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

91–100 of 289 posts

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

#91

Post by panick21_ »

linguae wrote: post #50
earthwalker99 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There was a major environmentalist and neighborhood preservationist movement in California during the 1960s and 1970s that helped fuel anti-growth measures. While they weren't strictly leftist (there are right-wing slow- and anti-growth advocates), they did complement the views of the New Left, which embraced environmentalism and came out of the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s. The San Francisco freeway revolt…

Its hilarious that they thought that the solution to to many cars was single family homes everywhere. Just completely not understanding anything.

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

#92

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

#93

Post by cyberax »

bobthepanda wrote: post #36
CydeWeys wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Brooklyn's population density is only half of that in Manhattan, and there's plenty of new construction there.

Guess what it does to prices?

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

#94

Post by apsurd »

cyberax wrote: post #88
apsurd wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> because it's not mutually exclusive. Yes, it is. It's a zero-sum game, and dense cities are more economically advantageous for companies. They allow them to offload their externalities onto their employees, via increased living costs. Tokyo is a GREAT example. It's now so dense and expensive that some people are forced to live in microapartments, where you can cook your food while sitting on a toilet. And of course…

i really do take you seriously. and i learn from you.

but also: come on, Japan is the planet's most economically significant TINY ISLAND. you don't have to reach for capitalist conspiracy theories to reason about Japan's issues.

and i say this as a kind of inevitable anti-capitalist!

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

#95

Post by aorloff »

Berkeley is where 1/4 of the elected City Councilmember quit in the last month, one due to harassment and threats (People's Park appearing to be the exacerbating issue) and the other because she is fed up with Berkeley politics, not so much that she isn't still running for mayor, and not because of the protestors who were kinda talking over her big announcement, and also not because of threats like the other guy.

We are capable of great things here in Berkeley, primarily in comedy, jazz, and food. I wouldn't expect much out of our local government.

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

#96

Post by theluketaylor »

panick21_ wrote: post #87
theluketaylor wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Totally agree. The whole zoning code needs to be reworked. In addition to what you mentioned. There are also issues with building regulation as well. The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved. Such as four-plex that fit into single family neighborhoods. So developers can just pick those up and get building in a short period of time.

> The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved

Maybe I'm late to the party, but I recently found out some cities are doing exactly that and I'd love to see it become extremely common. South Bend, IN is an example that has plans ready to be used of housing that is reasonably affordable to build. I'd love to see even more multi-family options, but let's not have perfect be the enemy of good.

In my city I'd love to have a catalogue of ADUs shapes and configurations I could just add by right.

https://southbendin.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBBT_Cata...

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

#97

Post by slater »

matrix87 wrote: post #77
NoPedantsThanks wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Don’t you be threatening everyone with a good time, now!

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

#98

Post by kredd »

meeks wrote: post #64
kredd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived my entire life in urban cities of different countries, and I don't think I can agree. My quality of life would be dropped significantly if I had to move to a suburban or less dense city. It's a game of priorities and balance: - Space wise, I definitely don't need more than 2 bedroom apartment to myself. I don't think I would get a bigger place unless I partnered up or something. - Especially white collar j…

Downtown Costco, is this Vancouver perhaps?

Yeah, it is. Although last time I bragged about it, I've been told SF and Seattle (?) also have that. But I shall keep boasting about it non-stop.

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

#99

Post by ajmurmann »

ravetcofx wrote: post #90
amluto wrote: post #74

> 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.

This will prevent developers from keeping old poor habits around of bad land use

If there is concern about underutilizing land, pass a land value tax and the market will figure out what's the best way to improve the value of the property itself beyond the windfall from the unimproved land going up in value due to surrounding economic activity.

When it comes to housing the US seems to suffer some kind of disability that makes it impossible to not be tempted to steer towards a planned economy.

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

#100

Post by theluketaylor »

cyberax wrote: post #93
bobthepanda wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Brooklyn's population density is only half of that in Manhattan, and there's plenty of new construction there. Guess what it does to prices?

You're reading the demand/supply situation backwards. Even with all the construction in Brooklyn, supply is failing to meet demand, therefore prices are going up. We've failed to meet supply in urban spaces for several generations now and have a massive deficit to pay off before adding any supply can actually drive prices down; we're barely adding enough units to affect the rate of increase of prices.
Post reply on HN