for all practical purposes, since they want a form of housing that is not available to the middle class, and should not be available to the middle class in a big city (at least, a big city that is already developed and is desirable).
Quote:
As long as we can build as densely as possible when we have opportunities, that would be helpful.
Agree!
Quote:
Also, I do get the limitations, especially the natural ones. We do only have a finite amount of land - That said, they shouldn't be an excuse, either, though - and there are still many great opportunities for development all over the Bay Area that could be built densely (former parking lots, "brown" lots, abandoned industrial/shipping areas).
Right, but not SFHs. It would have to be dense developments.
Yeah but dude, SFHs are only going to get more expensive if we build densely. SFHs are antithetical to building densely. They will get more rare and thus get more expensive. And therefore, people are forced out, for all practical purposes, since they want a form of housing that is not available to the middle class, and should not be available to the middle class in a big city (at least, a big city that is already developed and is desirable).
Agree!
Right, but not SFHs. It would have to be dense developments.
You don't remember the 2008 and 2000 bubbles apparently. We'll have a ton of excess ugly housing that destroyed historic tract homes.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,110,566 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perma Bear
You don't remember the 2008 and 2000 bubbles apparently. We'll have a ton of excess ugly housing that destroyed historic tract homes.
Land always gets more expensive in the long term. There is no way you can put one million people in SFHs in a 10 mile by 10 mile area. You MUST build densely to do that. The people can own their group of rooms, but it will be a group of rooms inside a large building. It will cause the SFHs to become MORE expensive.
In a developed, physically constrained, desirable city, middle class housing is multifamily housing.
Land always gets more expensive in the long term. There is no way you can put one million people in SFHs in a 10 mile by 10 mile area. You MUST build densely to do that. The people can own their group of rooms, but it will be a group of rooms inside a large building. It will cause the SFHs to become MORE expensive.
In a developed, physically constrained, desirable city, middle class housing is multifamily housing.
San Jose has tons of space to build in the hills still.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,110,566 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perma Bear
San Jose has tons of space to build in the hills still.
Not really dude. You can't build dense housing on a hill, and you can only build SFHs in certain parts of the hills. Elsewhere it is not practical. Plus we want to preserve some of that as open space. But the hills are a physical limitation just like the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay are for SF. In theory you could build vast numbers of SFHs on floating platforms in the sea. But no one wants to do that, for emotional reasons, and it would be prohibitively expensive.
The only practical way to do it is with dense housing. And that will make the SFHs more expensive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
