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, 04:29 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 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810

Advertisements

I suspect the Penisula is the wealthiest part because is it has good links to both San Francisco and Silicon Valley. It looks like it has among the most attractive suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2014, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,681,041 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
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.
I used to think NYC was more expensive than the Bay. I changed my mind. We have pretty much a universal expensive metro, 40 miles in any direction from SF, Oakland or San Jose. Our "cheap" is still more expensive than most metros and has huge trade-offs in terms of crime, school quality or proximity to job centers. I don't think you need to trade so hard in NYC. You can give up one, not all. Sure Manhattan's top is really high, but you don't have to go that far out to get something for the median in a marginal area around here. Here you gotta go 60 miles and still pay a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,681,041 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I suspect the Penisula is the wealthiest part because is it has good links to both San Francisco and Silicon Valley. It looks like it has among the most attractive suburbs.
The Peninsula grew up as a wealthy place well before the Silicon Valley even existed. But, it wasn't that expensive until pretty recently. Like let's say the mid 90s or so. It wasn't too ridiculously off the mark before then. (When my parents moved to CA, they moved to Mountain View, and it was a sleepy suburb and cheap.)

The bigger problem is, the Peninsula only built offices and no housing over the past 30 years. So a lot of people work there, but they can't live nearby so the price goes up. And many of these jobs are very new. Like it became a huge job center (due to the really cheap rents) since approximately the mid-90s as well. Back then, an office in "Silicon Valley" was like $2 a sqft vs $20-50 in SF.

Before that? It wasn't much more expensive than anywhere else in the Bay, with exception of a few super affluent pockets here and there. But Mountain View? Sunnyvale? Palo Alto? San Mateo? They were 10% more than San Jose. And the traffic wasn't so terrible then either. (My dad was a mortgage broker!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 05:25 PM
 
56,656 posts, read 80,952,685 times
Reputation: 12521
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
Syracuse is kind of like this too. What is interesting is that Downtown housing has been fully occupied and there is actually demand for more due to college students, some young professionals and empty nesters.

What is also different about this area is that it is not uncommon to see decent homes in a first ring suburb for less than or around 100k and in solid school districts too. Given that the city is only 25 square miles, living in a first ring suburb still allows you to be close to things going on in the city and gives you a short commute. I'm actually in this situation and it takes me 15 minutes, give or take, on surface streets to get to work. So, if you have or can get a decent job around here, you can make it work to where living in the suburbs isn't necessarily a bad deal.

This doesn't get into another fact where some people may even opt for a walkable suburban village that may have some things to walk to, but with villages, you may have higher taxes due to the layers of government services. So, that would be something to possibly factor in, as the property tax situation can be complex and depends on the individual.

Some villages are even getting into or are planning to use former factories to build apartments or may even build them from scratch. Here are some examples of that in the area: Old Syracuse Plastics factory could get a face lift this summer - Eagle Bulletin - Local, News, Weather, Sports, Election coverage, for East Syrause, Fayetteville, Manlius, Onondaga County, Central New York, NY

New development coming to Manlius - JGB Properties, LLC in the News

Apartments for Rent - 401 First Street, Liverpool NY - JGB Properties, LLC
'Persistence pays off' - JGB Properties, LLC in the News

JGB Properties plans three new mixed-use buildings on basin block - Eagle News Online - Local, News, Weather, Sports, Election coverage, for Syracuse, Onondaga and Madison Counties, Central New York, NY

Upper Crown Mill Condominiums » MCK Building Associates, Inc.

The Logan Building » MCK Building Associates, Inc.

Lakeview House Condominiums » MCK Building Associates, Inc.

Sutton Real Estate Company, LLC

Some cities further out in the area are into the loft movement as well: Sutton Real Estate Company, LLC

Sutton Real Estate Company, LLC

Logan Park Lofts | Maintenance Free Living | Auburn, NY

Brister Mills: Restore, Revive, Rediscover

This doesn't get into other options as well.
Also, for those that may be interested: Downtown Living Tour » Downtown Committee of Syracuse
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2014, 09:45 PM
 
56,656 posts, read 80,952,685 times
Reputation: 12521
Also, while it isn't the area I live in, here is an interesting video about the transformation of A downtown, including housing: The Future of Downtown Ithaca - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 06:48 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,956,284 times
Reputation: 1953
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.
Cars have nothing to do with it. Transit really has nothing to do with it either.

In a lot of suburban municipalities around the country there is no zoning for multi-family or townhouse units whether it's in a suburban "garden apartment" type format or not. It's usually on purpose and it's a huge part of the problem.

It's been in the NJ courts for almost 30 years now. You can research Mt. Laurel I and Mt. Laurel II.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 07:36 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,958,642 times
Reputation: 5383
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
It's a question of how many cars though, depending on the target market and location, the amount of cars residents own can vary a lot.

A student oriented building was recently completely near my university, it has 58 units with 231 bedrooms, and came with 58 parking spaces, as specified by the parking requirements. They were only able to sell 36 parking spaces, which means only about 15% of students would have a car, and this is a relatively high end student building. Anyways, they've now applied for a zoning amendment to convert unused residential parking to commercial parking and convert some space in the building to retail.
Sometimes I get a little annoyed after studying chapters from books that make Master's degrees a complete joke. The thing that annoys me is when I see a blatant disregard for logic and economics.

They built the minimum number of parking spots so they... could get the highest return on their investment. One of those factors was creating an artificial shortage of parking. Do you really think only 15% of students have a car? Do you believe that every single person living there has purchased a parking spot? You absolutely, 100% believe that if those parking spots were ten cents per month they would still only have 36 cars? If you don't believe the last statement, then the problem is that they over-priced the parking spots, not that there wasn't demand. They could easily sell all the parking spots, and several more, at the market clearing price. They decided not to charge the market clearing price, most likely because they have a monopoly. Because they have a monopoly, it may be more profitable to exploit those 36 students than to sell 58 parking passes at the significantly lower market clearing price. Or, the employees may be able to use those parking spots as long as they are not sold. If parking is phenomenally expensive there, the employees have a large interest in establishing a very high price so they have some protected parking spots. Now you might think they would only need 5 or 10, but wouldn't you want a margin of safety? How much would an employee (NOT AN OWNER) actually gain from renting out the extra spots? Not much. They would gain a very real benefit from using it themselves.

It's a shame that piece of crap college isn't giving out educations that would allow people to do this analysis for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 07:48 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,958,642 times
Reputation: 5383
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.
The first part of this post is a little silly, because people do own cars. If the apartment building does not have parking, these people park a quarter mile away and tie up other streets because they are NOT giving up their car just because they got a much better deal on rent from an investor that was able to externalize the cost of providing parking (by having their cars on city land, instead of his land), while internalizing the revenues from rent.

The second part is precisely accurate. I would strongly oppose having studio apartments placed next to my suburban neighborhood. With small and cheap apartment comes a much higher volume of drug activity and crime. It is a very clear correlation that has been seen over hundreds of years in several environments. Residents that don't care about the area and don't have a mindset of buying nice things for the future tend to trash the area. I don't want to live with that for the next decade, and I don't want to move to the other side of the town and eat the costs of realtor fees and loss of property value because all the capable buyers wanted to avoid it unless they got a large discount.

I wouldn't consider that a conspiracy. I don't want things that will destroy my property value. Do you ever encourage people to pee on your building or spray paint it? Why not? You don't want them damaging your things.

The huge problem that we have in this regard is that investors desire to externalize costs, and viewers have a desire to ignore the cost. For instance, when people argue for allowing the apartment buildings with less parking, they want the people living there to simply give up their cars. Unfortunately, unless there is a regulation in place that requires people living there to give up their driver's license for an ID, or to only drive ride-share cars, it won't happen. They will look for a place to park their car without having to pay for it. Having to walk a while to reach their car may be a much more acceptable cost to them, rather than paying the actual cost of storing the car in a reasonable location.

So the renter will take the deal and use city resources. The investor will save money by not providing resources that could be taken from the city. The viewer will just wonder why the parking in the area became so bad and blame it on cars.

For reference: I live in a city that does not have traffic problems. We have sufficient parking and very reasonable housing costs.

For reference, here you can get 2500 sqft for about 225k. No, we don't have massively bloated salaries. We don't need to bloat those salaries. If a reasonable house costs 800k, the only people that can afford to live there are those on bloated income levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Paris
8,133 posts, read 6,683,995 times
Reputation: 3371
I think a lot of the housing affordability problem here comes from the habit of local authorities of subsidizing demand rather than liberating supply.



Was checking the Silicon Valley area on Google Earth and found a low density area that coincides with Atherton city limits. The general plan from 2002:
Quote:
Goal of land use policy
To preserve the town's character as a scenic, rural, thickly wooded residential are with abundant open space
The minimum land area per dwelling is one acre. Up to 5 acres if the terrain is hilly.
Quote:
Structures higher than 30 feet shall be prohibited
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 07:53 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
Cars have nothing to do with it. Transit really has nothing to do with it either.

In a lot of suburban municipalities around the country there is no zoning for multi-family or townhouse units whether it's in a suburban "garden apartment" type format or not. It's usually on purpose and it's a huge part of the problem.

It's been in the NJ courts for almost 30 years now. You can research Mt. Laurel I and Mt. Laurel II.
So two cases in ONE state is "a lot of suburban municipalities around the country"? That's not the case in my suburban city, nor the suburban cities directly north, south, east or west of me! I've got you beat!
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