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 03-02-2014, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Aside from a tiny number of places in San Francisco, is there any rent control left in California?
There are lots of rent controlled apartments in SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2014, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,708,722 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
There are lots of rent controlled apartments in SF.
And those people, don't move because the market value of a similar apartment now is 2, 3, or 4x what they pay now. They literally can't afford to move. About 5 years ago a pricy one bedroom apartment in SF was around. $2500. Now that apartment is $4500.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
And those people, don't move because the market value of a similar apartment now is 2, 3, or 4x what they pay now. They literally can't afford to move. About 5 years ago a pricy one bedroom apartment in SF was around. $2500. Now that apartment is $4500.
It is like what I say about Brooklyn and Manhattan to those who scored more affordable apartments when the rents were lower, if they ever plan on moving it should be to move away from the city because they aren't going to find anything as good as they currently have for a long time if ever again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 10:16 PM
 
26,591 posts, read 52,361,982 times
Reputation: 20438
Some have already said Oakland is following...

Remember not all that long ago when a condo in Oakland's Laurel or Dimond districts started under a 100k... a person could buy for what it cost to rent...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2014, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,708,722 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
Some have already said Oakland is following...

Remember not all that long ago when a condo in Oakland's Laurel or Dimond districts started under a 100k... a person could buy for what it cost to rent...
I know. Now it is 2x more in Oakland too in many neighborhoods
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 02:07 PM
 
770 posts, read 934,251 times
Reputation: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
No, not exactly. What happens is the cities decided to ignore the existing value until the "gentrifiers came."
You can't help people who won't or don't want to help themselves. Very basic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,708,722 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webster Ave Guy View Post
You can't help people who won't or don't want to help themselves. Very basic.
That's part of the gentrification narrative...nobody cared till the gentrifiers came. People cared, but if you don't have enough money you are voiceless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,698 posts, read 23,692,507 times
Reputation: 35450
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Actually in Portland Neighborhood Associations are some of the toughest to deal with and they can easily delay or cancel just about any project if they want to. Going to architecture school in Portland I remember hearing a number of stories from architecture firms that had to deal with neighborhood associations to get things built, and it is much better to work with the neighborhood than it is against them if you want to get something built. The recent failed Trader Joes on MLK is a great example of that.
This was a shameful issue because one group had its way. They weren't even representative of the neighborhood, they were the most vocal and unfortunately, TJ's heard them and didn't want the hassle. There are many in that neighborhood who are very angry with PLAAF and insist they do not represent them in any way and these are people who have been living there for decades as well as new people. You have to go beyond some of the brief media coverage and get down to what really is going on.

That's one incident in one area and completely different from the gentrification issue of people being unable to keep up with rising rents of already established rental units or having their perfectly good houses and buildings torn down down to make way for monster outrageously expensive rentals. If you have ever been to a real neighborhood association meeting you wouldn't be giving this argument.

As an example, the Beaumont Neighborhood Association meetings that struggled for two years to keep their small buildings and keep out the developers who began tearing them down without anyone's knowledge to build a giant apartment building with no parking when the neighborhood was already at its limits with no parking spaces and the sewer systems overtaxed. The real estate people just ran roughshod over the people.

Or the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association that fought to save two beautiful 102 year old houses and a pocket park that the buyer promised to keep intact but began tearing down the moment he purchased them. Even though other large buildings have gone up in the area were not even halfway filled with renters.

This is happening all over Portland. And the saddest part is, these places are way too expensive for people who are being pushed out to afford. At least if there was some affordable housing going in along with the expensive ones, some of it would be justifiable but there isn't. The only low to middle income housing has created a ghetto in the outer part of the city with few sidewalks, traffic lights or grocery stores. Bus service is spotty at best. But outsiders don't see these things. Out of sight out of mind.

As someone stated when your neighborhood becomes gentrified and rentals go up 6% while your salary increases only by 2% there is not much you can do but move. In Portland, there is no place to move any longer. Except this area or out of state to a less expensive city.

Our city fathers are now trying to put a curb on this. But money talks and it's too little too late. Our independent newspapers are asking if Portland is being over built. Of course it is. Some optimists think that will cause rental prices to go down but that's doubtful.

The TJ's on MLK is no example of what's going on at all. Most agree it was a lot of shouting about the wrong issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2014, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
This was a shameful issue because one group had its way. They weren't even representative of the neighborhood, they were the most vocal and unfortunately, TJ's heard them and didn't want the hassle. There are many in that neighborhood who are very angry with PLAAF and insist they do not represent them in any way and these are people who have been living there for decades as well as new people. You have to go beyond some of the brief media coverage and get down to what really is going on.

That's one incident in one area and completely different from the gentrification issue of people being unable to keep up with rising rents of already established rental units or having their perfectly good houses and buildings torn down down to make way for monster outrageously expensive rentals. If you have ever been to a real neighborhood association meeting you wouldn't be giving this argument.

As an example, the Beaumont Neighborhood Association meetings that struggled for two years to keep their small buildings and keep out the developers who began tearing them down without anyone's knowledge to build a giant apartment building with no parking when the neighborhood was already at its limits with no parking spaces and the sewer systems overtaxed. The real estate people just ran roughshod over the people.

Or the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association that fought to save two beautiful 102 year old houses and a pocket park that the buyer promised to keep intact but began tearing down the moment he purchased them. Even though other large buildings have gone up in the area were not even halfway filled with renters.

This is happening all over Portland. And the saddest part is, these places are way too expensive for people who are being pushed out to afford. At least if there was some affordable housing going in along with the expensive ones, some of it would be justifiable but there isn't. The only low to middle income housing has created a ghetto in the outer part of the city with few sidewalks, traffic lights or grocery stores. Bus service is spotty at best. But outsiders don't see these things. Out of sight out of mind.

As someone stated when your neighborhood becomes gentrified and rentals go up 6% while your salary increases only by 2% there is not much you can do but move. In Portland, there is no place to move any longer. Except this area or out of state to a less expensive city.

Our city fathers are now trying to put a curb on this. But money talks and it's too little too late. Our independent newspapers are asking if Portland is being over built. Of course it is. Some optimists think that will cause rental prices to go down but that's doubtful.

The TJ's on MLK is no example of what's going on at all. Most agree it was a lot of shouting about the wrong issue.
The issue with buildings being built without parking has already been addressed and the building codes have been changes, which I agree was a mistake. Buildings with limited parking is fine, but buildings with no parking was a bad idea. I am happy that has been fixed, though each parking spot adds to the amount needed in rents, though this can usually be offset by requiring an additional fee for parking.

New buildings are always more costly, thus tend to require higher rents, the more these buildings get built, the more it helps offset the pressure on older buildings in the city. Currently Portland is behind on available rentals and is in need of units to keep up if one doesn't want to see rents continue to rise.

For new buildings to have affordable units, the city would have to create a building code that would require any new developments to meet this requirement. If people aren't renting apartments because the prices are too high, the prices will come down, as long as Portland continues to be a hot spot and has a growing population, there is going to continue to be more demand for new housing.

I am personally happy the Trader Joes failed because the development that was going to go in there was the wrong kind of development, that site needs a large mixed use on it. Salary increases not keeping up with rental increases will eventually catch up with landlords and they will have to adjust accordingly.

Currently Portland is underbuilt, and if it doesn't continue to build more it will cause rents to go up even more with an even more limited stock of housing. Portland is forecast to grow an additional 360K households between 2005-2035.* (**Correction, I meant to say Portland will grow to about 360K households, which Portland was at 240K in 2005, which means they will need to add an additional 100-150K households during those 30 years to keep up with demand.**)

East Portland is where Portland will see a large percentage of this growth, things like tearing down a couple of old homes on Hawthorne is good because it adds a number of needed units to a high transit route but it isn't a reflection of where the bulk of housing is going to go. I do think now is the time for Portland to address the growth in East Portland, I wouldn't mind seeing the light rail extended through East Portland and a massive redeveloping of the streets to make them more pedestrian friendly because this will be where the bulk of Portland's affordable housing will happen, especially for those looking for more space for less.

http://www.portlandonline.com/portla...51427&a=283476

http://www.portlandonline.com/portla...288097&c=52256

Last edited by urbanlife78; 03-03-2014 at 08:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2014, 06:45 AM
 
770 posts, read 934,251 times
Reputation: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
That's part of the gentrification narrative...nobody cared till the gentrifiers came. People cared, but if you don't have enough money you are voiceless.
It costs nothing to be pro social, not vandalize your nabe, not throw garbage out your windows, not sell drugs.
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