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

Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 373 posts

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

#321

Post by brailsafe »

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…

Seems to me like in Van this is just a gradual process. Particularly in east van, I'm seeing houses be replaced or renovated to specifically accomodate at least twice the addresses and maintain the feel of the existing neighborhood; I'm living in one. I think something to consider though is that a lot of people were renting the basements anyway, and might instead be renting an intentionally constructed unit on the same property now.

I'm also of course seeing nimbys against tower development at commercial and broadway, which would have the biggest short term impact imo. They want to protect their scarcity.

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

#322

Post by ta2164 »

dillondoyle wrote: post #311
ta2164 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are so many racist laws in systemically racist USA, you should have no issues pointing out some laws that are racist, no?

Marijuana is in the news right now as just a mega obvious example

So you have nothing. "Marijuana" is not a law. Please point to a specific law that is racist, please link to the actual statutes/text.

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

#323

Post by ta2164 »

cheriot wrote: post #298
ta2164 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing stopping Blacks or Hispanics from moving to the suburbs except for the laws of supply and demand. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs. By definition not racist.

"Hey, we've economically oppressed minorities and made our neighborhood too expensive for them. Not racist!" No, our nation's history guarantees that economic segregation is racial segregation. These laws were literally designed to create racial segregation. Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.

You're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants), etc. all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff.

>Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.

Correlation does not imply causation. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs. They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist.

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

#324

Post by frumper »

wernercd wrote: post #207
handmodel wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Developers who are entrenched enjoy the fact it is hard to get a permit. Then, the specialty becomes navigating the system (which the surviving developers are de facto good at). It is hard for the best developers from other cities, who may be amazing at cheap/efficient/quality construction to challenge the incumbents in SF. It is like saying that government contractors who build websites want the bid syst…

You disagree but it sounds like you make the same points. The post you reply too says "we need minimal zoning". You say "its hard to work because of too many restrictions". Am I reading it wrong, but you disagree but seem to agree on the main points: Government needs to get out of the way to allow progress.

He’s saying entrenched developers like the restrictions because they can navigate them better than newcomers. With a lot of red tape it’s easier to make the most money if you’re good at dealing with red tape instead of being the best developer.

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

#325

Post by frumper »

jacobolus wrote: post #205
nugget wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people I know who live in the Bay Area don’t particularly want it to expand. Part of the value of living there is its relative exclusivity.

The people who currently live in neighborhoods full of $5M single-family houses may value “exclusivity”, but I have met plenty of young people with ordinary jobs sleeping in bunk beds, 4 adults to a 2-bedroom house and still paying most of their paychecks to rent, who would much prefer to be living in separate 1–2 bedroom flats instead, with more little shops in their neighborhood and better transit.

And then those adults will either leave SF or climb the ladder and afford to buy a place, then many won’t advocate to devalue what they just worked so hard for.

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

#326

Post by cheriot »

ta2164 wrote: post #323
cheriot wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hey, we've economically oppressed minorities and made our neighborhood too expensive for them. Not racist!" No, our nation's history guarantees that economic segregation is racial segregation. These laws were literally designed to create racial segregation. Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.

You're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants), etc. all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff. >Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome. Correlation does not imply causation. It's no secret…

"They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist"

You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so.

Example: "More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se...

"Correlation does not imply causation."

The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f...

When the origin and outcome are both racist then policy itself is clearly racist.

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

#327

Post by xputer »

atomicfiredoll wrote: post #236

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 fro…

3 or 4 plexes are not going to solve the housing issue in the bay area, because many single family homes are already being used that way. They need to build dense urban cores with residential high rise and mixed use mid rise. Ideally close to Caltrain and BART stations, but additionally every single family zoned neighborhood should be given such an urban core. That way it would create more dense pockets all throughout the area, which would make it possible to bring alternative modes of transit into all neighborhoods by connecting these dense pockets with rail, bus routes and bike lanes.

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

#328

Post by arcticbull »

u678u wrote: post #313
arcticbull wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan is the classical example where they have national zoning rules permitting residential development in each zone. You can get a place in downtown Tokyo for like $300K USD. [1] > While the cost of housing is climbing in many global cities, the average middle-class family in Tokyo can still afford to buy a new, single-family detached home for $300,000. That’s right. The typical Tokyo starter home is a brand new thr…

Japan is a terrible example. It has near-zero immigration. Its population is now falling is the same as it was 30 years ago. In the 80s it had the highest most unaffordable prices in the world.

I'm not sure any of that is relevant, especially immigration. All it means is that supply is roughly in line with demand. Nothing more, nothing less. When supply is in line with demand, the cost of housing approaches the cost of construction.

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

#329

Post by Bud »

UpsilonAlpha wrote: post #283
Bud wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither Portland nor Seattle can match the Bay Area in terms of overall culture. Neither has a world-class orchestra or opera, to say nothing of the early-music scene in the Bay Area, which is easily the best in the US. Neither measures up to the Bay Area in the art scene, either. Or the restaurant scene. Or the wine scene. Neither comes very close in terms of climate, although that argument is muted lately due to Ca…

I've lived in Seattle so my viewpoint is biased. > Neither has a world-class orchestra or opera Seattle Symphony is fantastic and has multiple Grammy awards. The one that stands out to me is the 2014 premiere of John Luther Adams' work, Become Ocean. Not everyone's cup of team, but a phenomenal performance nonetheless. > to say nothing of the early-music scene in the Bay Area, which is easily the best in the US Grung…

Grunge is not "early music". Bach is. ;) That said, yes, granted, Seattle deserves credit for grunge.

But no, the Seattle Symphony is not a world-class orchestra. The SF Symphony is, though.

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

#330

Post by Bud »

clairity wrote: post #228
Bud wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither Portland nor Seattle can match the Bay Area in terms of overall culture. Neither has a world-class orchestra or opera, to say nothing of the early-music scene in the Bay Area, which is easily the best in the US. Neither measures up to the Bay Area in the art scene, either. Or the restaurant scene. Or the wine scene. Neither comes very close in terms of climate, although that argument is muted lately due to Ca…

that sounds like the koolaid talking. while SF offers a lot of "culture", portland and seattle have great "scenes" too. restaurants in both cities easily rival those of SF, which tend to be long on cost and short on flavor. but in CA, LA outdoes SF for food, weather, art, music, entertainment, fashion, and shopping, with a more diverse (not tech-centric) economy to boot.

Los Angeles wasn't part of the comparison, however. The question was about housing values and why they'd be so much higher in SF than in Portland or Seattle.

And speaking as an experienced professional musician who has performed a lot in both places, I'd take the Bay Area over LA, at least for classical music, overall.

Post reply on HN