21–30 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that valley has pretty much every bit of flat land developed, so where are you going to put these high density developments without knocking down existing houses?
Allow residents of those existing houses to add additional floors, convert garages, add a granny flat, et cetera. Large parts of Boston consist of nothing but 3-story, 3-unit apartments, often with a live-in landlord, and it's quite dense.
So how does the process of adding housing units work? If there's space as the article claims, and plenty of demand, whats holding things up? Bureaucracy? I'd like to see reasonable prices sometime in my life !
Well that valley has pretty much every bit of flat land developed, so where are you going to put these high density developments without knocking down existing houses?
I mean, probably every dense neighborhood in the world was at one time lower-density, and had its old buildings knocked down and replaced. This isn't anything new.
So how does the process of adding housing units work? If there's space as the article claims, and plenty of demand, whats holding things up? Bureaucracy? I'd like to see reasonable prices sometime in my life !
Well that valley has pretty much every bit of flat land developed, so where are you going to put these high density developments without knocking down existing houses?
There are lots and lots of parking lots, underutilized commercial buildings, and low density apartment complexes that can be redeveloped at a relatively higher density.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allow residents of those existing houses to add additional floors, convert garages, add a granny flat, et cetera. Large parts of Boston consist of nothing but 3-story, 3-unit apartments, often with a live-in landlord, and it's quite dense.
I don't think there's enough people in the valley with the money and the desire to convert and rent out part of their house to do much of anything about the demand.
So how does the process of adding housing units work? If there's space as the article claims, and plenty of demand, whats holding things up? Bureaucracy? I'd like to see reasonable prices sometime in my life !
Zoning laws. And existing owners who staunchly oppose increasing density by building larger buildings. A lot of people who bought their single-family homes years or decades ago now live in appealing low-density neighborhoods with home values that are sky-rocketing. They don't want their neighborhoods to change into concrete canyons, and the ever-rising values of their homes fund their retirements very nicely. They th…
You can bet there would be more pushback on those skyrocketing home values if people had to pay the taxes on them. Its too late for a lot of people in the valley, they couldn't afford to pay anything close to what their homes current access at. It is the epitome of Got Mine, Fuck You.
i went to school with a lot of wealthy kids from the bay area. they and their families simply do not want to develop the area any further, in order to keep housing as high as possible and the area exclusive as possible. in private conversation they talk about it openly. personally i don't think it's much more complicated than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that valley has pretty much every bit of flat land developed, so where are you going to put these high density developments without knocking down existing houses?
What's wrong with knocking down existing houses? If the homeowners want to sell to developers that will build higher-density housing on their land, what exactly is the problem? I mean, probably every dense neighborhood in the world was at one time lower-density, and had its old buildings knocked down and replaced. This isn't anything new.
Generally, not all of them do, which is why redevelopment usually involves use of eminent domain.
I live in a VW somewhere in Silicon Valley. Ask me anything (respectful, non-troll) EDIT: I don't usually bite, but when I do, I won't eat much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that valley has pretty much every bit of flat land developed, so where are you going to put these high density developments without knocking down existing houses?
What's wrong with knocking down existing houses? If the homeowners want to sell to developers that will build higher-density housing on their land, what exactly is the problem? I mean, probably every dense neighborhood in the world was at one time lower-density, and had its old buildings knocked down and replaced. This isn't anything new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like many other problems in California, this one can be largely traced back to a single source: Proposition 13
Which was created to combat the problem of grandma kicked out of her house because she can't afford her property taxes. How do you get around that?