Let's be real- maybe there's a cabal of homeowners trying to jack up the value of their house with government policy for their own gain. Or, maybe the homeowners don't like skyscrapers and do like seeing the mountains, in fact perhaps that's why they moved there in the first place pre-boom.
It isn't a cabal, more of an emergent property of people who don't like change and political process that is effectively only open to citizens who are retired. Which ends up being dominated by old people.
You'll see political change as specific demographic cohorts enter the political process and others die out. I feel like we are at the start of that shift as boomer politicians are starting to die and millenial/gen x politicians are starting to come to prominence. Since millennials are an echo of the boomers population wise, they will probably dominate over the gen x generation.
When the next demographic buys their first homes, they, too, are likely to want to live in the neighborhood into which they bought, and not into one with an increasing population density.
Not necessarily. Other cities build more than others. It's a function of built in incentives and legal laws the enable the bad behavior, and california has a particularly bad case of it.
For a quick comparison, look at seattle vs sf. Seattle had similar issues and dealt with it in a far better manner, not wanting to become another SF. They still have issues, true, but the price increase hasn't been as dramatic, and highrises were allowed to be built.
Increasing density is the natural impulse when an area becomes more desirable. So much of our society is tied to the area you live - jobs, public schools, access to services. It’s immoral to kick the ladder down behind you and make entry into the area impossible, not because the market decides it, but because existing inhabitants have co-opted the government through NIMBY policies.
I can think of many pro-market initiatives that would alleviate society’s ailments. But allowing more, denser housing to be built is one of the easiest, least burdensome solutions placed on the taxpayer. The damage caused by more housing is to delicate sensibilities as a homeowner’s “view” is blocked by new towers and the “character” of a neighborhood is ruined by lower income newcomers.
But allowing more, denser housing to be built is one of the easiest, least burdensome solutions placed on the taxpayer.
I hear this argument many times but what I don't hear is how the city will get the additional revenue needed to service this new density?
An increase in the population requires more fire, police, swerer, water, roads, public transportation and schools. But a city can tax companies and collect sales tax.
On a per capita basis, an increase in density requires less sewer, water, roads, fire and police (shorter response times). Schooling needs are the same, and there's only "more" public transportation because it's actually possible.
Your argument - that increased population causes the support infrastructure to buckle - is 100% false. If supporting a growing population was an insurmountable obstacle, then no city would ever grow. We know how to handle growth, this is a solved problem.
Your argument - that increased population causes the support infrastructure to buckle - is 100% false.
It was certainly true in SV as it grew. For example, my high school had to go on double session as it had to handle more than double the number of students it was designed for. In wintertime, upperclassmen went to school in pitch dark, and freshmen walked home in pitch dark.
A high school takes a large plot of vacant land as well as a lot of development.
The eventual solution was the building of a huge new high school complex known as Ed Park, eventually renamed Independence High School, on much cheaper land well to the south.
I remember attending most of my middle school (6th & 7th grade) in "modules". Which is really just a fancy term for a trailer. There were probably 5-10 of them adjacent to the parking lot. It's how they handled the fact that our town was growing too fast. Still use that method today in between builds.
ADUs (accessory dwelling units) are smaller than neighboring buildings, so they don't impact views at all. However, many California cities still banned or severely restricted them, until they were forced to stop by last year's state legislation.
Don't worry, the NIMBY's will move the goalpost and start complaining about street parking and traffic. That's all my neighbors on Nextdoor complain about.
I think that this is the first real plan. After 20 years of in laws / granny flats the market will move to condos as the increased local density shifts things. Major roads and transit will see taller buildings with a gradual expansion of skyscrapers in downtown areas.
I love looking at the mountains from the SV flatlands so much that I’m happy to spend an extra 8 hours in traffic a week.
I’m also happy to pay the current market value of the (nicer) house I grew up in to my landlord every four years, all for that mountain view that’s occluded by the neighbors’ single story houses anyway.
Ditto for not having workable public transit, no decent restaurants walkable from the house, etc, etc.
There’s absolutely a cabal. It’s just homeowners who think that their aesthetic sense is more important than an entire generation behind them being screwed.
Lets balance the societal gains. Homeowners don't like skyscrapers vs. a generation of people paying ridiculous sums to live in substandard conditions.
Certainly, no one gets a view by accident - that real estate is expensive.
However, it's still selfish to restrict development in high-demand areas on the grounds of losing a view. The view is of or over other people's property, and density restrictions hurt the general public by forcing people to relocate or make financial sacrifices to stay in the area.
Yeah I think a lot of city dwellers would be fine with new building if it looked like building more of Paris, instead of building High Rise Home Depot Clearance Bin or commie block housing.
Most new stuff, at least in New Hampshire and Mass, is just SO UGLY inside and out. The people complaining about new construction do have legitimate grievances here.
(I say all this as a huge walkable towns, new urbanist-ish advocate)
If you think that’s bad, look at building concessions to special-use buildings, like elder care facilities.
Though I did not have a hand in this, as I don’t live there anymore, my old neighborhood successfully blocked the city from allowing developers to build a building that would allocate less than 100sqft of total (not living!) space per the elder person being cared at the facility. Bunk beds and all. Essentially a distopian hellhole.
Now, 3 story townhomes with reasonable sqft going up. Smaller spacing than I would personally want, but it’s A) housing and B) livable for a family, so it’s a win in my book.
Efficiency studios are drastically more livable than roommate situations. I hope the activists who “protect” me from having an apartment too small are not under the illusion that they’re helping.
I want to agree with you, but I don't think this is true. The average building height in Paris is 6 stories. People in my SF neighborhood cause a ruckus over 3 story buildings because they're too tall.
Who cares how "ugly" these structures are when we desperately need housing stock? Are you seriously suggesting we should be okay with delaying/blocking construction based on aesthetics when things are so clearly fucked up?
I think requirements on the architecture of new construction, the materials, the look, etc. is less burdensome than limiting the key features of the new development (number of units, floorplans).
Placing some restrictions to ensure you don’t make cookie-cutter concrete boxes is not so bad. Banning new, denser construction entirely is the true problem.
I've heard the same argument in Seattle, home owners who are "fine" with Parisian-style buildings, however they only came around long after the point where demand started replacing lower-income people enmasse.
When we wait too long, the market demands cheaper housing ASAP - style goes out the window.
Comments
Let's be real- maybe there's a cabal of homeowners trying to jack up the value of their house with government policy for their own gain. Or, maybe the homeowners don't like skyscrapers and do like seeing the mountains, in fact perhaps that's why they moved there in the first place pre-boom.
It isn't a cabal, more of an emergent property of people who don't like change and political process that is effectively only open to citizens who are retired. Which ends up being dominated by old people.
You'll see political change as specific demographic cohorts enter the political process and others die out. I feel like we are at the start of that shift as boomer politicians are starting to die and millenial/gen x politicians are starting to come to prominence. Since millennials are an echo of the boomers population wise, they will probably dominate over the gen x generation.
What's old is new again.
When the next demographic buys their first homes, they, too, are likely to want to live in the neighborhood into which they bought, and not into one with an increasing population density.
Not necessarily. Other cities build more than others. It's a function of built in incentives and legal laws the enable the bad behavior, and california has a particularly bad case of it.
For a quick comparison, look at seattle vs sf. Seattle had similar issues and dealt with it in a far better manner, not wanting to become another SF. They still have issues, true, but the price increase hasn't been as dramatic, and highrises were allowed to be built.
Humanity’s got a lot of problems to face and overcome before packing more of them per city block.
Chief among those problems is having not nearly enough stuff per city block, isolating us from each other and forcing us to drive everywhere.
Increasing density is the natural impulse when an area becomes more desirable. So much of our society is tied to the area you live - jobs, public schools, access to services. It’s immoral to kick the ladder down behind you and make entry into the area impossible, not because the market decides it, but because existing inhabitants have co-opted the government through NIMBY policies.
I can think of many pro-market initiatives that would alleviate society’s ailments. But allowing more, denser housing to be built is one of the easiest, least burdensome solutions placed on the taxpayer. The damage caused by more housing is to delicate sensibilities as a homeowner’s “view” is blocked by new towers and the “character” of a neighborhood is ruined by lower income newcomers.
I hear this argument many times but what I don't hear is how the city will get the additional revenue needed to service this new density? An increase in the population requires more fire, police, swerer, water, roads, public transportation and schools. But a city can tax companies and collect sales tax.
On a per capita basis, an increase in density requires less sewer, water, roads, fire and police (shorter response times). Schooling needs are the same, and there's only "more" public transportation because it's actually possible.
And what pays for it is … the property tax.
Property tax.
...property tax?
If you don't build more schools, hospitals etc. (essentially everything) along with allowing more housing - then you shift problem down the line.
Your argument - that increased population causes the support infrastructure to buckle - is 100% false. If supporting a growing population was an insurmountable obstacle, then no city would ever grow. We know how to handle growth, this is a solved problem.
Could they not erect schools fast enough? Surely the funding was there?
A high school takes a large plot of vacant land as well as a lot of development.
The eventual solution was the building of a huge new high school complex known as Ed Park, eventually renamed Independence High School, on much cheaper land well to the south.
I remember attending most of my middle school (6th & 7th grade) in "modules". Which is really just a fancy term for a trailer. There were probably 5-10 of them adjacent to the parking lot. It's how they handled the fact that our town was growing too fast. Still use that method today in between builds.
But that's "wide open spaces" kinda land.
Solved problem? Doesn't look like one:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/03/all-humanity-...
ADUs (accessory dwelling units) are smaller than neighboring buildings, so they don't impact views at all. However, many California cities still banned or severely restricted them, until they were forced to stop by last year's state legislation.
Don't worry, the NIMBY's will move the goalpost and start complaining about street parking and traffic. That's all my neighbors on Nextdoor complain about.
I think that this is the first real plan. After 20 years of in laws / granny flats the market will move to condos as the increased local density shifts things. Major roads and transit will see taller buildings with a gradual expansion of skyscrapers in downtown areas.
I love looking at the mountains from the SV flatlands so much that I’m happy to spend an extra 8 hours in traffic a week.
I’m also happy to pay the current market value of the (nicer) house I grew up in to my landlord every four years, all for that mountain view that’s occluded by the neighbors’ single story houses anyway.
Ditto for not having workable public transit, no decent restaurants walkable from the house, etc, etc.
/s
There’s absolutely a cabal. It’s just homeowners who think that their aesthetic sense is more important than an entire generation behind them being screwed.
I suppose we could say the same about comfort of living and the environment.
Lets balance the societal gains. Homeowners don't like skyscrapers vs. a generation of people paying ridiculous sums to live in substandard conditions.
If you want that view you should go buy up all the land between you and that view.
Frederick Olmsted would like to have a word with you. ;)
We are in a housing crisis. Rich homeowners' desire for a "view" means little when the cost for our society is so great.
Homeowners bought the land, not the view.
The view was probably part of why they bought there, though
Certainly, no one gets a view by accident - that real estate is expensive.
However, it's still selfish to restrict development in high-demand areas on the grounds of losing a view. The view is of or over other people's property, and density restrictions hurt the general public by forcing people to relocate or make financial sacrifices to stay in the area.
Yeah I think a lot of city dwellers would be fine with new building if it looked like building more of Paris, instead of building High Rise Home Depot Clearance Bin or commie block housing.
Most new stuff, at least in New Hampshire and Mass, is just SO UGLY inside and out. The people complaining about new construction do have legitimate grievances here.
(I say all this as a huge walkable towns, new urbanist-ish advocate)
One big problem with high density affordable housing in CA is that the building codes for apartments are substantially weaker than for condos.
In particular, apartments have much lower sound proofing standards.
I guess the local politicians don’t realize that poor people (and millennial engineers) also need to sleep.
If you think that’s bad, look at building concessions to special-use buildings, like elder care facilities.
Though I did not have a hand in this, as I don’t live there anymore, my old neighborhood successfully blocked the city from allowing developers to build a building that would allocate less than 100sqft of total (not living!) space per the elder person being cared at the facility. Bunk beds and all. Essentially a distopian hellhole.
Now, 3 story townhomes with reasonable sqft going up. Smaller spacing than I would personally want, but it’s A) housing and B) livable for a family, so it’s a win in my book.
If only Santa Monica would average 3 stories...
Efficiency studios are drastically more livable than roommate situations. I hope the activists who “protect” me from having an apartment too small are not under the illusion that they’re helping.
I want to agree with you, but I don't think this is true. The average building height in Paris is 6 stories. People in my SF neighborhood cause a ruckus over 3 story buildings because they're too tall.
Who cares how "ugly" these structures are when we desperately need housing stock? Are you seriously suggesting we should be okay with delaying/blocking construction based on aesthetics when things are so clearly fucked up?
Are Paris-style 6-story buildings allowed by the laws of your local area?
I think requirements on the architecture of new construction, the materials, the look, etc. is less burdensome than limiting the key features of the new development (number of units, floorplans).
Placing some restrictions to ensure you don’t make cookie-cutter concrete boxes is not so bad. Banning new, denser construction entirely is the true problem.
I've heard the same argument in Seattle, home owners who are "fine" with Parisian-style buildings, however they only came around long after the point where demand started replacing lower-income people enmasse.
When we wait too long, the market demands cheaper housing ASAP - style goes out the window.