How California Can Build 3.5 Million New Homes
How California Can Build 3.5 Million New Homes
Jan 8th, 2019 By Alfred Twu Read More: https://medium.com/@firstcultural/ho...s-dfe2f0ba3466 Quote:
If we shrink this down to a neighborhood of 1,400 homes (1/10,000th of the state) it would look something like this. https://i.imgur.com/eYxbfUG.jpg?1 https://i.imgur.com/jzXApFP.jpg?1 https://i.imgur.com/kCTsu8y.jpg?1 https://i.imgur.com/gAzBA4T.jpg?1 https://i.imgur.com/hCxFaD1.jpg?1 |
Why do we need more homes--I thought everybody was leaving for Texas? :shrug:
That said ('cause I had to say it), Quote:
Besides this issue, I truly believe that if most of CA would simply do away with the excessive requirements for "neighborhood input" that allow even one person to hold up if not totally block projects that meet established zoning along with crazy-rigorous environmental review and other governmental restrictions, private developers would and could build all the housing CA needs (and increasing the supply in this way would drive down prices). https://i.imgur.com/hCxFaD1.jpg?1 I actually don't like this approach. What this graphic doesn't show is that most neighborhoods in SF have a commercial or shopping street--a "high street"--within a few blocks. I would rezone these streets allowing taller and denser development and spare the nearby single family neighborhoods any dense infill. You could add at least as much addtional housing and not create hysteria among the single family home dwellers. And it also would be a benefit to transit because you would run the transit lines on the commercial streets for the most part (as is already done). |
I read somewhere yesterday that in a bid to force NIMBY submission, Newsom is considering denying state funding to cities that dont meet affordable housing development goals.
Anyone else hear this? |
I say by all means, go for it. Heck, where I live now is going to need more housing as the new hospital finishes up and adds more employees to the area. Transit is also important and it has good potential here.
And none of this is very drastic. California will still be what it is now, just with more people and more city-like. This is honestly the future. |
Quote:
The California housing crisis is self inflicted. All housing shortages are self inflicted. Good for Texas for gobbling up refugees from California. Texas has a good developers environment. Something that California needs. There is too much regulation in your state. Its somewhat over kill. |
The California Environmental Quality Act is a joke. It needs some serious revisions. Its a main factor or one of them in the lack of housing. Severely limits the potential, and cost developers a lot of money and time.
Further, places like SF, with its community input, and ridiculous caps, is further making the city into a gated community. Which is what it is. A glorified gated community. And its a shame. But once again, this is not really even a California issue, but one that includes many other cities in other states, so to say its only California would be unfair. The will is just not there. Add that with spineless leaders who won't push for the type of reform that is needed, and no-wonder we have a housing crisis. |
Some or all of the below:
1. more micro apartments and micro houses 2. more "granny flats" in backyards 3. more prefab factory built housing, built in modules using cheaper and efficient assembly line techniques, or using recycled shipping containers repurposed for housing 4. more multistory and skyscraper housing, including recycled office buildings repurposed for housing. 5. more dorm style housing and rooming houses. Common dining room, with bedrooms rented out (possibly with a small bathroom in each room). 6. as a stopgap measure until the above are done, more large urban campgrounds with tent spaces, large tents to house many, and parking spaces for RVs and cars as a stopgap to house the homeless. Onsite security provided, storage provided, showers and bathrooms provided. All of the above will require zoning changes, tax changes and tax incentives and fewer NIMBYs to block things. |
Some thorns that will prevent this:
NIMBYs Enviros Social Justice Warriors Existing state laws Local zoning codes Then there's other stuff that could happen that is completely out of anyone's control: Tech Bust 2.0 Recession |
Are we talking low income housing or middle class housing?
|
Quote:
Actually, though, the attempt to be inclusive and not displace lower income working people (a different issue from the poor and perpetually welfare-dependent) by requiring an "affordable component" in market rate projects (hard to keep up, but now something like 30% of San Francisco projects must be "affordable"), the cost of the rest of the project is raised to the luxury level, beyond even a very affluent middle class. Quote:
|
Quote:
Anyway, when California allowed redevelopment agencies, the stipulation was that cities with redevelopment agencies had to also create a certain percentage of affordable housing, any form of it. In the 90s, the little LA suburb I grew up in (Cerritos), met that requirement by building a number of senior citizen communities. I'm wondering if Newsom's goal of creating more affordable housing is part of his supposed plan to reintroduce redevelopment agencies. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The developers can include the required below-market units in the same building as the market-rate housing they are building or they can build it elsewhere (I believe there is a distance limitation to prevent creation of certain neighborhoods that are all "affordable" and others that have none). There are a number of problems I see with this. First of all, if units are sold below market, and possibly even below the cost of building them, in order dor the entire project to "pencil out" (as they say), the cost of those units must be added into the market rate units being simultaneously developed pushing up their prices. Second, in the case of for-sale housing, you can end up with woners of limited means living in the same building with very affluent owners which causes problems when it comes time to fund improvements, maintenance and other things factored into assessments. The rich owners can pay higher assessments and want to improve the property but the poorer owners can't afford it. Finally, the city has shown it isn't competent to monitor resales to be sure they go to new approved buyers and the sellers aren't making windfall profits because they paid below market rates themselves. |
I take serious issue with adjusting the qualifications for, "affordable" housing based on the areas median income. This just creates inefficiency by subsidizing those high cost of living areas when we should be moving people out of those cities and into more affordable areas.
|
Upzone everywhere and let market demands decide what gets built. I do like the examples that spread out the new housing units. It may not work out to be quite that distributed as more housing units will go where demand is highest. But by allowing extra housing units everywhere one town or neighborhood can help relieve pressure on a near by town or neighborhood. A huge amount of additional housing can be added without changing the character of the neighborhood much if any.
|
I was originally against this (secret NIMBY), but the more that I think about this, I would be down.
I even offer San Mateo County (my county) as a tribute. I feel like the Bay Area could realistically support 10 - 12 M people anyways. 90% of this new housing would have to be TOD, though. Our freeways in CA are way over-taxed. In San Mateo County, we could add apartment blocks near CalTrain stations (we might as well get the full bang for the buck from electrification). Heck, we could even add apartment blocks not near train stations, and have shuttles that take people to CalTrain stations at specified times (probably one in the morning, and one in the evening). CA could also add BRT on El Camino, and upzone the parts around this corridor. Point is: We can add these units, but the occupants cannot all be using cars. There simply isn't enough space in the freeway system / given how geographically dispersed the economic centers are in the Bay Area. TLDR; this is a good idea, but the new housing needs to be TOD. |
Quote:
|
This is terrific! I used to hate Newsom and was furious when Villaraigosa lost the primary, but if this goes through, it'll be the best thing for California in decades. Running some realistic numbers, here is how things might turn out on the ground:
California Population by Year 2018: 39,557,045 2019: 39,720,000 (+162,955 people YOY) 2020: 39,930,000 (+210,000 people YOY) 2021: 40,200,000 (+270,000 people YOY) 2022: 40,620,000 (+420,000 people YOY) 2023: 41,200,000 (+580,000 people YOY) 2024: 41,870,000 (+670,000 people YOY) 2025: 42,580,000 (+710,000 people YOY) 2026: 43,310,000 (+730,000 people YOY) 2027: 43,050,000 (+740,000 people YOY) 2028: 44,800,000 (+750,000 people YOY) 2029: 45,560,000 (+760,000 people YOY) 2030: 46,330,000 (+770,000 people YOY) 2018-2030 (+6,772,955 people) Metropolitan Southern California Populations, 2030 Los Angeles County: 12,110,000 people (+1,906,493 people) San Diego County: 3,680,000 people (+342,315 people) Orange County: 3,630,000 people (+409,600 people) Riverside County: 3,250,000 people (+746,734 people) San Bernardino County: 2,490,000 people (+441,811 people) Ventura County: 950,000 people (+95,777 people) Total: 26,010,000 people (+3,783,515 people) Metropolitan Bay Area Populations, 2030 Santa Clara County: 2,310,000 people (+351,847 people) Alameda County: 1,990,000 people (+301,810 people) Contra Costa County: 1,460,000 people (+292,561 people) San Francisco County: 1,160,000 people (+270,208 people) San Mateo County: 970,000 people (+193,221 people) San Joaquin County: 890,000 people (+144,576 people) Sonoma County: 550,000 people (+45,783 people) Solano County: 540,000 people (+94,542 people) Santa Cruz County: 310,000 people (+33,103 people) Marin County: 300,000 people (+39,045 people) Napa County: 150,000 people (+9,027 people) San Benito County: 70,000 people (+7,690 people) Total: 10,710,000 people, (+1,872,211 people) Rest of California Populations, 2030 9,580,000 people (+1,004,274 people) |
Quote:
I’m obviously from Northern CA and a moderate so I’m no fan of Newsom, but I think he maybe should beware being tripped up by something similar to Gray Davis. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.