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

151–160 of 289 posts

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

#151

Post by RuggedPineapple »

crotchfire wrote: post #144
givemeethekeys wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Not until a majority of Berkeley residents are politically active renters.

And remember, international students can't vote. That includes a lot of the grad students.

Are you sure about that? Only federal offices have a baked in requirement that voters be citizens. On the municipal level many west coast cities have opened up local elections to all residents regardless of citizenship. I don't know about Berkeley specifically (its been close to 20 years since I went to school there) but its neighbors Oakland[1] and SF[2] both have opened at least some local elections to non-citizen residents.

Like I said, I don't know the answer and while I made a token effort to check, Berkeley city code actually seems somewhat difficult to find from a first party source. Just want to make sure this wasn't an off the cuff remark.

[1]: https://ballotpedia.org/Oakland,_California,_Measure_S,_Nonc...

[2]: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Non-Citiz...

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

#152

Post by malermeister »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #142
iav wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a developer is replacing a 2 story, 20 unit building with 20 parking spots with a new 5 story, 50 unit building, they shouldn’t be able to have more than 25 parking spots, as that is already a net increase from the status quo and will thereby increase traffic and congestion (the street isn’t getting wider…). The logical fallacy here is that it assumes those 25 units without a spot won’t just street park.

Sounds like a problem for a land tax. If cars make more money than homes and businesses, go for it.

Trying to shoehorn a market into everything is not necessarily a good thing. I'd prefer housing for low income folks over parking for rich tech dudes.

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

#153

Post by AndyMcConachie »

crotchfire wrote: post #144
givemeethekeys wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Not until a majority of Berkeley residents are politically active renters.

And remember, international students can't vote. That includes a lot of the grad students.

Also, grad student housing is in Albany, right on the border with Berkeley. So anyone living there doesn't actually live in Berkeley.

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

#154

Post by sokoloff »

chottocharaii wrote: post #112
josuepeq wrote: post #109

I like the idea! I also like Dingbats. And parking. Removing parking minimums is a noble idea, but one thing I have noticed is that the new “parking free” apartment buildings in San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin and SOMA, are having a hard time getting all of their units filled, even with prices slashed. This is a problem that buildings with parking seem to not have. Even with good transit, the city is much easie…

Okay so if that’s the case the developers/owners will work out the most economic model; whether it’s best to satisfy demand with bays or without bays This is self-correcting. Minimums only ensure an inappropriate amount of parking will be built

I agree that parking minimums can cause inappropriate amounts of parking to be built.

It seems obvious to me that parking maximums can do the same thing.

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

#155

Post by adrianN »

josuepeq wrote: post #109

I like the idea! I also like Dingbats. And parking. Removing parking minimums is a noble idea, but one thing I have noticed is that the new “parking free” apartment buildings in San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin and SOMA, are having a hard time getting all of their units filled, even with prices slashed. This is a problem that buildings with parking seem to not have. Even with good transit, the city is much easie…

San Francisco doesn’t have good transit.

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

#156

Post by ildjarn »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #142
iav wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a developer is replacing a 2 story, 20 unit building with 20 parking spots with a new 5 story, 50 unit building, they shouldn’t be able to have more than 25 parking spots, as that is already a net increase from the status quo and will thereby increase traffic and congestion (the street isn’t getting wider…). The logical fallacy here is that it assumes those 25 units without a spot won’t just street park.

Sounds like a problem for a land tax. If cars make more money than homes and businesses, go for it.

But there is a side mission to reduce car dependency.

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

#157

Post by tialaramex »

floydnoel wrote: post #133
caesil wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is that if you want to build a building with 3+ spaces per unit, you should be doing it further away from transit. Let buildings with a higher ratio of housing density to parking be closer.

this is 0.5 spaces per unit, not 3+

Yes, because you don't need a car if you live in a well designed city.

I live in a UK city and I've read the plans for the building I live in, it was submitted twice before it was accepted. Nobody had a problem with the interiors, they're nice which is why I bought one. But the original plan was rejected in the 1980s for lack of parking -everybody needs two cars right?. The same plan (with internal upgrades, nobody wants 1980s bathrooms in a 21st century home) was submitted twenty years later and now it had too much parking. So they removed some spaces and it got the OK. Today it is 0.8 spaces per unit.

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

#158

Post by atlasunshrugged »

josuepeq wrote: post #109

I like the idea! I also like Dingbats. And parking. Removing parking minimums is a noble idea, but one thing I have noticed is that the new “parking free” apartment buildings in San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin and SOMA, are having a hard time getting all of their units filled, even with prices slashed. This is a problem that buildings with parking seem to not have. Even with good transit, the city is much easie…

I think a lot of this gets solved if the city cracks down on crime and cleans up public transport. I've lived in downtown SF (5th and Mission) as well as across the Bay Area and avoided public transport other than Caltrain (even then, the SF station was not great) because of so much vagrancy, people doing drugs on the bus and metro, and just being worried about personal safety. I personally still didn't buy a car and just walked or took a Lyft/Uber most places in the end but I can see why many refuse to give up cars until public transport is safe enough for the average person who can afford an alternative.

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

#159

Post by infecto »

tialaramex wrote: post #157
floydnoel wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is 0.5 spaces per unit, not 3+

Yes, because you don't need a car if you live in a well designed city. I live in a UK city and I've read the plans for the building I live in, it was submitted twice before it was accepted. Nobody had a problem with the interiors, they're nice which is why I bought one. But the original plan was rejected in the 1980s for lack of parking -everybody needs two cars right?. The same plan (with internal upgrades, nobody w…

The Bay Area is far from a well designed city with fairly limited public transportation. Yes there is public transportation but it’s relatively limited compared to the places you may want to go.

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

#160

Post by HPsquared »

malermeister wrote: post #152
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a problem for a land tax. If cars make more money than homes and businesses, go for it.

Trying to shoehorn a market into everything is not necessarily a good thing. I'd prefer housing for low income folks over parking for rich tech dudes.

Ideally, parking for low income folks.
Post reply on HN