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

Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

darrellowens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 289 posts

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#31

Post by jahewson »

earthwalker99 wrote: post #24
tekla wrote: post #4

> In the 1970s, left-wing activists opposed the construction of dingbat apartments and allied with liberal homeowners to pass the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO), which effectively finished off housing construction in the city I am not surprised.

> In the 1970s, left-wing activists opposed the construction of dingbat apartments and allied with liberal homeowners to pass the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO), which effectively finished off housing construction in the city Short of sleazebag propaganda, there is no logic or context, historical or otherwise, that can justify describing this as "left wing." They are right wing activists by definition. I d…

Indeed they are not true Scotsmen.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#32

Post by kevinburke »

lettergram wrote: post #20

I’m still shocked by the notion that a highly dense population is inherently good. Pollution increases, energy requirements increase, crime per-capita increases, babies per-capita tend to decrease, time spent in traffic or commuting increases, space per person decreases. I get that you get more food or entertainment options, but in general it doesn’t appear that increasing density actually improves quality of life. T…

There are very few places in the USA that have the density of Berkeley and lots of places that have much lower densities.

People who don't want density have plenty of options they can move to; the problem is the misanthropes who want the amenities that come with a large city while also having none of the downsides of living in a city, including no neighbors.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#33

Post by tzs »

m3kw9 wrote: post #3

Wouldn’t the residents revolt as it could bring their house prices down

I don't know if things work the same way in California as they do up here in Washington, but up here I see a large number of complaints from current home owners about rising house prices.

That's because rising house prices means rising property taxes.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#34

Post by ozzydave »

tzs wrote: post #33
m3kw9 wrote: post #3

Wouldn’t the residents revolt as it could bring their house prices down

I don't know if things work the same way in California as they do up here in Washington, but up here I see a large number of complaints from current home owners about rising house prices. That's because rising house prices means rising property taxes.

Unfortunately prop 13 broke that dynamic, among other ill effects.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#35

Post by hackerlight »

cyberax wrote: post #18

Now make a bookmark and check back in 5 years. What will happen: prices in Berkeley will go in lockstep with other areas around it (likely way up). Meanwhile, congestion will worsen and crime will also likely rise.

Rent will go down which will reduce suffering.

Look at changes in rent in Austin vs San Francisco. One builds and the other doesn't.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#36

Post by bobthepanda »

CydeWeys wrote: post #22
cyberax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It only results in a decrease in per-unit average house prices It never does. Upzoning does NOT reduce per-unit prices, but it certainly increases everyone's misery.

Ah yes, real estate prices are famously low in the most upzoned parts of the country (Manhattan). If you can build a 100 floor skyscraper on a piece of land, that land is insanely valuable!

The land is valuable because it is the only land zoned that way. You can’t build a building that tall in Flushing NY.

If you could build 100 floor skyscrapers in the entire metropolitan area, this advantage goes away.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#37

Post by no_wizard »

BirdieNZ wrote: post #6
m3kw9 wrote: post #3

Wouldn’t the residents revolt as it could bring their house prices down

Upzoning increases land prices. It only results in a decrease in per-unit average house prices if it is accompanied with development (more housing units per square metre of land). Upzoning doesn't guarantee increased development as developers only build when it makes financial sense to do so, and flooding the market with more units would decrease the potential profit they can make. Existing residents who don't develo…

This is why zoning reform should be coupled with a Land Value Tax

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#38

Post by duped »

Has the author lived in Berkeley?

I have, I don't think upzoning can fix it. It's a small community tucked up against the hills. New construction in the hills is just setting the stage for the next devastating fire. Closer to the bay, it's already pretty dense. This would do a lot of good in Emeryville and Oakland, but it's not like Berkeley is suburban sprawl like over the hills in the rest of Alameda...

Berkeley needs to get rid of rent control and focus on cleaning up their streets (literally, garbage is just everywhere) before worrying about fitting more people into such a tiny area. People are already packed in like sardines.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#39

Post by jahewson »

BirdieNZ wrote: post #8
causality0 wrote: post #7

Each home only getting twelve percent of an acre qualifies as "exclusionary housing only for rich people"? Just how insane is the cost of living in Berkeley?

485m² of land in one of the highest-income urban areas in the world is for rich people only, yeah.

Not even top 25 in the US. Median household income in Berkeley, CA is $97,834.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#40

Post by no_wizard »

theluketaylor wrote: post #9
thereisnospork wrote: post #2

A surprisingly progressive proposal coming from Berkeley, but of course they are still playing games with parking minimums maximums, setback requirements, and income segregation. Seems like it would be a step forward at least.

This is a real danger lurking among the zoning reform efforts we are seeing all over the english-speaking world. There are so many levers baked into the zoning code to prevent development that it's easy to produce a policy that appears to unwind the restrictions without actually permitting any real progress. My city upzoned the entire city from 1 to 3 units per lot across the whole city a few years ago, which is grea…

I know I said this in another thread but all zoning reform should really be coupled with a Land Value Tax

That would encourage development and encourage making additional reforms to accommodate any unseen / unaddressed issues with the reform

Post reply on HN