HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 1:38 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,977
Some High-Rent California Cities Aren't Building Enough Apartments...

My thought when I first read the headline: 'DUH!'



From Capital Public Radio:

Some High-Rent California Cities Aren't Building Enough Apartments, And Zoning Is Part Of The Problem


A housing project near Broadway in Sacramento.
Andrew Nixon / Capital Public Radio

Chris Nichols
Tuesday, August 27, 2019 | Sacramento, CA

Cities near some of California’s biggest job centers are discouraging the construction of new apartments despite high rents and strong housing demand, according to a recent Brookings Institution report.

It found several affluent, smaller cities near Silicon Valley and Los Angeles went years without building a single apartment, even though they were home to the highest rents in the state. The report said strict local zoning rules prevented development, partly by limiting the amount of land reserved for apartment buildings and by restricting height and density.

“Unfortunately, a lot of the most expensive places where there’s the most demand for people to live are actually doing the worst job at building apartments,” said Jenny Scheutz, co-author of the July report. “They’ve put in place a bunch of regulations that essentially make it hard or impossible to build apartments there.”

The Brookings Institution is a nonpartisan research center.

The report examined cities across the state, and found higher rents don't necessarily lead to more construction of apartment units.

Of the 12 cities with the highest median rents as of 2012 — all more than $2,000 per month at the time — researchers found nine failed to build a single apartment from 2013 to 2017. Those include Atherton, Hillsborough, La Cañada Flintridge, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, Ross and Westlake Village.

Over the past decade, California has built an average of about 75,000 homes per year, according to data cited by the California Building Industry Association. That includes single-family homes, condos and apartments.

But it's far from the pace researchers and state leaders say is needed to meet demand. It’s also far from the promise Gov. Gavin Newsom set during his campaign of building 3.5 million new units by 2025.

The building industry data also show California produced more multi-family units than single-family homes in five of the past six years. But, as the Brookings report demonstrates, that growth hasn’t been evenly spread out.

Scheutz said California’s housing growth has been concentrated in two places in recent years: Urban metros, which are building apartments, and in exurbs, communities beyond the suburbs where single-family homes are still being built. Closer-in suburbs aren’t building as much.

Those larger metros “can’t bear all the weight of this,” she added. “The suburbs need to do their part.”

[...]

Read the rest by clicking this link: http://www.capradio.org/articles/201...MSrrYGd-jmQ3x0
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 3:17 AM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,912
I’d just like to point out that Rolling Hills Estates is an incorporated city but it operates more like a giant HOA. The entire city is comprised only of 2+ acre lots with single family homes. The only commercial Lot is City Hall. So it’s a bit disingenuous to call them out for not building apartments as there isn’t a single one in the entire municipality.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 5:11 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 511
Not every community should be obligated to build concrete jungles. Why aren't seeing proposals left and right, ten fold over what we're seeing now in LA and don't blame it on R-1. There is plenty of lots and zoned land that could replace what currently exists. Environmental and union laws don't add to construction costs?

California has de fact declared war on suburbs and freeways with the former Caltrans Director on record saying the next long term plan will include little to no new GP lanes. So what confidence does that give developers and buyers alike for suburban style living which if expanded no doubt would ease the housing crunch to an extent. We could expand the suburbs like Dallas for the next 50 years in the high and low deserts and still would't come close to developing half of it. Not to mention the land that exists in the Central Valley.

Then there is the issue with NIMBY's which urbanists here seemed to follow the mantra of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" when discussing the 710 tunnel but yet now that is buried and dead they are onto protesting the next building over 5 stories.

Want to fix housing? Turn Santa Monica skyline into Miami by extending 3 new subway lines and 2 new freeways extending the 2 and 90 freeways via tunnels to support the people. Extend I-10 to Oxnard similar to the new Hong Kong bridge and turn Ventura and Onxard into a Los Angeles skyline. Remove much of the R-1 zoning between Hollywood-Beverly Center area-DTLA and creating a Manhattan skyline. Build a massive HSR network alongside new freeways. Undertake one of the largest freeway widening initiatives ever for freeways connecting to the high and low deserts to facilitate growth. Allow the sub-urbanization of these deserts and around the Salton Sea turning it into the resort it was proposed as. The low deserts could support healthy skylines and millions of people. The high desert several more million. This would primarily be consisted of single family homes. HDC corridor built and I-40 extended to Bakersfield. Add 6-8 elevated express lanes on all freeways. This coupled with subway and HSR extensions would eliminate any congestion even at rush hour for decades to come. Also build the SR-2 tunnel to Palmdale.

Add about 30 high-rises in Burbank, 50 in Van Nuys, 30 around Warner Center, 30 in Pasadena, and 50 in Glendale. Most of those being residential. Sounds like a lot? If the demand is there and CA is pro-business/development, then it should be no issue. Most of these need to be affordable and not luxury only. Instead of forcing developers to make them affordable which hinders development, find new ways of making construction cheaper through innovation.

How to pay for it? California already has the highest taxes in the US. Stop giving welfare to everyone and their dog and spend on our infrastructure that would create jobs, expand the city, allow new businesses to open, and give those that need welfare opportunities to be a part of these new businesses. The housing construction would come with the free market if California would remove labor union control and restrictions letting it work!

Now anyone thinking I'm crazy should ask themselves first if this plan would help with the housing crunch? If you don't think so explain why. We need to think bold. My plan is more complex but I don't feel like writing a novel. I get with many on here my freeways plan doesn't sit well and that's fine. Also my plan isn't perfect but any other plan just seems to try and rethink the same old with small changes but it clearly isn't working. The new housing being built is always luxury with the government having to force lower prices. Same with rent control. Simply put, the liberal California experiment isn't working. Look at the statistics. The state is going downhill. This isn't doom and gloom, but it isn't looking good.

We need better plans than advocating for subways that should have been built 30 years ago, or makeshift solutions like rent control and affordable housing sponsored by the government.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 1:29 PM
Sun Belt's Avatar
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
Love it or leave it : )
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,584
^I'd vote for your plan. Much of the pain is self inflicted and NIMBYs reject solutions to their pain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 1:47 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,471
Yea, it's getting frustrating seeing LA building all these mixed use 7 story buildings when it should really be adding 20-30 story towers in many nieghborhoods. They're building some of these, but it's not enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 2:12 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,926
I have no problem with this. Municipalities have the right to determine their own zoning, and should not be obligated to provide some prescribed zoning typology unless they're clearly violating federal/state law.

And it's frankly silly to expect high density apartments somewhere like Atherton. No transit, walkability, infrastructure, nothing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 3:22 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
Yea, it's getting frustrating seeing LA building all these mixed use 7 story buildings when it should really be adding 20-30 story towers in many nieghborhoods. They're building some of these, but it's not enough.
For me, it's the opposite at least in regards to Chicago.

Until the Rahm years, in Chicago you would either get 40 story buildings downtown or townhomes/SFH/3-4 story buildings in the neighborhoods.

With Rahm's TOD ordinance and the rise of the rental boom, we finally started to get more "magic middle" type buildings out in the neighborhoods. We started seeing more 7,8,10, etc story apartment buildings get built all over the place with reduced parking.

Fast forward to today, with an onslaught of Communists who've joined the city council who want WAY more affordable housing than is economical and who otherwise resent the professional classes who are occupying these new buildings, as well as legitimate practical concerns (at certain subway stops the trains are basically at capacity) and we are now seeing a slowdown in this type of development.
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 3:30 PM
xzmattzx's Avatar
xzmattzx xzmattzx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
Posts: 5,172
Who exactly is for strict zoning nowadays? It seems like a bipartisan issue. Republicans believe in a more free market approach, meaning if you have a plan to building something, the government shouldn't get in your way that much. Democrats believe in helping out the poor and lower incomes, and providing more for them to make life easier. Both sides seem to agree that more housing is the best way to lower housing prices, which is simple supply and demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 3:36 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
For me, it's the opposite at least in regards to Chicago.

Until the Rahm years, in Chicago you would either get 40 story buildings downtown or townhomes/SFH/3-4 story buildings in the neighborhoods.

With Rahm's TOD ordinance and the rise of the rental boom, we finally started to get more "magic middle" type buildings out in the neighborhoods. We started seeing more 7,8,10, etc story apartment buildings get built all over the place with reduced parking.

Fast forward to today, with an onslaught of Communists who've joined the city council who want WAY more affordable housing than is economical and who otherwise resent the professional classes who are occupying these new buildings, as well as legitimate practical concerns (at certain subway stops the trains are basically at capacity) and we are now seeing a slowdown in this type of development.
Yea, I remember that happening when I was in Chicago. It was odd most neighborhoods wouldnt allow over 5 stories.

LA's different, because there are already alot of business districts with 10-15 story buildings already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 7:54 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,443
The State of Washington mandates that in every urban county, every municipality plan for significant growth. So every single one of them does. Generally each suburb plans densish nodes in originally-sprawly commercial areas. The details can be hard but the principle is simple.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2019, 10:18 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
^I'd vote for your plan. Much of the pain is self inflicted and NIMBYs reject solutions to their pain.
Completely agree and that is what is so maddening about this. I just saw an article about some development in Sherman Oaks being reduced in size(like 280 apartments to 240 so not a huge reduction) and everyone is acting like this is a good development. It should have had 10x as many apartments to begin with and the measly scope is reduced. Then I turn around and see another article about the housing crisis and solutions city leaders are "trying" to come up with. Play connect the dots here and things start looking funny really quick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
Yea, it's getting frustrating seeing LA building all these mixed use 7 story buildings when it should really be adding 20-30 story towers in many nieghborhoods. They're building some of these, but it's not enough.
A huge problem also is that many of the ones that are opening have rents starting at like 3.5k a month for a fucking studio!!!! When the working class can't pay for these and they are built for those using them as a second or a vacation homes, it doesn't do much to ease the housing crunch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2019, 6:26 AM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,916
^^^ I really liked your plan too. I would also add better land development in the IE that would allow consistent suburban/ urban dense growth in and between San Bernardino, Riverside, and the other cities around them. Eventually connect that growth between LA and Orange County and slowly turn that region into America’s more low-key version of Tokyo, Mexico City, or São Paulo. That shit would be amazing.
__________________
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
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2019, 2:31 PM
Chisouthside Chisouthside is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Silicon Valley/Chicago
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I have no problem with this. Municipalities have the right to determine their own zoning, and should not be obligated to provide some prescribed zoning typology unless they're clearly violating federal/state law.

And it's frankly silly to expect high density apartments somewhere like Atherton. No transit, walkability, infrastructure, nothing.
Atherton has a Caltrain stop and and a short ride from Mountain View, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Redwood City etc, but given the socioeconomic situation they definitely wont built apartment buildings for facebook employees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2019, 2:37 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
^^^ I really liked your plan too. I would also add better land development in the IE that would allow consistent suburban/ urban dense growth in and between San Bernardino, Riverside, and the other cities around them. Eventually connect that growth between LA and Orange County and slowly turn that region into America’s more low-key version of Tokyo, Mexico City, or São Paulo. That shit would be amazing.
Thanks. Yeah that would be incredible! San Bernardino and IE do have much room for growth-- I'd like to see larger skylines in those cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2019, 7:31 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
The State of Washington mandates that in every urban county, every municipality plan for significant growth. So every single one of them does. Generally each suburb plans densish nodes in originally-sprawly commercial areas. The details can be hard but the principle is simple.
I like this idea. I haven't been to LA in a while, but based on what I know about it, I think that this would work well there.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End

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 8:58 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.