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 04-18-2014, 11:13 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,934,738 times
Reputation: 2150

Advertisements

This idea that "people want to have cars, therefore all developments should have a parking space for each car" makes no sense. Owning a car is not a God-given right. It's a privilege. Why should the government underwrite my privilege to own car and park it wherever I want? If I want to live somewhere but it doesn't provide me a parking spot, I should either move to a place that does, or pay for my own spot. Why should the government force someone else to pay for my decision to have a car? That is exactly what minimum parking regulations do.

These regs absolutely contribute to unaffordability because it means that more space than the market would demand is taken up by parking rather than by housing and other uses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2014, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,763,654 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
However, for most suburbs most of those space requirements aren't going to be an issue, and demand will be higher. For all but the densest suburbs, it shouldn't be hard to squeeze in parking. Multi-family is more often opposed in well-off suburbia because of property values worries (sometimes worried the new residents could poorer), or traffic worries*. Or just a general fear of making their town more crowded.

*I've heard a fear of overwhelming the existing school system once, which doesn't make that much sense
True. I would say that parking requirements might have contributed to pushing apartment development out of cities and into the suburbs, and as you said it's mainly anti multi-family zoning preventing apartments from being built in many of these suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,686,954 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc View Post
Many cities and nearly all suburbs actively prevented developers from building apartments until recently. Most of it had to do with minimum parking requirements for new construction—even in walkable neighborhood with decent transit options.

Silicon Valley’s prices could be could be alleviated significantly but current residents want restrictive zoning laws and high prices. The problem is once you have high prices, current residents have a vested interest in keeping them that way.
Well the Bay Area people don't want any development. They only want market rate housing, and market rate means people with $200k incomes. Then they complain about congestion, but since no one can afford to live near their job they have to drive from afar and cause way more congestion.

There are many Silicon Valley cities that have 3 jobs per housing unit. Mountain View told Google, you can't build any housing. They allowed Google to build like 300 units. Google has 10k+ employees, and MV is on the 3 jobs per housing unit list, as are all of their immediate neighbors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Oh, not this again! Straight out of the "Conspiracies 101" syllabus! And I know this will ignite a firestorm, but even in "walkable" neighborhood with decent transit options, people own cars. City planners know this. That's why they require parking.
No it is totally true. I went to a planning meeting for a Silicon Valley city a couple of weeks ago. They wanted more parking for a building that is a 10 minute walk from the train, a 2 minute walk from the bus, in the middle of downtown. The building had 1.7 parking spaces per unit, and half of the units are one bedrooms. Another one also faces a similar issue. This place had mostly 2 bedroom units, but plenty of 1 beds mixed in. 2.5 parking spaces per unit?!?!?!?

People block project all over the Bay Area for lack of parking, even in places where car ownership is only 50%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Some conspiracies are true: most residents don't like their property values to go down. How is he wrong about Silicon Valley? Abolishing say, zoning limiting housing to detached homes in most areas, would allow the supply to go up, probably quickly considering the currently high housing prices.

This has been debated on other threads. However, even in city neighborhoods with very limited off street parking, people still own cars. Parking is, however, more inconvenient. These parking requirements are a trade off in cost and space, and perhaps aesthetics.
Yup, parking doesn't fit everywhere. There are plenty of places where it is safe to assume 1 or less parking spaces per unit. Very few locales need over 2 parking spaces per unit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 01:04 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Some conspiracies are true: most residents don't like their property values to go down. How is he wrong about Silicon Valley? Abolishing say, zoning limiting housing to detached homes in most areas, would allow the supply to go up, probably quickly considering the currently high housing prices.



This has been debated on other threads. However, even in city neighborhoods with very limited off street parking, people still own cars. Parking is, however, more inconvenient. These parking requirements are a trade off in cost and space, and perhaps aesthetics.
I wasn't speaking so much of the Silicon Valley issue as the general blanket statement: "Many cities and nearly all suburbs actively prevented developers from building apartments until recently." In the cities I'm familiar with, e.g. Denver, Pittsburgh, Chicago, DC, there have been apartments in the burbs for at least the last 45 years. (This too has been debated on other threads.) As for Silicon Valley, no numbers were given, and Silicon Valley is very suburbanized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
However, for most suburbs most of those space requirements aren't going to be an issue, and demand will be higher. For all but the densest suburbs, it shouldn't be hard to squeeze in parking. Multi-family is more often opposed in well-off suburbia because of property values worries (sometimes worried the new residents could poorer), or traffic worries*. Or just a general fear of making their town more crowded.

*I've heard a fear of overwhelming the existing school system once, which doesn't make that much sense
Many people have biases against renters. I've been shocked at times to find this out. The school issue comes up here, and it came up with SF housing proposals too, because it has happened, and is happening again up north of here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,686,954 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Many people have biases against renters. I've been shocked at times to find this out. The school issue comes up here, and it came up with SF housing proposals too, because it has happened, and is happening again up north of here.
Yup, it is very silly. The same people who don't like "icky renters" typically also think transit is for moving around criminals.

Once people have moved to an area, it is like they think no one else should live there.

(Ahem Palo Alto, I am talking about you!!!)

We have a tone of NIMBY-ism plus a whole lot of towns who do not want to take on their fair share of regional development. For many cities it represents a couple thousand residents over 20 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 03:11 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
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I wasn't speaking so much of the Silicon Valley issue as the general blanket statement: "Many cities and nearly all suburbs actively prevented developers from building apartments until recently." In the cities I'm familiar with, e.g. Denver, Pittsburgh, Chicago, DC, there have been apartments in the burbs for at least the last 45 years. (This too has been debated on other threads.) As for Silicon Valley, no numbers were given, and Silicon Valley is very suburbanized.
It was a blanket statement. However, as I mentioned, many outer suburbs I'm familiar with, for example of NYC have prevented developers from building apartments. [Note that posters name was tpk-nyc]. My particular suburb is 3% multifamily. Boston suburbs have few built in the last 45 years, however some have plenty built before 45 years ago. For Long Island:

Suffolk County: Homeownership rate: 80%, 14% multifamily
Nassau County: Homeownership rate: 81%, 21% multifamily [hasn't much housing built of any kind in the last 35 years, its population peaked in 1970]

so not exactly banned, but in many areas they are rather restricted by zoning. Santa Clara County, which is usually what's considered "Silicon Valley" is higher:

Santa Clara County: Homeownership rate: 58%, 32% multifamily

Median income and per capita income is roughly the same as Nassau County, and per capita income 20% higher than Suffolk County. Median home prices in Santa Clara County are 40% higher than Nassau, and 2/3rd higher than Suffolk. Even with more apartments, it's obvious that demand relative to supply is much higher in Santa Clara: perhaps more people moving in plus lots of job growth. Silicon Valley is an unusual case and many of the other Bay Area counties are just as expensive. Even if the Bay Area has a lot of apartments compared to many American suburbs it may need more.

Nassau County has a big section in the north full of very lot large homes owned by the rich. The rest of the county isn't that sprawly, why not zone the northern part to allow for multi-family, and add in a development tax to pay for new roads there?

This link gives a number of cities that restrict most of their land to single family homes:

Old Urbanist: The Zoning Straitjacket, Part II

[Beginning gives links to Chicago, Seattle and Austin]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,686,954 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
It was a blanket statement. However, as I mentioned, many outer suburbs I'm familiar with, for example of NYC have prevented developers from building apartments. [Note that posters name was tpk-nyc]. My particular suburb is 3% multifamily. Boston suburbs have few built in the last 45 years, however some have plenty built before 45 years ago. For Long Island:

Suffolk County: Homeownership rate: 80%, 14% multifamily
Nassau County: Homeownership rate: 81%, 21% multifamily [hasn't much housing built of any kind in the last 35 years, its population peaked in 1970]

so not exactly banned, but in many areas they are rather restricted by zoning. Santa Clara County, which is usually what's considered "Silicon Valley" is higher:

Santa Clara County: Homeownership rate: 58%, 32% multifamily

Median income and per capita income is roughly the same as Nassau County, and per capita income 20% higher than Suffolk County. Median home prices in Santa Clara County are 40% higher than Nassau, and 2/3rd higher than Suffolk. Even with more apartments, it's obvious that demand relative to supply is much higher in Santa Clara: perhaps more people moving in plus lots of job growth. Silicon Valley is an unusual case and many of the other Bay Area counties are just as expensive. Even if the Bay Area has a lot of apartments compared to many American suburbs it may need more.

Nassau County has a big section in the north full of very lot large homes owned by the rich. The rest of the county isn't that sprawly, why not zone the northern part to allow for multi-family, and add in a development tax to pay for new roads there?

This link gives a number of cities that restrict most of their land to single family homes:

Old Urbanist: The Zoning Straitjacket, Part II

[Beginning gives links to Chicago, Seattle and Austin]
Bay Area is under supplied. Even the places way in the outskirts are expensive.

Median rents are charted here in this post: http://priceonomics.com/the-rise-of-...a-rent-prices/

This is also pretty out of date. By the end of the year, the rents were up by about 10-15% in Oakland. That number is a little lower than what I have been seeing. Anyway, they range of $1250 in Vallejo (they have apartments and homes, but Vallejo pretty dangerous in many parts, and a pretty sucky commute to almost everywhere that is even a moderate sized job center in the region. 35 miles to SF, 30 miles to Oakland, 70 miles to Silicon Valley) to $4250 in Los Altos (this is mostly a single family home city, in the middle of Silicon Valley)

This list is also reaching way into super rural areas like Russian River, which is 75 miles from SF, and it still cost $1300 to live there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 03:42 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
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
It's a bit unreasonable to expect affordable housing Los Altos, though the others are extreme. The Bay Area has interesting east/west divide, with San Francisco a bit of an outlier [only places higher are small very wealthy suburbs]. But is San Francisco median rent market rent or median actual rent?

I remember someone posted on the NYC forum on why the market rent was so high when the local income was so low and citydata reported most of the rents paid were much lower in a particular Manhattan zip code. He assumed it must have public housing, one of the responses was more "why would market rent and actual rent match, what's the mystery?"

Economic mystery of Zip Code 10002 - Lower East Side

Median rent in San Francisco is half of your link, $1407 in 2011 according to citydata (Manhattan is $1222).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 03:49 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
45,990 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
from the link, a rent per sq ft map by metro:

https://kwelia.com/maps/cbsa_census_...-Fremont,%20CA

Boston reaches almost the same peak as San Francisco, but a much smaller part of the city is that expensive. New York City reaches a bit higher than San Francisco, but only in a few spots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,686,954 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
It's a bit unreasonable to expect affordable housing Los Altos, though the others are extreme. The Bay Area has interesting east/west divide, with San Francisco a bit of an outlier [only places higher are small very wealthy suburbs]. But is San Francisco median rent market rent or median actual rent?

I remember someone posted on the NYC forum on why the market rent was so high when the local income was so low and citydata reported most of the rents paid were much lower in a particular Manhattan zip code. He assumed it must have public housing, one of the responses was more "why would market rent and actual rent match, what's the mystery?"

Economic mystery of Zip Code 10002 - Lower East Side

Median rent in San Francisco is half of your link, $1407 in 2011 according to citydata (Manhattan is $1222).
Market rent right now is ridiculous. $2800 for a one bedroom in SF. About $2000 in Oakland right now.

The Median Rental Rate of 1- and 2-Bedroom Apartments by Neighborhood - The Numbers - Curbed SF

There is an "east/west" divide in SF, and the evolution is a little complicated. In a nutshell, the east was farm (Oakland's Fruitvale district was named for Orchard) land for awhile, and the cities south of SF on the Peninsula was the area where wealthy people vacationed (in the 1800 and early 1900s). The South (aka Silicon Valley) was farmland well into the 1960s and 70s.

SF was definitely the Gold Rush place, but that wasn't Oakland's story at all. It was more industrial, and the place where the Intercontinental railroad dead-ended. It wasn't really "linked" to SF economically. But after the earthquake in 1906, some San Franciscans started crossing the Bay. And then the Bay Bridge added the more integral link in the 1930s. The early Oakland elite were agriculture and other foods trade types.

Later, Oakland's port developed on its own, and became the hub for northern California and much of the west coast.

Basically the east urbanized later, a lot later. Many of the places around Oakland didn't really build until the 1970s/80s and were very very suburban before.

The Bay Area of the 80s was a very much full of distinct economic zones. SF had finance/law/big city industry/tourism. South Bay had tech. East Bay had manufacturing, food production, logistics and the military. (aka loads of Blue Collar jobs where you know scary black and brown people work, and migrated for) And nary should people cross those divides. People in the "west" particularly the Peninsula, had no reasons to cross the Bay, their allegiances with SF or Silicon Valley. And a snooty attitude persists, but the "west" has long been a sort of playground for rich people. Since the Gold Rush.
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
Similar Threads
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