Report: Closing California’s housing gap (Los Angeles, San Francisco: homes, construction, income)

[jade408]

This McKinsey report has the solution to the housing crisis: build more where it makes sense. So logical, yet so improbable.

"We learned that the problem is both rural and urban: while metropolises such as Los Angeles and San Francisco suffer from high housing prices, so do rural communities such as Watsonville and Salinas, where 50 to 60 percent of households are unable to afford the cost of housing. We also learned that high housing costs not only impact low-income households, but also squeeze California’s middle class. In Anaheim, Long Beach, and Los Angeles, households earning up to 115 percent of area median income, or $69,800 per year, are unable to afford local housing costs. In the city of San Francisco, a household earning $140,000 per year, or 179 percent of area median income, is squeezed."

The lack of housing supply is pushing out the middle class and reducing our economic output. The maps are quite interesting.

Closing California

[xani]

Just allow people live in vans already.

[One Percenter]

You can thank all the maniac liberals who would rather protect a wild fox rather than build and release the pressure. We have so much open space here in comparison to LA yet no growth. Why? Insane drum thumping welfare supporting idiotic Liberals.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by One Percenter

You can thank all the maniac liberals who would rather protect a wild fox rather than build and release the pressure. We have so much open space here in comparison to LA yet no growth. Why? Insane drum thumping welfare supporting idiotic Liberals.

We have space that is zoned for development that doesn't have anything, and this is what this report looks at. NIMBYism has no political affiliation.

[One Percenter]

Originally Posted by jade408

We have space that is zoned for development that doesn't have anything, and this is what this report looks at. NIMBYism has no political affiliation.

It's called Liberalism. They claim to want to protect open space all in the name of nature.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by jade408

We have space that is zoned for development that doesn't have anything, and this is what this report looks at. NIMBYism has no political affiliation.

Even with the supposed tech boom, there are many vacant buildings in older tech parks, especially in "Old Silicon Valley" i.e. Southern San Mateo and Northwestern Santa Clara Counties. Rezoning seems like a no brainer but some communities just seem to be completely stubborn about considering it.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Even with the supposed tech boom, there are many vacant buildings in older tech parks, especially in "Old Silicon Valley" i.e. Southern San Mateo and Northwestern Santa Clara Counties. Rezoning seems like a no brainer but some communities just seem to be completely stubborn about considering it.

Not any more, available space is at a premium all along the peninsula and 880 corridor.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by One Percenter

It's called Liberalism. They claim to want to protect open space all in the name of nature.

Did you read the report?

I'll make it easy for you:Closing California

And here are pictures (PDF) where units could be built in various cities in CA (without touching a single open space preserve!): http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mcki...-exhibits.ashx


I know you want to simplify this and blame a political side here (as if this is a political issue...), but lets please stay away from these overly-simplified "explanations". This is less about "liberalism" than it is about the fight that current homeowners/residents take against any building in their communities (even sustainably-planned construction). NIMBYism.

Most "environmental" arguments that are made against projects in the Bay Area are complete farces - they're just methods for bringing a project down (either as a reduction in scope or even to stop all work on it). And amazingly, it's often less about what the majority wants since only a few very vocal people is all it takes to dismantle projects (even well-planned ones).

I'm about as liberal as they come, and I 100% am on board with building a ton around the Bay Area. Especially around transit corridors/hubs (building up in the hills will only cause more people to DRIVE, which is not what we want). We want people being able to live near where they work (taking them OUT of their cars, and OFF of the streets (less traffic on 101/280/880/80, yay!)). It could be accomplished with a few changes to zoning laws and serious (aka something with actual "teeth") regional planning (something REALLLLLLLY lacking here).


And I don't think we have to touch a single piece of open space land to do this. Although, the physical buildings in the Bay Area will change. I'm sorry....I know this saddens people, but...

If the choice is between:

• "maintaining the character" of a city (the physical space) and causing the current population/culture to be priced of a town
• Changing the "physical character" by building smartly all around the Bay Area (sometimes in unpopular ways) so that people who are here (and those who want to move here) can afford to be here

I'm going to choose the latter EVERY single time. We should prioritize PEOPLE above preserving buildings. After all, the people are what really make a city. Some buildings from the early 1900's (while I agree should be saved, when possible) should not take priority over people's ability to afford an area.

[WizardOfRadical]

Damage is done. Transit orientated development will be more of a premium than anything.

[Ultrarunner]

Lots of projects I have been following are not going to happen...

There were several in Oakland in compliance with all zoning the met with such fierce opposition the developer sold the land to the city... so now it is open space and off the tax rolls.

There is a large project in Contra Costa county that Lafayette has been using city resources to quash... the new strategy is delay forever and the chance it won't get built increases.

It is density and location and in the works for 6 years and still not a single shovel of dirt moved.
http://www.saranap.org/sv/project-background.html#top
http://www.lamorindaweekly.com/archi...Residents.html

In Oakland off Keller there was a project delayed for years... when it got off the ground the economy turned and only a few homes were built... few realize just how long and complicated it is to build in much of the Bay Area... even when in full zoning compliance.