Wealthy Bay Area suburbs could have a whole new look under California housing bill

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except in reality Manhattan built like crazy during those years, and still had the highest rents anywhere.

If your scenario actually happened, Manhattan would probably be a lot cheaper, because the functions that make the place and generate demand would have dispersed.



But the Bay Area builds tons of multifamily for U.S. standards, and is the most expensive metro. Your dream scenario would be somewhere like Toronto or Vancouver, but those areas are even more unaffordable relative to incomes than Bay Area.

You can't really build your way to affordability (I mean you can, in theory, but not in practical reality).

Vancouver and Toronto are also unaffordable due to single family zoning, NIMBYism, and pent-up demand. The great majority of the land in both cities is zoned SFH and intensification of use has been micro-managed and allowed only on relatively low-hanging fruit lots. There's been essentially no real relaxation of zoning in SFH neighbourhoods in either city. Sure, both have more construction of multi-family than most cities in the US, but both also have greenbelts that mean they can't really build much more in the way of sprawl. They might be more zoning permissive than SF, but have been nowhere near permissive enough for supply to be able to expand to meet local demand. Upzoning to allow cheap wood multifamily low and midrises in such neighbourhoods is a great idea for both of these Canadian cities.

[chris08876]

Not in the Bay Area, but causing some controversy: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019...telope-valley/

20,000 homes is quite a lot. They just need more of those units in the form of mid rises.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Not in the Bay Area, but causing some controversy: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019...telope-valley/

20,000 homes is quite a lot. They just need more of those units in the form of mid rises.

That development, along with Tejon ranch are horrible, exurban sprawl in very high fire areas in the extreme outskirts.. No one wants this except the developers and county representatives. It's the absolute worst kind of growth and will do nothing for the regions housing issues. I sincerely hope all the environmental lawsuits stop this bs

[chris08876]

Did some reading on it, and looks like its u/c. Seems like too much vested interest in it being developed.

But I do agree. More sprawl that is not needed. It would of been nice for 20k units in mid-rises or high rises, preferably in areas near transit or within bus routes.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

I don't think either is under construction yet. It would have been big news out here if they were

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But the Bay Area builds tons of multifamily for U.S. standards, and is the most expensive metro. Your dream scenario would be somewhere like Toronto or Vancouver, but those areas are even more unaffordable relative to incomes than Bay Area.

You can't really build your way to affordability (I mean you can, in theory, but not in practical reality).

With the Greenbelt and downtown job growth, it's inevitable that Toronto will build a lot of multi-family even if the zoning only allows that to be done in a rather inefficient way, so it's not a surprise that housing there is still quite expensive. It's not just about how much multi-family gets built, but how and what kind of multi-family gets built.

I would also dispute that Toronto is more unaffordable. Downtown condos are much cheaper in Toronto than in San Francisco, and condos and narrow lot homes in the urban neighbourhoods outside downtown seem a bit cheaper in Toronto too. San Francisco does have cheaper suburban SFHs in its less desirable suburbs, but overall I'd say it's pretty even.

Rents on the other hand are undoubtably more affordable in Toronto, where you can find downtown condos for $1800/month, while in downtown San Francisco those would typically cost over $4000/month... Even a modest 3 bedroom home in the suburbs is cheaper to rent in Toronto, and I'd say overall, the Bay Area is about 50% more expensive to rent in adjusted for incomes.

It's interesting that out of the 3 biggest cities in English Canada, Vancouver is the most low income and also most expensive, while Calgary is the wealthiest and least expensive, with Toronto having similar prices to Vancouver and slightly higher incomes. Calgary allows both more greenfield growth and also has fairly permissive zoning in its core, leading higher rates of population growth in its urban core than either Toronto or Vancouver.

[TWAK]

Too late for me I already had to flee due to the cost of housing, but I'd like to eventually return. I was paying about 1k more a month to RENT

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

SB50 has unfortunately been shelved until next year

[chris08876]

Using this photo posted in the aerials thread as an example. Look at all of that potential building space in Oakland wasted. All those homes occupying prime land that could be high-dense mid rises. 1000's of units could be added.

Likewise for some of the low-rise or single family homes in SF. The "Richmond(s) areas for example: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...4d-122.4194155

Waste of prime land, not being built to its potential.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Oakland, California 2017:

NKC_1466 by Nick Chong, on Flickr

[Doady]

There is still land in Toronto area that has not been developed after all these years because it is zoned high density. If not for zoning, it would have been developed for single family houses by now. And of course all of the farmland throughout the GTA, the only class 1 agricultural land left in Canada, would be single family houses by now too if not for zoning. Anyone who thinks that the Toronto area is lacking high density and that it is because of zoning doesn't know what they are talking about.

And of course higher density doesn't even mean no longer building single family houses either. Single family neighbourhoods in Oakland or Mississauga aren't quite the same as single family neighbourhoods in Atlanta.

San Francisco-Oakland MSA has 550 high rises and an urban density of 2,419.5 per sqkm, second best in the USA. Toronto CMA has 2,916 high rises and an urban density of 3,028.2 per sqkm, best in Canada. These places shouldn't be singled out for lack of high-rises or density.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except in reality Manhattan built like crazy during those years, and still had the highest rents anywhere.

If your scenario actually happened, Manhattan would probably be a lot cheaper, because the functions that make the place and generate demand would have dispersed.



But the Bay Area builds tons of multifamily for U.S. standards, and is the most expensive metro. Your dream scenario would be somewhere like Toronto or Vancouver, but those areas are even more unaffordable relative to incomes than Bay Area.

You can't really build your way to affordability (I mean you can, in theory, but not in practical reality).

Huh? Toronto is underbuilding in every almost every category. Prices are jacked up due too way much tax and red tape burden placed on developers and not enough tax on speculators and free reign given to parasitic entities like AirBnB. The introduction of the Green Belt in 2004 also artificially pumped up land prices to the degree it's made new SFH a luxury. Thanks to egregious development fees and the Green Belt, families who should be buying new homes are now competing with young professional singles for the very few apartments in the city.

I would cut fees on development by half and put a 20% VAT on all speculation (any corporation that buys homes without subdividing and building new units on the lot) including a 20% luxury VAT on AirBnB.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Huh? Toronto is underbuilding in every almost every category. Prices are jacked up due too way much tax and red tape burden placed on developers and not enough tax on speculators and free reign given to parasitic entities like AirBnB.

Wait, what? Toronto is building as much as any U.S. Sunbelt metro, and most of its housing construction is multifamily, yet it's extremely expensive relative to incomes. Speculators and AirBnB aren't responsible for million-dollar+ crapboxes in Vaughn.

Toronto is pretty much the poster child for destroying the "Bay Area would be so much more affordable if we rezoned sprawl for high density multifamily" myth. It's exactly what housing advocates claim should be done for advancing affordability, yet it has even worse affordability issues than Bay Area.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Doady

There is still land in Toronto area that has not been developed after all these years because it is zoned high density. If not for zoning, it would have been developed for single family houses by now. And of course all of the farmland throughout the GTA, the only class 1 agricultural land left in Canada, would be single family houses by now too if not for zoning. Anyone who thinks that the Toronto area is lacking high density and that it is because of zoning doesn't know what they are talking about.

Yes, because the Toronto zoning doesn't match demand. It's skewed towards multifamily, when demand is more single family. In the U.S., the zoning is often skewed the other way. Toronto, overall, has expensive housing, but it's really the in-town SFH with the crazy prices.

[llamaorama]

Maybe people have to accept that multi family is what is available unless they intend to commute from far away.
It’s better than no new housing. I think there is another hidden variable. Maybe new construction increases desirability or signals for more speculation?

Or it’s just that demand and income growth is so high that it outstrips whatever effect new development has. You would need to analyze how much wages and local gdp has gone up. And every city is unique, you can’t do a comparison between just two and throw in some anecdotes to have an argument. A linear regression where prices are y and number of units built is x would miss so much.

[Doady]

There is some land zoned for SFH in GTA that is not being developed maybe due to lack of infrastructure like sewer. Sometimes zoning is not what contrains development. I remember the prices were increasing rapidly even before the greenbelt.

You can see Bay Area is full of mountains and water as constraints, similar to Vancouver (which also has the US border on top of that). It will be expensive regardless.

Toronto CMA is only 40% single detached houses. Vancouver CMA is only 29% single detached. That's lower than even the New York City metro area (43%). How much lower can it go?

Around 59% of dwellings in San Francisco-Oakland metro area are single detached houses. That number seems a bit high, but it's still lower than the US average of 68%. Even if zoning could single-handedly bring that number down to the Vancouver level, it wouldn't necessarily mean cheap housing. Vancouver isn't exactly cheap either.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wait, what? Toronto is building as much as any U.S. Sunbelt metro, and most of its housing construction is multifamily, yet it's extremely expensive relative to incomes. Speculators and AirBnB aren't responsible for million-dollar+ crapboxes in Vaughn.

Toronto is pretty much the poster child for destroying the "Bay Area would be so much more affordable if we rezoned sprawl for high density multifamily" myth. It's exactly what housing advocates claim should be done for advancing affordability, yet it has even worse affordability issues than Bay Area.

C'mon . Speculation is definitely a big reason along with artificially low interest rates and government red tape. Everyone and their mother is a "real estate investor" and they are flooding the market and stretching their credit to buy property.

BILD GTA estimated the cost of red tape on new homes adds an average of a whopping $200,000 to the price tag of new homes in the GTA. I maintain that the government needs to reduce taxes on builders and make up for this lost revenue by doubling or triple taxes on real estate speculators who aren't building anything (this includes AirBnB)

A disproportionate amount of Toronto's new construction is 1 bedroom investor shoebox condos. I see barely any new construction in Vaughan as I work there on the weekends. Go on Google Maps yourself and you'll see literally no new housing starts apart from some luxury estate homes in Kleinburg.

If Vaughan were a more development friendly and affordable American city there would be new development springing up north of Teston Road between Pine Valley and Bathurst. But if you look on the map ,, nothing.

Me and most people I know would be thrilled to be able to afford what you deem a "crapbox" in Vaughan. A real crapbox is a moss covered 1970s stucco or vinyl bungalow going for 2million dollars in East Vancouver. We need more of these so-called suburban crapboxes in order to keep competition in urban areas at a reasonable level. Most families would move into a new home in the burbs given the option because it makes sense.

Families with children competing with recent college graduates for illegal basement apartments in Toronto is a sign of policy failure and mis-allocated taxation on the part of the govt.