HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2019, 11:42 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 2,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
The state's isolation defintely hurts, as I know many people who choose Florida over California because it's closer/cheaper to do.
True. But then again, how many people out west go to Florida? Probably not that much, as Idaho to Florida is quite the trip.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2019, 12:17 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,747
I meant people from Chicago/east coast. They would rather go to Florida than Calfiornia for the proximity and cheaper travel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2019, 1:08 AM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
I disagree with that. If California wanted to build a bunch of highrises along the coast like Florida decades ago, it would've. They just decided to protect much of it from that same kind of development. Will that change in the future? Probably. It might not have a choice at some point.

California tourism is at an all time high. It's not the tempature of the water that keeps tourists/vacationeers away. The state's isolation defintely hurts, as I know many people who choose Florida over California because it's closer/cheaper to do.
This is illegal in the coastal zone of California because it's too tall and the Calif. Coastal Commission would reject it, even if a coastal community approved it. This is insane.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2019, 1:15 AM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I know this area pretty well. I bike it every winter. The Irvine Company owned most of Crystal Cove, and wanted to cover it in high density condos. Wealthy NIMBYs pushed back hard.

Almost all the land was permanently protected, but they were allowed to build some low-scale, low density stuff (Resort at Pelican Hill, that PCH shopping center, and $5-$10 million homes in the hills). To me, that's a lot better than Florida-style growth, where you build giant highrise condos everywhere, and it's just as autocentric, so it ends up as dense sprawl.

Granted, the FL coast isn't as scenic as the CA coast. And no one who isn't wealthy has a shot of living anywhere near Crystal Cove.
The problem with the California coast compared to the Florida coast is topography.

A coastal high rise in Florida isn't blocking anybody else's view 2 blocks away because Florida is flat as a pancake.

In contrast, the California coast line is not flat and 2 blocks away you'll have densely developed bluffs, full of homeowners. If you build a row of Florida style - 50 story towers along the ocean front, you've just screwed over everybody else not on the ocean front.

That's where the NIMBYism is strong and those wealthy homeowners have a lot of political clout, some might even be politicians themselves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2019, 1:18 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,747
Thumbs down

That's not set in stone either, it's not a commandment or something.
It could be changed. You never know.

Nobody said 50 story towers, as that's even the exception in Florida.
I
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2019, 4:18 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: NYC/SP/RJ
Posts: 138
California does an outstanding job at Coastal Protection, I don't believe any state has such an extensive network of Coastal parks and the like.

I don't think CA should follow FL in building thousands of High-rises up and down the coast, but density is key and the inland cities should be allowed to have well planned, high density, high rise clusters. There is absolutely no reason Oakland shouldn't have more high rise development. Same goes for San Jose and all other slightly inland, high cost areas. It's economics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 12:03 AM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 4,032
Florida has a significant portion of its shoreline without any development. You guys are acting like everything there is as developed as the southeastern part. Only South Florida is known to have significant amounts of high rises near the coast. Tampa Bay, Jacksonville metro, and many other coastal cities barely have them, if any.

I thing the “flatter” coastal towns in Cali like Huntington Beach and Long Beach should have more highrises next to the coast. It would limit luxury housing to a smaller geographical footprint.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 1:04 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
There is absolutely no reason Oakland shouldn't have more high rise development.
I would agree, but I don't think that Oakland is special in this regard. Basically every town with a BART station should have high-rise or at least mid-rise development around that station.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 1:08 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 312
Alternatively, a town could pay some sort of penalty to offset having higher zoning, so that areas like Orinda, Walnut Creek etc. could remain low density.

Just an idea, though.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 1:29 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
I would agree, but I don't think that Oakland is special in this regard. Basically every town with a BART station should have high-rise or at least mid-rise development around that station.
Since BART is essentially a LIRR-type system (e.g. commuter rail) with very wide station spacing (2.5 miles on average), you still need the parking infrastructure to cater to the existing ridership base.

Building mid-rises (let alone high-rises) around most BART stations isn't realistically feasible anyway, since the ROW runs along a freeway median or cuts through very suburban neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 2:52 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,284
I was looking at redfin NYC recently and was thinking Manhattan real estate has so many incredible good deals. When you start thinking Manhattan is cheap, that’s when you really know how stupid everything has gotten in the bay area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 3:08 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
The need of existing NIMBY homeowners for massive profits is trumped by the need of younger people for affordable housing. Like a monopolist trying to keep prices high by blocking competition. Pure self-centered anti-social "rent seeking" behavior.
I love how they spin it too. As if blocking housing in their neighborhood is really in line with their progressive, liberal ideals for “local control” and “preservation” and they're really about thinking of the poor who could be displaced, and they’re just against greedy developers. It’s definitely not about traffic or keeping the value of their house about $1M. Or getting outrageous appreciation of their home value every year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 4:37 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman View Post
I was looking at redfin NYC recently and was thinking Manhattan real estate has so many incredible good deals. When you start thinking Manhattan is cheap, that’s when you really know how stupid everything has gotten in the bay area.
And this is before mentioning the comparatively great value to be found in suburban Westchester and Fairfield Counties, where you can purchase a spacious stately-looking home on a large lot for $1.5-1.75 million. In tony Scarsdale, there's currently a 6,000-SF, 6-bed, 6.5-bath home on a 1.1-acre lot on the market for a little less than $2 million. The house is ugly, but the fact that you can get that much real estate in a posh suburb just a one-seat, 45-minute train ride away from the heart of Midtown Manhattan is astounding.

https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/.../pid_30790724/

Meanwhile, $2 million can't even get you into Atherton. But it can get you this nice 1,800-SF condo in Palo Alto:

https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/.../pid_32552644/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 11:19 AM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
HSR prices are comparable with plane tickets, no one uses it for daily commutes work anywhere, only business trips and vacations, just like planes. For example, shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka is about $180 for a one way ticket. Really short commutes start at around $90 for a one way trip... and this is considered pretty cheap.
Not many people will commute from Osaka to Tokyo on the Tōkaidō Shinkansen, but a lot do make the journey from the cities and communities between the two. Hence daily ridership on the Tōkaidō Shinkansen (not including the Main Line) was 466,000; that absolutely dwarfs North America’s largest commuter network – the MTA Long Island Rail Road – which came in at 355,000.

Part of the issue I think is that there is a misconception around HSR and long-distance (or so-called super) commuting. Speed isn’t everything over long distances; you need connectivity, frequencies, the right urban and rail development, all-day service, capacity, etc... In the UK super-commuting has ballooned by 30% in the six years to 2016 because obscene house prices in London have forced people further afield. Long distance commuting in the UK isn’t cheap, but for an increasing number of people that and the time penalty are more than made up with far more square footage. More people use the intercity services on the West Coast Main Line than on the entire Boston or Philadelphia commuter networks.

Long distance commuting by rail in North America is a far less viable proposition. From all the HSR plans I’ve seen in the US, that doesn’t look likely to change.
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2019_12_21
London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2019_04_03
London General Update Thread updated: 2019_04_03
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 1:18 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,947
I don't understand why you guys are still discussing oceanside high-rises. Upzoning along the ocean wouldn't really alleviate California's housing crisis that much, because a ton of the units would be snagged by investors and/or rich people for part-time homes. Plus usually the oceanside is not the most convenient place when it comes to commutes to major job anchors - certainly not when considering transit.

The places California most needs upzoning are strip malls, the dinky little one-story "walkable business districts" with no apartments above, and neighborhoods full of dated ranches immediately adjacent to major employers. Plus land near transit in general.

Last edited by eschaton; Nov 11, 2019 at 1:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 1:37 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman View Post
I was looking at redfin NYC recently and was thinking Manhattan real estate has so many incredible good deals. When you start thinking Manhattan is cheap, that’s when you really know how stupid everything has gotten in the bay area.
Where exactly are these "incredibly good deals"? I'm in Brooklyn and RE apples to apples is considerably more expensive. I could move to Pacific Heights and get a bigger, nicer place for the same money.

Of course SV is a different market than SF, and I'm not sure how you would compare a postwar ranch in Sunnyvale to a co-op in Manhattan, given it isn't even the same type of homeownership. And overall, the NYC metro is cheap compared to the Bay Area, especially Jersey. But the core is generally much more expensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 1:41 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
And this is before mentioning the comparatively great value to be found in suburban Westchester and Fairfield Counties, where you can purchase a spacious stately-looking home on a large lot for $1.5-1.75 million. In tony Scarsdale, there's currently a 6,000-SF, 6-bed, 6.5-bath home on a 1.1-acre lot on the market for a little less than $2 million. The house is ugly, but the fact that you can get that much real estate in a posh suburb just a one-seat, 45-minute train ride away from the heart of Midtown Manhattan is astounding.

https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/.../pid_30790724/

Meanwhile, $2 million can't even get you into Atherton. But it can get you this nice 1,800-SF condo in Palo Alto:

https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/.../pid_32552644/
Scarsdale is definitely cheaper than Atherton, but the math isn't right.

Scarsdale has multiples higher property taxes, plus the highest transfer taxes in the nation, plus a "millionaires tax" on anything over $1 million, plus higher income taxes, plus higher utilities. In part, the home is cheaper because everything else is more expensive.

Property taxes, in particular, play a huge role in home price variation in the NYC metro, and a 500k home can be "more expensive" than a 700k home when you compare the total costs. The same home can have 50k annual taxes in one jurisdiction and 10k annual taxes in another, so home prices, by themselves, aren't particularly useful.

Also when comparing urban real estate, it's critical to distinguish between condos and coops, which have totally different ownership structures and costs. Many coops have very low prices, but this is a function of the coop rules. For example, many coops don't allow mortgages, and require a through vetting of finances, and require minimum wealth standards. And the buyer needs to vet the coop's cash reserves, or there may be a big surprise down the line, with a six or seven figure assessment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 1:47 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
Since BART is essentially a LIRR-type system (e.g. commuter rail) with very wide station spacing (2.5 miles on average), you still need the parking infrastructure to cater to the existing ridership base.

Building mid-rises (let alone high-rises) around most BART stations isn't realistically feasible anyway, since the ROW runs along a freeway median or cuts through very suburban neighborhoods.
This gives an inaccurate impression of what the built environment looks like around many Bart stations. The land use around lots of them is truly embarrassing since it's often made up of strip malls/big box, acres of surface parking, or simply swaths of vacant land the municipality it sits in won't zone for dense residential.

I mean Jesus christ just look at Concord as one example:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2019, 4:19 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Scarsdale is definitely cheaper than Atherton, but the math isn't right.

Scarsdale has multiples higher property taxes, plus the highest transfer taxes in the nation, plus a "millionaires tax" on anything over $1 million, plus higher income taxes, plus higher utilities. In part, the home is cheaper because everything else is more expensive.

Property taxes, in particular, play a huge role in home price variation in the NYC metro, and a 500k home can be "more expensive" than a 700k home when you compare the total costs. The same home can have 50k annual taxes in one jurisdiction and 10k annual taxes in another, so home prices, by themselves, aren't particularly useful.
But even if you’re paying $50,000 in annual property and utility taxes, it still doesn’t balance the scale because a Palo Alto equivalent of that Scarsdale home would run in the 8 figures. If you drew that out over a 40-year period, it wouldn’t come close to making up that difference. And those who can afford and/or are willing to pay those absurd expenditures annually probably have a household income north of $500K. The average upper middle class, two-income family doesn’t need 6 bedrooms.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2019, 4:13 PM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
California tourism is at an all time high. It's not the tempature of the water that keeps tourists/vacationeers away. The state's isolation defintely hurts, as I know many people who choose Florida over California because it's closer/cheaper to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
Personally, i'm really happy that California doesnt generally allow high rises on the beach / beach cities. Im perfectly happy with concentrating them in Long Beach, Santa Monica, Marina Del Rey and perhaps one or 2 more cities. I love the small town vibe of Manhattan Beach, Hermosa, etc.
Not only is Florida closer to more people (US, Caribbean, Latin America) and has warmer waters, the coastal air temperature is on average 10+ degrees higher than coastal SoCal, which is the warmest coast CA has. I think the difference in temperature definitely plays a part.

Although CA will definitely need to build more highrises, I'm in agreement that it should not be along the entire coast.

They have nice small town vibes but there are other cities along the coast that can pick up the slack. I'd really like to see Long Beach be even more aggressive with highrise residential, especially in its downtown area. It already has Belmont Shore as the small town beach-vibe area. Huntington Beach could see more mid-rise apartments. The soil there is very susceptible to liquefaction so I understand not going crazy with highrises there. Newport Center, Santa Monica, etc., are other areas.

I'm also okay with developing the desert between the Antelope Valley and High Desert. This could really be a middle-class hub for all of California.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:50 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.