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

71–80 of 289 posts

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

#71

Post by cyberax »

kasey_junk wrote: post #23
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.

Do you have a single data point to back up your assertion? Because the places I’ve seen that have embraced upzoning seem to be counter your assertion https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/...

SF has not built anything, but rents decreased much more than in MN: https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/sf-rent-price...

Rents right now are an unreliable indicator because they are heavily affected by the downtown blights that are spreading in many cities.

Sale prices are much more reliable, and Minneapolis prices (as expected) grew: https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-mar...

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

#72

Post by cyberax »

rottencupcakes wrote: post #25
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.

You are likely correct. This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. Crime is a problem to solve in any Western urban area and is particularly bad here now. Congestion is another problem to solve. Manhattan has solved both to a degree. I’d imagine we can too.

> This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous.

The thing is, there are plenty of much nicer places even in CA. Just go north a bit, and there's plenty of space to build housing near Napa or Sacramento.

Yet people somehow have to be crammed into the SFBA. Why?

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

#73

Post by apsurd »

cyberax wrote: post #67
apsurd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cyberax! YOU LIVE FOR THIS "against urban cities" battle. Hi again wave I'm the bicycle commuter dude who likes walkable and dense cities. Of course course I want just enough of my own private solitude to retreat to as well. But sign me up for density!

> Of course course I want just enough of my own private solitude to retreat to as well. But sign me up for density! Then why do you want density? Do you want other people to live in bunk beds in 40 years?

because it's not mutually exclusive. i feel like that's why your arguments are ultimately hard to parse.

I really am ok with living with less possible surface area if it means i can have walkable access to all civilization's great ideas and achievements.

that doesn't mean ZERO surface area. and it doesn't mean i would take a mcmansion on 5 acres if i could. Really though, I wouldn't if you gave it to me!

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

#74

Post by amluto »

> If a builder chooses to add parking and they’re located 0.5 miles within a transit corridor, they are limited to one space for every two homes.

This seems weird. I’m all in favor of getting rid of legislated parking minimums, but it seems to me that, if a developer thinks that adding parking is more economical, they should be allowed to do so.

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

#75

Post by theluketaylor »

NoPedantsThanks wrote: post #69
j7ake wrote: post #16

Excellent news! What a relief for a city dominated by struggling students to have more housing per area.

Excellent news! More handouts for developers, targeting already-residential neighborhoods instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial and -commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's. And in a drought- and heat-stricken state, let's pave over what little soil remains, to prevent groundwater percolation and exacerbate urban "heat islands." This article regurgitates all…

How exactly is this a "more handouts for developers"? Removing zoning restrictions just makes building possible, it doesn't create any subsidies for building. Handouts for developers is opening good agricultural land for development. Fixing generations of terrible zoning for infill development is just unlocking existing sites to be more than exclusively single family homes.

> instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial

Economically infeasible as there isn't currently a way to rehabilitate contaminated land and hope to break even on development. More superfund-like efforts at all levels of government need to do the cleanup and then turn things loose for development.

> commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's

Couldn't agree more, those areas should be turned into fantastic mixed-use development neighbourhoods. That shouldn't be exclusive to tearing down generations of bad zoning exclusions and restrictions.

> prevent groundwater percolation

Advocating for affordable water management solutions being made part of any substantial renovation or re-devleopment like permeable pavement makes a lot of sense. I'd want to make sure it doesn't become another barrier that keeps construction costs high, but there isn't a reason better water management and infill density can't go hand in hand.

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

#76

Post by [deleted] »

NoPedantsThanks wrote: post #69
j7ake wrote: post #16

Excellent news! What a relief for a city dominated by struggling students to have more housing per area.

Excellent news! More handouts for developers, targeting already-residential neighborhoods instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial and -commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's. And in a drought- and heat-stricken state, let's pave over what little soil remains, to prevent groundwater percolation and exacerbate urban "heat islands." This article regurgitates all…

[deleted]

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

#77

Post by matrix87 »

NoPedantsThanks wrote: post #69
j7ake wrote: post #16

Excellent news! What a relief for a city dominated by struggling students to have more housing per area.

Excellent news! More handouts for developers, targeting already-residential neighborhoods instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial and -commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's. And in a drought- and heat-stricken state, let's pave over what little soil remains, to prevent groundwater percolation and exacerbate urban "heat islands." This article regurgitates all…

Excellent news! Less property value for you! Next stop, no more prop 13 either

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

#79

Post by quesera »

cyberax wrote: post #72
rottencupcakes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are likely correct. This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. Crime is a problem to solve in any Western urban area and is particularly bad here now. Congestion is another problem to solve. Manhattan has solved both to a degree. I’d imagine we can too.

> This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. The thing is, there are plenty of much nicer places even in CA. Just go north a bit, and there's plenty of space to build housing near Napa or Sacramento. Yet people somehow have to be crammed into the SFBA. Why?

Because Sacramento is hot, suburban, and has limited employment options.

And Napa is dry, rural, and has no employment options.

SFBA OTOH: Temperate, verdant, urban, and swimming in jobs.

I do like Sacramento and Napa. But they are very different lifestyles, despite being so close.

Also, it's very difficult to build in Napa, due to water availability. Sacramento is easier, and it gets even easier as you get farther out...but fewer people want to.

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

#80

Post by cyberax »

rottencupcakes wrote: post #25
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.

You are likely correct. This is because the Bay Area is a highly desirable place to live and will continue to get more so as climate change gets worse but the Bay Area stays gorgeous. Crime is a problem to solve in any Western urban area and is particularly bad here now. Congestion is another problem to solve. Manhattan has solved both to a degree. I’d imagine we can too.

> Crime is a problem to solve in any Western urban area and is particularly bad here now.

I said a lot about housing, now let's talk about crime. None of the ultra-liberal West Coast cities will be able to solve it within this decade. It'd likely require a Federal-level intervention by the National Guard, ordered by the Emperor Eric Trump (Long May He Rule).

Dealing with drug and gang crimes requires strict law enforcement with zero tolerance for nonsense. And I don't see Democratic governments doing that. They'll just keep ineffectually repeating nonsense about "solving the root causes", "system racism", "affordable housing", and so on.

Post reply on HN