Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, San Jose and San Francisco were the cities in question here, not NYC and the rest, and San Jose being such a perfect breeding ground for San Francisco to "spread out," especially with Levi's Stadium. Although SJ has 1 + 1/4 times the population of SF, it has 3 + 3/4 times the land area - and SF has 3 + 1/4 times the density of SJ. These are within the city limits, not the areas outside. San Francisco is extremely dense, whether on the ground or looking up at the high-rises.
San Jose has a deficit of 130000 jobs, meaning people commute out for jobs, while San Francisco has a surplus of 304000 jobs, and it is getting worse all the time. As I've said multiple times it is unrealistic that people will want to commute from SJ to SF, San Jose cannot be the place for the people priced out of SF to commute to SF because public transit, fastest end to end would be 1hr, realistically we are looking at 90m - 2hr end to end, similarly for driving, 1hr fastest, 90-120 min realistically. The middle class priced out of SF will move out of the area entirely than deal with the commute, unless SF is the only place to get that job.
This will do nothing to lower rents, the rich will move to SF to be close to work, while the rest get to commute in and be "bridge and tunnel" as they like to call people from that don't live in SF up there.
SF should hold itself responsible for housing people proportionate to the jobs it creates or moves to SF, it should address the chronic housing deficit it created as well.
If San Jose increases the jobs count by more than 130k to be even then it should increase housing proportional to jobs from then on, while I don't think the city should stop building housing all together, it should not have any extra outside pressure because it does have more than enough housing already for everyone that works here.
San Jose has a deficit of 130000 jobs, meaning people commute out for jobs, while San Francisco has a surplus of 304000 jobs, and it is getting worse all the time. As I've said multiple times it is unrealistic that people will want to commute from SJ to SF, San Jose cannot be the place for the people priced out of SF to commute to SF because public transit, fastest end to end would be 1hr, realistically we are looking at 90m - 2hr end to end, similarly for driving, 1hr fastest, 90-120 min realistically. The middle class priced out of SF will move out of the area entirely than deal with the commute, unless SF is the only place to get that job.
This will do nothing to lower rents, the rich will move to SF to be close to work, while the rest get to commute in and be "bridge and tunnel" as they like to call people from that don't live in SF up there.
SF should hold itself responsible for housing people proportionate to the jobs it creates or moves to SF, it should address the chronic housing deficit it created as well.
If San Jose increases the jobs count by more than 130k to be even then it should increase housing proportional to jobs from then on, while I don't think the city should stop building housing all together, it should not have any extra outside pressure because it does have more than enough housing already for everyone that works here.
Now we're just gonna have to wait for darkecon's slapping rebuttal
Now we're just gonna have to wait for darkecon's slapping rebuttal
Oh, great, I'm the rebuttal guy now.
Anyway, I agree with Cardinal's points. Where you and I have disagreed has been on the value and effects of a moratorium on residential construction in SJ and how SJ compares to its neighbors within the county. I've long held that the situation in SF is artificial--due to reactionary no-development-anywhere types and bureacracy--and untenable.
Anyway, I agree with Cardinal's points. Where you and I have disagreed has been on the value and effects of a moratorium on residential construction in SJ and how SJ compares to its neighbors within the county. I've long held that the situation in SF is artificial--due to reactionary no-development-anywhere types and bureacracy--and untenable.
Suits us all fine, I guess. But building housing hasn't gotten us anywhere in terms of attracting jobs, so it's high time we try another option. But let's just let it sleep for now.
Last edited by bobby_guz_man; 03-24-2015 at 12:32 PM..
all the calculation is land only. Nobody would be stupid enough to include the ocean to calculate density.
If I am not mistaken, SF city is SF county, a land of 100sq km. So you compare density of SF city, a very small area, with "urban area Paris", which has over 10,000km sq, 100 times SF's size, and come to the conclusion SF is 70% denser?
Good job. Wonder where you went to school.
What is with your crusade against SF lately? I guess your problem is it isn't dense enough for you? Well, welcome to the US. It's the second most dense city we have, and in the immediate term, it isn't going to get significantly denser. Sure, I'd love it if it were a bit more dense (with the appropriate infrastructure to go along with it), but it isn't. The end.
I'd also like it if other cities in the Bay Area started building more densely. I'm tired of seeing "new construction" being made up of 2-3 story townhouses (with the parking lots to match). This needs to stop...we really need to be prioritizing (as a region) dense buildings around transit hubs (downtown San Mateo, Hillsdale, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc.)...we need to stop pretending that everything outside of SF should be made up of SFH. Sure, that can stay, but it's devastatingly obvious that we need to build more densely.
I'd also like it if other cities in the Bay Area started building more densely. I'm tired of seeing "new construction" being made up of 2-3 story townhouses (with the parking lots to match). This needs to stop...we really need to be prioritizing (as a region) dense buildings around transit hubs (downtown San Mateo, Hillsdale, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc.)...we need to stop pretending that everything outside of SF should be made up of SFH. Sure, that can stay, but it's devastatingly obvious that we need to build more densely.
San Jose and Oakland are already doing building high-density for the last 15 years. The two cities new housing stock the last 10 years are pretty much predominantly multi-family. San Jose itself has 92% favor of multi-family the last 5 years, with multi-family being 5-6 stories condos (and a few high-rises).
The three big cities (Oak, SJ, SF) are the only ones building dense housing. The suburbs just don't care much for it. It is what it is. That's why they are the suburbs and we are The Cities
San Jose and Oakland are already doing building high-density for the last 15 years. The two cities new housing stock the last 10 years are pretty much predominantly multi-family. San Jose itself has 92% favor of multi-family the last 5 years, with multi-family being 5-6 stories condos (and a few high-rises).
The three big cities (Oak, SJ, SF) are the only ones building dense housing. The suburbs just don't care much for it. It is what it is. That's why they are the suburbs and we are The Cities
That being said, SJ is so geographically large that it is still mid-range among its neighbors in terms of ppsm. It is one of the minority of SFBA cities adding density, but we have to be realistic and not over-state how much SJ is actually allowing.
Meanwhile, a few cities have, are, or will be adding density/infill. Bay Meadows, for instance, or Fremont and Milpitas around their respective BART stations. We should keep in mind that the arc of development is long; look at the long timeline of SJ's SPS area between idea and fevered action. I believe Fremont and Newark would get in the act further if the Dumbarton rail crossing was completed, electrified, and connected to CalTrain.
But we do face a crisis. Residents, especially of our more suburban neighbors, are already mad about traffic conditions, are constrained by their perception that TOD will bring only more traffic, that they are entitled to the kind of city they imagined they had at they time they moved to it, but are unwilling to pay the taxes to keep their cities afloat without new development. For instance, older PA residents have this odd belief that PA is still some quaint little town, even though it is built out to its borders and is a node of the start-up and VC worlds; it is their belief, not reality, that informs their political and legal actions.
San Jose and Oakland are already doing building high-density for the last 15 years. The two cities new housing stock the last 10 years are pretty much predominantly multi-family. San Jose itself has 92% favor of multi-family the last 5 years, with multi-family being 5-6 stories condos (and a few high-rises).
The three big cities (Oak, SJ, SF) are the only ones building dense housing. The suburbs just don't care much for it. It is what it is. That's why they are the suburbs and we are The Cities
I know this, and it's why I didn't really signle out SJ in my post. I think SJ is doing a good job with housing construction, actually.
But I think we need to wake up as a region though...the "suburbs" need to densify more. Maybe not the level of SF, Oakland, or SJ; but when building new construction, we have to stop pretending that townhouse construction with giant parking lots is the right way forward. We're not doing ourselves any favors by building these kind of structures.
The funny thing is, people in the suburban part of the Bay Area (like in San Mateo, where I currently live) will complain about this idea because in their minds it will ruin their towns...but the reality is that smartly planned dense construction around transit hubs will probably go a long way to preserving their single family home areas. By concentrating density around transit hubs, it will take pressure off houses further away. People that might be competing to rent/buy a house or condo in your neighborhood might instead focus their attention to these newly developed areas. This especially holds true for people in my generation (20 and 30 somethings) who are driving a lot of the tech growth and moving to the urban areas of the Bay Area in droves (even if their jobs are 30-40 miles away).
If you start to develop areas that are attractive to these types of people (i.e. people who value walkability and transit access) and smartly spread this kind of development evenly throughout the Bay Area, you'll see significant improvements in traffic and might even see prices in housing go down (at least in the most in-demand areas).
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
But we do face a crisis. Residents, especially of our more suburban neighbors, are already mad about traffic conditions, are constrained by their perception that TOD will bring only more traffic, that they are entitled to the kind of city they imagined they had at they time they moved to it, but are unwilling to pay the taxes to keep their cities afloat without new development. For instance, older PA residents have this odd belief that PA is still some quaint little town, even though it is built out to its borders and is a node of the start-up and VC worlds; it is their belief, not reality, that informs their political and legal actions.
Yes...and it's this belief and stance by residents (who have a lot of power through voting) that are holding the region back. Their insistence on this kind of belief is what is driving people to live in places like Tracy. It needs to stop if we want to realistically address the housing crisis in this region.
I know this, and it's why I didn't really signle out SJ in my post. I think SJ is doing a good job with housing construction, actually.
But I think we need to wake up as a region though...the "suburbs" need to densify more. Maybe not the level of SF, Oakland, or SJ; but when building new construction, we have to stop pretending that townhouse construction with giant parking lots is the right way forward. We're not doing ourselves any favors by building these kind of structures.
The funny thing is, people in the suburban part of the Bay Area (like in San Mateo, where I currently live) will complain about this idea because in their minds it will ruin their towns...but the reality is that smartly planned dense construction around transit hubs will probably go a long way to preserving their single family home areas. By concentrating density around transit hubs, it will take pressure off houses further away. People that might be competing to rent/buy a house or condo in your neighborhood might instead focus their attention to these newly developed areas. This especially holds true for people in my generation (20 and 30 somethings) who are driving a lot of the tech growth and moving to the urban areas of the Bay Area in droves (even if their jobs are 30-40 miles away).
If you start to develop areas that are attractive to these types of people (i.e. people who value walkability and transit access) and smartly spread this kind of development evenly throughout the Bay Area, you'll see significant improvements in traffic and might even see prices in housing go down (at least in the most in-demand areas).
Yes...and it's this belief and stance by residents (who have a lot of power through voting) that are holding the region back. Their insistence on this kind of belief is what is driving people to live in places like Tracy. It needs to stop if we want to realistically address the housing crisis in this region.
Yah, but in the example of PA as its already built out, there is nowhere to go. The density is the density. There is no way to change it now, after build out. And that's kinda the point. BTW, I'd argue that buyers there ARE willing to pay the taxes, what they aren't willing to do is pay even MORE taxes to support development that THEY do not need and have no use for (the city is in an enviable economic position). The property taxes on the average PA house purchased in the last 2 years is over 20K/year.
That being said, SJ is so geographically large that it is still mid-range among its neighbors in terms of ppsm. It is one of the minority of SFBA cities adding density, but we have to be realistic and not over-state how much SJ is actually allowing.
What are the overstatements you're referring to?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
