Villaraigosa and Newsom want to build more houses in California than ever before. Experts see the candidates' goal as an

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Question. Why should people who have bought in SoCal in the popular areas be forced to be living in more and more crowded areas, with worse traffic, higher taxes and fees because others want to live in such areas but can't afford to? Especially since all the building up has not made it more affordable?

Places always get more crowded. 10,000 population cities turn into 30,000. 30,000 into 100,000. I don't think these issues are unique to just SoCal. As a resident in the valley in a nice popular area why should i have to put up with more crowded areas and worse traffic? That's just the way things have always been. As long as there are people willing to pay there will be people willing to build. In So Cal most of that building will have to be up. I would think that is what happens to all cities when they get maxed out.

[NewbieHere]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Question. Why should people who have bought in SoCal in the popular areas be forced to be living in more and more crowded areas, with worse traffic, higher taxes and fees because others want to live in such areas but can't afford to? Especially since all the building up has not made it more affordable?

I don’t know but the no growth crowd in the 80s is now regretting.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

Places always get more crowded. 10,000 population cities turn into 30,000. 30,000 into 100,000. I don't think these issues are unique to just SoCal. As a resident in the valley in a nice popular area why should i have to put up with more crowded areas and worse traffic? That's just the way things have always been. As long as there are people willing to pay there will be people willing to build. In So Cal most of that building will have to be up. I would think that is what happens to all cities when they get maxed out.

Not in all cities or areas, as an example how many 100 story hi-rises are in Beverly Hills? Plus how many can afford the buildings as the prices will not drop as seen in the prices for units in the buildings that are being built now. So those who can't afford now, won't be able to afford then, so they will still have to move elsewhere. That is life.



Remember many people moved from the East Coast areas in the past, to the Midwest to have a home, farm, etc. It was about a better life not just ... fun and good weather. Today in virtually all popular areas the trend is not up, rather out to areas not built up. The IE is a good example as is the SF valley, where I lived. It is way more built out now in ... the areas further away from LA, etc. Eventually those "new" areas have all the goodies people want. There is still plenty of land in CA for such a spread. The popular areas, like coast OC will not drop in price, so building up will not help the ones who cannot afford it now. That also is the way things have always been.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by NewbieHere

I don’t know but the no growth crowd in the 80s is now regretting.

Not the ones who bought then. Plus growth has occurred, as that is normal. Building up is only normal in major cities, not the suburbs. This is and has been normal since the beginning of time.

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Not in all cities or areas, as an example how many 100 story hi-rises are in Beverly Hills?

I don't know that much about Beverly Hills but have always assumed those are privately owned lots. If someone owns one and wants to build a high rise i wouldn't be against them doing so. I'm sure they will have to battle the other residents and city planning commission though just as you would in any other city and that includes central valley cities.

[NewbieHere]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Not the ones who bought then. Plus growth has occurred, as that is normal. Building up is only normal in major cities, not the suburbs. This is and has been normal since the beginning of time.

That’s what I suggested in the city, not suburbs. But even in Irvine, I consider it a suburbs, there are lots of high rises already. A lot of people from high density areas like to live in high rises, give them a piece of land and they will cement it.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by NewbieHere

That’s what I suggested in the city, not suburbs. But even in Irvine, I consider it a suburbs, there are lots of high rises already. A lot of people from high density areas like to live in high rises, give them a piece of land and they will cement it.

Yes in a city with employment opportunities it makes sense.


Irvine is building up because builders, including the Irvine Company, are making money and are not concerned about the impact on the suburbs. Over time places that have grown in population and have a good growth in jobs, such building up will occur. However Irvine, while having a lot of jobs, is not truly a job center, it is a suburb. Building up will make it worse over time as the needed jobs will still be further away. Cementing up too much begins to damage not just people's lives, as proven by multiple studies, but the environment as well, leading to more issues and costs. Balance between what is wanted and what is best is hard to achieve when money is dominate, either in construction, etc., or in ones pocket.

[tetka_grunya]

Originally Posted by NewbieHere

I think they will build in the city like LA and SF. High rise though.

Yes, like millenium tower in SF

https://abc7news.com/realestate/san-...cking/4157161/

Somebody doesn't take in consideration that California coastal area is earthquake area as well...

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by tetka_grunya

Yes, like millenium tower in SF

https://abc7news.com/realestate/san-...cking/4157161/

Somebody doesn't take in consideration that California coastal area is earthquake area as well...

And this: https://abc7news.com/realestate/$100-million-fix-proposed-for-leaning-sinking-sf-millennium-tower/4829512/