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.
Oakland is ideally situated and there are many SF expats settling in Oakland.
Friends of mine left SF 18 months ago and rented a 3 bedroom home in the Dimond district... their SF friends gave them a hard time at first... now one has joined them... almost all of the family get togethers are now in Oakland... one simple reason... they have a nice backyard and no problems with parking.
Downtown Oakland is actually closer to Downtown SF than parts of SF... plus Oakland has near perfect climate.
The biggest problem of focusing on gentrification is ignoring what is often the main reason for unaffordable housing: overly restrictive zoning and convenants (e.g. Houston) that limit supply of new units. And of course as these new units get older the become affordable to demographics they were not initially marketed to, aka filtering down. So given that I have to ask what these California cities in question have been doing to promote new residential development on the periphery or infill as well as redeveloping older areas but at higher densities?
It's a fine line--allowing a certain amount of infill and growth, but not going all laissez-faire, protects property values and provides a measure of neighborhood stability, but also provides a measure of affordability and promotes greater levels of economic activity. But people get all upset about a middle path because it requires cooperation instead of "my side wins and your side loses" which seems to be the more popular strategy these days. And, of course, exactly where that middle path can be found is the subject of much debate. But from that debate, when it doesn't turn into a shouting match and hurt feelings, comes the potential for real growth and change coming from the community, not being forced upon it.
It's a fine line--allowing a certain amount of infill and growth, but not going all laissez-faire, protects property values and provides a measure of neighborhood stability, but also provides a measure of affordability and promotes greater levels of economic activity. But people get all upset about a middle path because it requires cooperation instead of "my side wins and your side loses" which seems to be the more popular strategy these days. And, of course, exactly where that middle path can be found is the subject of much debate. But from that debate, when it doesn't turn into a shouting match and hurt feelings, comes the potential for real growth and change coming from the community, not being forced upon it.
Exactly, it is all about balance, but the problem is what one considers to be the balance varies from person to person. I do wish we would move away from these hardline ideas to work together on the health of our cities and metros.
So given that I have to ask what these California cities in question have been doing to promote new residential development on the periphery or infill as well as redeveloping older areas but at higher densities....
In the Bay Area there is a combo of limited land availability and way too many NIMBYs. And don't get me started in CEQA, and environmental regulation that NIMBYs use to block development. Developing the periphery has happens but is a terrible option. Periphery is about 60 miles away, and 10 mile commutes can easily take 30 minutes if you are on the wrong corridor.
There is a really interesting article series on transportation/housing issues in Silicon Valley., I posted a thread in my local forum, but I am going to quote this post because it sums up the issue pretty well. FYI mountain view is where googles headquarters are, and they have about 2.5 jobs per housing unit in that town. Google has been making national news because they have private buses running from SF (it isn40 miles away) for its workers and of course it contributed to gentrification. Places near the corporate bus stops have nearly tripled in price in the past 6ish years.
Girly and Morgan Hill are basically former farm towns around 30 miles south of mountain view. They have become bedroom communities of Silicon Valley because housing prices are about 1/2 to 1/3 the comparable in Silicon Valley but obviously traffic is terrible, and the former farms are turning into sprawl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ketch89
So I went to my first city council meeting here in Mountain View last month. I used the public comment time to say essentially - "Hey, we have a massive housing crisis, we need to build this development at least a few stories taller. It's in a place where it won't shadow anything, so we need to take advantage and put in more units." The ensuing discussion was extremely disheartening, they just don't care if people can't afford to live in their city. Building taller than three stories is tantamount to saying you support communism or something... I wish the poor from outlying cities like Morgan Hill or Gilroy would flood the council meetings in Mountain View and Palo Alto in protest.
To piggyback on to that. I went to a city meeting in the town I work, about a 110 unit 8 story development in downtown. Perfect location: walkable, near transit. Most buildings in the area are 3-4 stories, but there is a 12-14 story one on the next block, and a few 10 story ones about 2 blocks away, so it isn't unprecedented. But people thought that height was out of scale (meanwhile the building in work in 2 blocks away is taller, the one across the street from mine is 12 stories and there is another residential project 4 blocks down of 8 stories)
Other people said it was too big and that my work city is taking on kore than its fair share of development and the nearby places (like mountain view need to build more before San Mateo takes on more housing).
To piggyback on to that. I went to a city meeting in the town I work, about a 110 unit 8 story development in downtown. Perfect location: walkable, near transit. Most buildings in the area are 3-4 stories, but there is a 12-14 story one on the next block, and a few 10 story ones about 2 blocks away, so it isn't unprecedented. But people thought that height was out of scale (meanwhile the building in work in 2 blocks away is taller, the one across the street from mine is 12 stories and there is another residential project 4 blocks down of 8 stories)
Other people said it was too big and that my work city is taking on kore than its fair share of development and the nearby places (like mountain view need to build more before San Mateo takes on more housing).
We had that happen in Portland with the new tower that is rising in downtown now, there was an old apartment building a block away that had residents complaining that this new tower was out of scale with the surroundings. Apparently they thought this tower, which will be the fourth tallest downtown, if I remember correctly, would be too out of scale for the middle of downtown. Needless to say they did not win that laughable argument.
We had that happen in Portland with the new tower that is rising in downtown now, there was an old apartment building a block away that had residents complaining that this new tower was out of scale with the surroundings. Apparently they thought this tower, which will be the fourth tallest downtown, if I remember correctly, would be too out of scale for the middle of downtown. Needless to say they did not win that laughable argument.
I personally don't love super tall buildings. 6-8 is about the limit for me for residential. Depending on the location. My neighborhood is mostly. 3-5 story buildings but there are a few taller ones mixed in.
We had that happen in Portland with the new tower that is rising in downtown now, there was an old apartment building a block away that had residents complaining that this new tower was out of scale with the surroundings. Apparently they thought this tower, which will be the fourth tallest downtown, if I remember correctly, would be too out of scale for the middle of downtown. Needless to say they did not win that laughable argument.
"We" had that happen in Portland? Where? Portland, New Jersey? You like to speak a lot for a city in which you do not live. I would like to see some links to the proof in which the residents from a block away from this proposed building complained about its height and their "apparent reason" of the building being out of scale as to why they complained. That is a complete fabrication.
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.
