U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-03-2013, 01:47 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,005,466 times
Reputation: 1348

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiRob View Post
^ My point is that sometimes you have to make tradeoffs in life. Do you want that job that puts you at the top of your profession and thereby forcing you to live in a shoebox? Or do you want a nice house but have to settle in the suburbs far away from that job? UGBs doesn't force you to make choices personal wants and needs and what type of lifestyle you want does. Americans are used to having their cake & eating it too.
I think the original point of this thread was to ask why we artificially pay so much. Sure, we make choices in life, but in the Bay Area we make choices that are made excessively difficult. Regardless of your's or anyone's position on UGBs, a median price of $500k is a lot for a home, and it's worth looking in to causes and solutions.

In the Bay Area's case, zoning limitations have held back mid- and high-rise residential construction for decades while the .com, tech, and credit booms have pushed up demand and, at times, ability to pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2013, 11:52 AM
 
1,225 posts, read 1,495,969 times
Reputation: 817
Inner city development would only help some part of the demographics. Those people who worked harder than average (like getting an MSC) rightfully expect to get at least the average or above. Here in the bay area most housing is SFHs, so people like me expect at least that. Right now I cant afford that. 10 years ago an unemployed person could "buy" a $1M mansion, now a highly educated hard working person can't buy an average house, at least here in the Bay Area.
So the only way is through relaxing the UGBs time to time, instead of setting it rigid and "final" as they are doing it now.

Every city that grows in size, grows into undeveloped land or "nature". There is plenty of nature remaining outside of the updated UGB. Saying that those few square feet of nature that are just behind your backyard (of your $1.2M mansion) has a genuine worth more than hundreds of thousands of people's right to a decent life is just wrong. Worshiping every piece of grass and insects living on these lands is like a cult, and very inhumane, like the sacred cows in India. It's an upside down value system, where people found a problem (decreasing the natural land area by 0.00000000001%/year) and to solve it they created a bigger problem (making life financially miserable for the new generations) and a religion to support it (LOCAL environmentalism). After extending the UGBs a little bit there will still be hundreds of miles of nature in every direction until the next big city, so nothing will really be lost. Based on my calculations, the SV could provide 1000 new SFHs per year in the next 70 years by relaxing the UGBs with proper zoning regulations. This is not that much needed for every city, but for those that are rare job hotspots and strategic engines of the national/global economy like the SV.

By relaying UGBs current home owners would loose a very little bit of their enjoyment, but with keeping the UGBs rigid makes new generations to loose everything that they could have had in life. Valuing a piece of grass higher than human life sounds like an evil religion, and rigid UGBs are the human sacrifice (not self sacrifice, but like the Mayans did: sacrificing other people) on the altar of that religion. Was it too strong? Maybe, but some people suppressed their sense of empathy and cognitive Dissonance too much, something strong is needed to break through that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 12:08 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
By relaying UGBs current home owners would loose a very little bit of their enjoyment, but with keeping the UGBs rigid makes new generations to loose everything that they could have had in life. Valuing a piece of grass higher than human life sounds like an evil religion, and rigid UGBs are the human sacrifice (not self sacrifice, but like the Mayans did: sacrificing other people) on the altar of that religion. Was it too strong? Maybe, but some people suppressed their sense of empathy and cognitive Dissonance too much, something strong is needed to break through that.
I think you wrote in reverse:

With in an urban growth boundary, new potential buyers who want detached single family houses will lose some enjoyment, but without future generations will loose something valuable a very large tracts of public almost in their backyard. And the future generations will find it hard to get it back once it's gone.

The rest is hyperbole. Really, some think it's more important to have public land right nearby than having everyone able to live in detached houses. Go to many eastern metros. Reaching undeveloped land is dozens of miles away at least. In the Bay Area, you have it right nearby. If I lived there I would support most efforts to keep it that way. As darkeconomist said, many zoning practices that would allowed less to built up and increased housing supply were for decades restricted many communities limited apartment building construction or say row houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 12:49 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 1,495,969 times
Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I think you wrote in reverse:

With in an urban growth boundary, new potential buyers who want detached single family houses will lose some enjoyment,
-No, what they loose is not enjoyment, but the only chance to ever own a detached home, as UGB pushes prices up.
When an rigid UGB is established and prices are rising as a result, speculators come in and cause more price rise, even more decreasing our chance for a normal life. Speculators would not speculate in a city with unrestricted supply, only in cities with restricted supply. Actually they speculate on any market of any product with restricted supply. The original restriction comes from the UGB in the detached housing market. (and the NIMBYs on the higher density market)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
a very large tracts of public almost in their backyard. And the future generations will find it hard to get it back once it's gone.
-I don't think anything would be gone. Maybe the imaginary sacred cow only... There will be plenty of nature. Was anything lost by building any cities in the past centuries? Do you think all cities have to be demolished and given back to nature? I don't think so. And there is no reason why developments after 2013 should be treated differently then the ones before 2013.
If you want a vast forest in your backyard, then pay millions for it like others, not just buying an average home in 1990 at the edge of the city and expect that you will have the same kind of estate as Pablo Escobar or Bill Gates have. And doing all this by denying the same from others.
What is gone in these cities?: San Francisco (see the houses on the hills?) Budapest, Kandy, Amalfi... Use Google image search. They all built on the sacred hills and look awesome and natural too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The rest is hyperbole. Really, some think it's more important to have public land right nearby than having everyone able to live in detached houses.
-Not everyone, but... Right now an above-average educated higher earner can't afford an average home. Im not saying that unemployed people should be able to buy 5bed houses, but someone who worked harder than the rest, should not be priced out completely and left with nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 01:10 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
-No, what they loose is not enjoyment, but the only chance to ever own a detached home, as UGB pushes prices up.
A home is a home. Why should I care if people are able to live in detached ones or not? Extra enjoyment, yes. That's certainly not:

loose everything that they could have had in life


or not valuing human life. Which is why I called you out on hyperbole.

[quote]


Quote:
If you want a vast forest in your backyard, then pay millions for it like others, not just buying an average home in 1990 at the edge of the city and expect that you will have the same kind of estate as Pablo Escobar or Bill Gates have. And doing all this by denying the same from others.
What is gone in these cities?: San Francisco (see the houses on the hills?) Budapest, Kandy, Amalfi... Use Google image search. They all built on the sacred hills and look awesome and natural too.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not suggesting an urban growth boundary so some people live in an average home (whatever that might be) on the edge of a city for the privilege of living near nature but something else. With an urban growth boundary, one can live in denser housing and still have "vast forest" nearby, say 5-7 miles. The urban growth boundary does not deny this but preserve it. Without it, nature gets pushed further away from where most live and those in the more built up areas do not get nature nearby.

All those cities you listed use much less space per person than typical 2013 "average house construction". Not too far from San Francisco is stuff like this:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=san+f...137.42,,0,3.18

I think it's great and Bay Area residents are very lucky to have stuff like that. Don't destroy it away carelessly!

Quote:
-Not everyone, but... Right now an above-average educated higher earner can't afford an average home. Im not saying that unemployed people should be able to buy 5bed houses, but someone who worked harder than the rest, should not be priced out completely and left with nothing.
They get something, just maybe not a detached home. That's not nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 01:15 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,104,114 times
Reputation: 3117
There are plenty of places in the midwest - heck, even as close as the central valley - where one can get a detached home for a fraction of the price as can be found in the Bay Area. I suggest those who seek detachment nirvana check out these places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 03:16 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,005,466 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
There are plenty of places in the midwest - heck, even as close as the central valley - where one can get a detached home for a fraction of the price as can be found in the Bay Area. I suggest those who seek detachment nirvana check out these places.
I get what Buenos is saying. I live here, too, and it's a burden to afford it. But the implied position Buenos seems to be taken is that one--supposing you're "hard working"--should be able to have a detached SFH (explicitly stated) at an affordable rate (also explicitly stated) in reasonable proximity to work (implied by his focus on the Bay area's southern 3-county region instead of making it easier to commute from cheaper locations).

Buenos, protected tracts of nature within reasonable proximity to where people actually live is important. When nature is far away, people don't visit it. And "far away" isn't all that far in practical terms. But, this doesn't necessarily require UGBs, just thoughtful zoning that incorporates large parks (eg, Hellyer County Park, Lake Vasona, the Los Gatos Creek trail) in the middle of residential development.

Unfortunately, SJ and other south Bay cities don't, generally, have thoughtful zoning ordinances. So, until places like SJ do a better job with the resources (ie, within the UGB) it has, I'm strongly against allowing it to use old ideas to make a mess of new land.

Furthermore, as I've pointed out, we could do a lot toward halting growth in real estate prices without expansion of the UGB. We are adding 4,000 residential units through greenfield and brownfield dev in north SJ. And that's in spite of SJ's awful policies. Imagine what we could do with good zoning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 05:20 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 1,495,969 times
Reputation: 817
So there are 2 options only? srawl like crazy, or rigid UGB forever?
With proper regulations the expansion of the cities would be minimal (a 15 mile wide city would grow to be 15.5miles wide in 10 years) but with huge effect on housing affordability by providing a huge amount of new housing. I don't think it is a huge impact on the accessibility of "nature". It's not binary. You don't need to double the size of the city to restore the housing market, 0.3% per year size increase would solve all the housing problems.

The other thing, is many 1950's SFHs are single story on a 5000-8000sqft lot. They could build nice 2 story detached houses on 3000sqft lots (house could be 1000sqft base, 2000sqft total inside as 2 story) with small barbeque-backyards and 1-2 small trees, and many people would be happy with it. For example a regulation like this on new green field developments would also help both the environment and the housing. And much more livable than an apartment building. Even townhomes are better than apartment buildings.

What prevents the local governments from creating better zoning regulations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 06:02 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,715,982 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
So there are 2 options only? srawl like crazy, or rigid UGB forever?
With proper regulations the expansion of the cities would be minimal (a 15 mile wide city would grow to be 15.5miles wide in 10 years) but with huge effect on housing affordability by providing a huge amount of new housing. I don't think it is a huge impact on the accessibility of "nature". It's not binary. You don't need to double the size of the city to restore the housing market, 0.3% per year size increase would solve all the housing problems.

The other thing, is many 1950's SFHs are single story on a 5000-8000sqft lot. They could build nice 2 story detached houses on 3000sqft lots (house could be 1000sqft base, 2000sqft total inside as 2 story) with small barbeque-backyards and 1-2 small trees, and many people would be happy with it. For example a regulation like this on new green field developments would also help both the environment and the housing. And much more livable than an apartment building. Even townhomes are better than apartment buildings.

What prevents the local governments from creating better zoning regulations?
No. There's a better option.

Reform land use codes. The great misconception here is that sprawl is somehow a default choice given no restrictions. It absolutely is not. Sprawl is mandated.

You can change those mandates. People have to stop giving in to traffic engineers and start telling them how to build cities instead letting roads and parking dictate how we live.

UGB are interesting in containing growth, but useless at defining growth. What cities need to do is define how growth happens differently than they currently do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2013, 07:16 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 1,495,969 times
Reputation: 817
OK. The current local governments seem to be either incompetent, uninterested or serve someone else's interest.
If it is one of the first two then all we have to do is to do their job, come up with a detailed plan and present it to them. I have no idea how the regulations should be changed. Does anyone else have?

nei: "I'm not suggesting an urban growth boundary so some people live in an average home (whatever that might be) on the edge of a city for the privilege of living near nature "
-You might not, but I think many do.
You also said " still have vast forest nearby, say 5-7 miles.". So is it 5 or 7? The difference between 5 and 7 is better living for thousands of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top