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)
 
Old 04-09-2014, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26651

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Well Palo Alto and San Francisco are some of the most expensive areas for a reason, though there is a good chance that those affording to live in those areas also work for tech companies, then good chance you could afford to live in those areas.

Good thing not every city in the US is like Palo Alto or San Francisco.
The reason PA and SF are $1000 a square foot is because they refuse build new housing. Palo Alto, and its neighbor Menlo Park have 3X more jobs than housing units. Google town, Mountain View isn't too far behind with 2.5 jobs per housing unit.

People have to move to the sprawl because of both cost and availability. There isn't enough supply and too much demand. Additionally, buyers in SF and PA are also paying 50-60% cash (or more) pushing out other buyers who "only" have 20% down, and forcing them to look at other cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2014, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
The reason PA and SF are $1000 a square foot is because they refuse build new housing. Palo Alto, and its neighbor Menlo Park have 3X more jobs than housing units. Google town, Mountain View isn't too far behind with 2.5 jobs per housing unit.

People have to move to the sprawl because of both cost and availability. There isn't enough supply and too much demand. Additionally, buyers in SF and PA are also paying 50-60% cash (or more) pushing out other buyers who "only" have 20% down, and forcing them to look at other cities.
That is just insane, you would think there would be massive housing going up basically building a Vancouver BC style city in the lower end of the Bay Area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That is just insane, you would think there would be massive housing going up basically building a Vancouver BC style city in the lower end of the Bay Area.
The secondary problem is that, if you want like a walkable neighborhood. Or an urban neighborhood, there are limited choices in Silicon Valley. Maybe a dozen neighborhoods. Maybe, that feels optimistic. None are urban. San Jose is trying to work on bringing residents downtown, but that is a new effort over the past 10 years. No critical mass yet.

Here are some sobering stats:
Jobs-housing mismatch fuels Silicon Valley's sky-high rents, gridlocked traffic - Silicon Valley Business Journal

Not only does the lack of housing drive up costs, it makes congestion worse and worse. 15% of the residents of San Joaquin county commute an hour or more per day (mostly to jobs in the Bay Area). S.J. still tops for the long commute | Recordnet.com

Here is a good chart on home prices and drive times. Those times are definitely off-peak times. Oakland to San Jose during the commute is like 2 hours. I think they are spinning Oakland's uptick the wrong way, lots of people priced out of SF are moving to Oakland, even in the sketchier places, because they want a more urban existence. Not many people commute from Oakland to San Jose.

High prices sending Bay Area renters and homebuyers to outlying communities - San Jose Mercury News

Last edited by jade408; 04-09-2014 at 06:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 06:28 PM
 
12,295 posts, read 15,187,836 times
Reputation: 8108
^. ^. ^
At least Tracy is blessed with commuter rail, the Altamont. Not much of a blessing, though, only three round trips a day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 06:45 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
45,986 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
^. ^. ^
At least Tracy is blessed with commuter rail, the Altamont. Not much of a blessing, though, only three round trips a day.
Commuter rail is useful only if your job is near a station. Downtown San Jose isn't much of a job center for Silicon Valley, if it were I'm sure it'd get much higher ridership. In some hypothetical where office skyscrapers and apartment complexes could be built around every CalTrain = transit ridership.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 08:35 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That is just insane, you would think there would be massive housing going up basically building a Vancouver BC style city in the lower end of the Bay Area.
The Bay Area is basically BANANA -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. There's already a city in the lower end of the Bay Area (San Jose), and there's a little bit of housing growth there, but not much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 08:46 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
45,986 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
The Bay Area is basically BANANA -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. There's already a city in the lower end of the Bay Area (San Jose), and there's a little bit of housing growth there, but not much.
Long Island's perhaps at least as extreme though with not as extreme housing prices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
The Bay Area is basically BANANA -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. There's already a city in the lower end of the Bay Area (San Jose), and there's a little bit of housing growth there, but not much.
The thing is, it is not just poorer people are priced out (and we all know Americans don't care about the plight of poor people). People with household incomes of $150k, $200k can't even find a place house near work either. 2 of my friends had $500 rent increases year over year. Rent control is pretty limited, so landlords are going crazy. If you want the regular American middle class family lifestyle around here you really need a household income of $300k and a $300-500k nest egg for your down payment.

If you are able to get a huge cash payout from stock options or something, you can jump into the housing market with a more moderate income of $100k as a single. But don't be fooled into thinking $100k is the ticket to the good life. You can barely afford a one bedroom apartment (if you stick to the standard ratios). Those are about $3300 in San Francisco, $2200 in most of Silicon Valley and $1800 in Oakland.

The Bay Area is a little different than other metros because the entire region is pricy. Even the hood. Living in deep east Oakland still costs $350k for a house, and that's where drive bys are common and a gunfire free night would be a miracle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 08:55 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,348,447 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
A minimum lot size imposes a maximum density, not a minimum density. The developer isn't allowed to build anything denser.
Incorrect. Please re-read.

The "minimum lot size" results in a density higher than the minimum lot size for the reasons already set forth. The developer is incentivized to build dense in multiple ways already set forth above.

One route is to utilize fewer parcels of land (i.e., fewer lots or maybe no "lots").
There isn't a limit on the number of buildings per lot or parcel, just on the minimum "lot size".
So the developer will take a parcel and file a declaration of "condominium". The "units" will be individual condominiums whether "stacked" (e.g., tower-type) or "site built" (e.g., looks like a house but it's a condo). The land area is owned in an undivided percentage interest by all the involuntary members of the condo association (unit owners). When the development relies on site-built condominiums, what looks like a lot is not a legal lot. Instead it is an area of limited exclusive use by the unit owner having a unit within that area.

So a tower will have higher housing density by virtue of multiple floors. The site built condos will have higher density because the site built condos are not on lots and there is not a limit on the number of buildings that will be on the "common area"

The other route is non-condo but still higher density. Local government is concerned about number of houses per set area. However, local government (through misguided environmentalists) also insists upon a set aside of "open space" within the subdivision. This is happening all over the country. The development rule may say "minimum lot size" but the developer gets to compute an effective average lot size by taking the sum of ALL of the area (area for housing plus "open space") and dividing that by the number of lots the developer wants. That allows the developer to exceed the minimum lot size requirement BUT the density where the people reside ends up much higher because the density is not spread out over the entire area. There is an "average density" when you consider the same population over a wider area (e.g., entire subdivision) and the average density will be within the county requirements but the density distribution varies within that subdivision and will be far outside county requirements for the residential portion of the subdivision. I don't fault the developer but rather local government that insists on "open space" mandates.

Minimum lot sizes are not necessarily a bad thing particularly for legitimate health and safety reasons in areas where people rely on septic systems or wells.

Local government will require the "open space" to be privately owned and maintained. This also ensures that the subdivision will be forcibly saddled with involuntary membership HOAs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 10:25 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,348,447 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
You live near there, I thought you knew how these accidents happened....unless you were making it up, which is more than likely the case here. But chances are those that were in their car weren't paying attention.
It happened liked this: pedestrian walking in road learns physics of momentum when hit by car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Obviously the woman needed to walk to somewhere and didn't have a car to use to get her there, so should she have just walked in the busy road if there wasn't a sidewalk? Doesn't matter now, her and her baby are dead thanks to a careless driver.
Perhaps she was strolling the baby around - not something that a car is needed for. From what you described it sounded like an accident not negligence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
If you don't think suburbs regulated to be car dependent, then you have no idea what your suburbs' zoning regulations are. Could I build a 10 story 60 unit building in your neighborhood with no parking within the building or on the site?
Who would be stupid enough to build a ten story building without any parking? An urban planner?
You can build the ten story building but you will probably have difficulty leasing spaces or selling the property if there is no parking.

On the other hand, if you are in the city you will find that the "urban planners" have come up with all sorts of limitations on building envelope, including height limitations. I would guess there probably is a height limit below ten stories in the smaller cities although the larger cities would probably permit them in some areas.

Avoiding the city lets one avoid those kinds of restrictions.

Quote:
Complaining about events is another strawman from you, all places do events for one reason or another, it isn't something unique to urban areas.
Who complained? You claimed there were "more events" in an urban area. Who knows what you intended by that word. My only point was that the "events" planned by local government create more congestion, traffic, and therefore likelihood of accidents and deaths in urban areas.
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