Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

sfexaminer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 361 posts

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#21

Post by epistasis »

joeblow9999 wrote: post #2

Good luck with that

I think it's becoming increasingly apparent that the Bay Area needs a regional government that can supercede tiny municipalities. Wise governance is impossible with lots of small outposts preventing sensible planning for the region, because they are only interested in advancing short-term interests of a small number of people. Democracy does not function well in that environment.

If the Bay Area doesn't step up to do that, it's likely that the State of California will have to start implementing policies, and that's not going to be as good as a regional government and planning.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#22

Post by hedora »

epistasis wrote: post #11
coding123 wrote: post #3

And the freeways can support this how?

We really need to stop assuming that people are going to make heavy freeway use, and permit more scalable transit. Run BART the short way between SF and SJ, build many clusters of high density along heavy transit routes. Let the current freeway dependent population continue to use them, but build housing so that people can get to jobs without using single-occupancy passenger cars.

They need to assume people will use transit and also roads, and increase the capacty of both. The capacity of the bay area road network has been systematically decreased over the last ten years, even as the population has grown.

Also, compared to most other places, traffic laws out here are ridiculously inefficient. For example, light cycles that include a “yield on left turn” step and then skip the left arrow if the lane has cleared are incredibly rare. Also, instead of “left lane fast, right lane slow”, the law is “use whatever lane you’re comfortable in”.

Simply ripping out the “improvements” made in the last decade and bringing traffic laws in line with the rest of the US would increase road capacity by double digit percentages.

(The lack of progress on public transit is also embarrassing, especially given the tax and income levels around here)

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#23

Post by DataWorker »

epistasis wrote: post #16
DataWorker wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but you are totally naive if you think a 50% increase is possible in that time frame. You just can’t, or don’t want to do the math. What you are suggesting amounts to jail cells with no infrastructure.

Jail cells? It's not polite to put rude words in others' mouths. There are limitations on current build rates though; we'll have to massively increase the construction work force to do anything like this, as it's already not quite able to meet demand here.

You’re suggesting these people won’t drive anywhere. There’s no way to support that growth given the limitations in our roadways. Traffic is already terrible, imagine 4 or 5 hours to get from oakland to San Francisco.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#24

Post by epistasis »

hedora wrote: post #22
epistasis wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need to stop assuming that people are going to make heavy freeway use, and permit more scalable transit. Run BART the short way between SF and SJ, build many clusters of high density along heavy transit routes. Let the current freeway dependent population continue to use them, but build housing so that people can get to jobs without using single-occupancy passenger cars.

They need to assume people will use transit and also roads, and increase the capacty of both. The capacity of the bay area road network has been systematically decreased over the last ten years, even as the population has grown. Also, compared to most other places, traffic laws out here are ridiculously inefficient. For example, light cycles that include a “yield on left turn” step and then skip the left arrow if the…

I agree, and my phrasing was imprecise; we do need to assume that roads will be used to some degree, but we also need to allow for types of living that don't use freeways, or even perhaps allow living without a car.

Right now local regulations require large amounts of parking, which means large amounts of the most valuable space devoted just to cars, and forcing people to pay for the car. If you're forced to pay an additional 10% in rent to cover the space used for parking, then you're probably going to get a car.

If people were allowed to make the decision to not have cars and reap the financial benefits, we'd see a bigger shift.

As it is, car use is regulated into the way that we build things.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#25

Post by sampo »

Just quoting the last paragraph. This is the kind of honesty people need.

> Intellectual honesty requires taking numbers seriously. Either we prioritize making the Bay Area affordable for all of us or we don’t. The less housing we build, the more wealth will be trapped in high housing prices. Unless we decide to grow our housing stock to accommodate our economy, we are continuing to choose the interests of those who are rich or who already own their homes over the interests of the struggling middle and working classes.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#26

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

DataWorker wrote: post #20
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #13

If this is true then I think the Bay will need to let go of it's ideas towards rezoning. Deregulatory zoning adjustments just won't be able to stimulate this level of building. Why not just build out and do greenfield development but put some mandatory density requirements in place for new building?

If you think this is doable you haven’t thought hard enough. What of all the home owners? Imminent domain and reclaim the peninsula?

I think it's doable, you just have to keep going a bit.

Is Tyler Cowen right, then? “Basically SF is ed?” No. San Francisco could be just fine. The thing about San Francisco is that while greenfields have been exhausted in the city, the San Francisco Bay Area is largely undeveloped. We are always arguing over San Francisco, or Palo Alto (ick). Outside of the 47 square miles of San Francisco proper are almost 3200 square miles in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. (I’ll leave out the hoity-toity North Bay counties — Marin, Sonoma, Napa — but if it’s Latin-America-style land reform you want, the vines there are ripe for revolution!) Nobody wants new suburban sprawl, thank goodness. But dense development is not sprawl, even when it is greenfield development.

http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/6487.html

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#27

Post by DataWorker »

ninkendo wrote: post #18
DataWorker wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but you are totally naive if you think a 50% increase is possible in that time frame. You just can’t, or don’t want to do the math. What you are suggesting amounts to jail cells with no infrastructure.

I don't think wklauss was expressing an opinion either way on whether a 50% increase is feasible, only what the effects would be with respect to transit.

He said the freeways can support 50% growth over 20 years. That’s lunacy. Look at the history of our freeway system. Ok, if you want to insist that flying cars will come in the next 10 years maybe. But to say congestion pricing is to say, roads for rich people, everyone else stays in their cubicle like happy inmates. Just unreal to see putatively intelligent people engage in such a discussion.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#28

Post by conanbatt »

nwah1 wrote: post #15
rb808 wrote: post #8

Because big dense cities like NY are affordable?

Your point is valid and you shouldn't be downvoted. Empirically, we know that high density of residential units is correlated with high rent. Why is this? It ultimately comes back to the Law of Rent. The amount that landlords are able to charge directly corresponds to the produce obtainable at that location over their next best alternative... and that alternative is likewise set that way up until you reach the "margi…

Henry George would shed a tear.

I do believe that the thing that would change the housing stock situation for SF is to remove sales taxes and add land value taxes. Just that change alone will make workers and renters richer overnight, and would change the anti-development mindset of owners quite a bit, considering that low-dense units will pay the highest amount.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#29

Post by conanbatt »

epistasis wrote: post #21
joeblow9999 wrote: post #2

Good luck with that

I think it's becoming increasingly apparent that the Bay Area needs a regional government that can supercede tiny municipalities. Wise governance is impossible with lots of small outposts preventing sensible planning for the region, because they are only interested in advancing short-term interests of a small number of people. Democracy does not function well in that environment. If the Bay Area doesn't step up to do…

The housing situation is a California wide problem. The bigger government is the first one messing up housing.

Re: To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50% in 20 years

#30

Post by rb808 »

sampo wrote: post #25

Just quoting the last paragraph. This is the kind of honesty people need. > Intellectual honesty requires taking numbers seriously. Either we prioritize making the Bay Area affordable for all of us or we don’t. The less housing we build, the more wealth will be trapped in high housing prices. Unless we decide to grow our housing stock to accommodate our economy, we are continuing to choose the interests of those who…

If density increases the people who will benefit the most are current landowners. If you have single family home on a big lot, its value will go up many times if you can suddenly build an apartment building on it.
Post reply on HN