Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning • Hacker News Board

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#231

Post by austincheney » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:08 PM UTC

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #22

pmoriarty wrote: post #4

Some of the objections from the article: Sean Kieghran, president of San Francisco's Residential Builders Association, said he supports getting rid of single-family only zoning but doesn't think it will result in many new units. Kieghran said that building fourplexes requires either two staircases or a staircase and an elevator, which takes up too much of the site. And, unless the city streamlined the process of buil…

> Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it happens. It's very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work First you make things legal then you streamline them. > You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale." Once…

How do you streamline real estate availability? Blow up mountains or expand into the ocean?

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#232

Post by mnouquet » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:11 PM UTC

catern wrote: post #47

Ericson2314 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very good step, but I wouldn't mind an outright prohibition either.

That's hubris. The reason we're in this situation, where a lack of dense housing is causing housing prices to rise, is because earlier planners were confident 50 years ago that single-family homes were the best option, and they weren't content to just follow that strategy then and there. They decided that this had to be enforced on future people too - us, that is.

> because earlier planners were confident 50 years ago that single-family homes were the best option

SFH IS the best options, nobody WANTS to live in an apartment if given the choice.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#233

Post by hungrygs » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

slashdev wrote: post #217

pmoriarty wrote: post #4

Some of the objections from the article: Sean Kieghran, president of San Francisco's Residential Builders Association, said he supports getting rid of single-family only zoning but doesn't think it will result in many new units. Kieghran said that building fourplexes requires either two staircases or a staircase and an elevator, which takes up too much of the site. And, unless the city streamlined the process of buil…

I want to point out some evidence for the theory can be found in Vancouver where the entire city was rezoned for fourplexes (a duplex where each side has a rental unit.) It has added barely any new supply at all. I think it didn't go far enough. Rezone for 4-10 story apartment buildings, and now you're getting somewhere. This single family home thing just doesn't work in cities with as much demand as San Francisco an…

If Vancouver overall is as dense as SF then 4 plexes won't matter much. But there are many other cities - even LA - where I would think it would. Yet LA has vast amount of low rise commercial on 4 lane streets with bus lines that could support widespread 1+5 podium style designed buildings.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#234

Post by hamandcheese » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #230

slashdev wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to point out some evidence for the theory can be found in Vancouver where the entire city was rezoned for fourplexes (a duplex where each side has a rental unit.) It has added barely any new supply at all. I think it didn't go far enough. Rezone for 4-10 story apartment buildings, and now you're getting somewhere. This single family home thing just doesn't work in cities with as much demand as San Francisco an…

That sounds like an epic value destroyer. It won’t lower prices. Instead it will drive out owners to be replaced by leasers incapable of owning property. The only people that win are owners of multi-tenant properties, which are often commercial businesses.

> Instead it will drive out owners to be replaced by leasers incapable of owning property.

Isn’t that exactly the point? These are the people that can’t afford to live in the city now.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#235

Post by carom » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

jankyxenon wrote: post #110

Schiendelman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earlier - this started in 1911 when the Supreme Court said that.

Highly progressive people continue to self segregate into very non-diverse neighborhoods when buying houses.

This was my experience working at Google. Very liberal until you start talking about upzoning, then suddenly "some neighborhoods should keep their character".

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#236

Post by atomicfiredoll » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

I think that single family housing, especially in cities dealing with lack of availability, likely needs to go. And other changes need to be made on top of that. But, assuming we were able to replace single family housing with 3 or 4 plexes, where does that leave home ownership?

I'm concerned the transformation of single family homes to apartments would just present another opportunity wealth and property to move from private owners to conglomerated investment or the rich. Personally, my best experiences have always been renting with private owners, so if people have to rent in the future, hopefully they aren't stuck doing so from a comparatively small number of management companies that control the market.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#237

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #231

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it happens. It's very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work First you make things legal then you streamline them. > You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale." Once…

How do you streamline real estate availability? Blow up mountains or expand into the ocean?

[deleted]

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#238

Post by zachware » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

I've developed several multifamily projects including my current focus, a 72-unit apartment development.

Proposals like these, while admirable, usually miss the mark and have little to no impact on housing availability because they fail to accept that housing development isn't just about zoning.

Impact fees, planning regs (traffic, parking, etc), planning delays, NIMBY fights, labor costs...these are all inputs into the question of whether a multifamily development makes economic sense for a developer.

There is a formula under which you can build market-rate and/or affordable housing (sometimes the same) and when that formula checks out, you see lots of development.

All of that has to work out to a cost per door and that cost has to be recouped in rents that pay for opex and debt. The fourplex in the article would cost $562,500/door. A very basic calc of the necessary rents would be $4,950.

California, particularly San Francisco, has pressures at every step of that formula. So if the Bay Area wants more housing, it has to be willing to look at the problem holistically.

  - What role do planning review delays play in increasing the costs and perceived risk of acquiring a parcel and going through the process?
  - What % of potential building sites are classified as historical properties?
  - What are the parking, traffic impact and roadway requirements that multifamily traffic counts will have to mitigate/build for?
  - What power do unions have to dictate building programs?
  - Who can object to proposals?

I'm not suggesting that everything has to be Texas-style free markets, but to solve the problem one has to be willing to admit that it may require something a bit more comprehensive that simply changing zoning.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#239

Post by closeparen » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #231

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because something is permitted doesn't mean it happens. It's very hard to find a vacant lot or tear down at a price that would work First you make things legal then you streamline them. > You would need to find a developer willing to take a risk on a minuscule profit and an architect who enjoys brain damage," he said. "They are complicated little projects. It's the absolute opposite of economy of scale." Once…

How do you streamline real estate availability? Blow up mountains or expand into the ocean?

A legal framework that enables the land you do have to be less like Atlanta and more like Paris.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#240

Post by eloff » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 9:40 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #230

slashdev wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to point out some evidence for the theory can be found in Vancouver where the entire city was rezoned for fourplexes (a duplex where each side has a rental unit.) It has added barely any new supply at all. I think it didn't go far enough. Rezone for 4-10 story apartment buildings, and now you're getting somewhere. This single family home thing just doesn't work in cities with as much demand as San Francisco an…

That sounds like an epic value destroyer. It won’t lower prices. Instead it will drive out owners to be replaced by leasers incapable of owning property. The only people that win are owners of multi-tenant properties, which are often commercial businesses.

If they're condos, you can own it, at least as much as you can own half a duplex.

If they're rental units, that's also ok, more supply brings down rents and lower rent causes more landlords to sell. Extra supply does add downward pressure on prices one way or another.

I don't see where the "value destroyer" is.