Oakland Gentrification 3.0 (live in, manufacturing, rail)

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Developers are lining up around the block to build, Oakland and Bay Area regulations stop that from happening.

Originally Posted by Oakformonday

The majority of those built in Oakland in the last few years have been affordable housing due to the elimination of the Redevelopment agency under Governor Brown. The financing available has been used up now. We need a mix of housing here in Oakland. The issue in the past was cost. The rents and sale prices were not high enough to build here. It cost the same to build in SF and Oakland. Where would one build in this scenario -obviously SF. Prices in Oakland are now getting high enough to make building here feasible. Uber moving over to Uptown is a game changer b/c it will bring more capital and increase prices. This in turn will bring more development and people with money to pay for the affordable housing. Some will get displaced in the transition but that happens and I don't think we should keep Oakland a slum so that nobody ever gets priced out. Sorry. I'm very optimistic at this point. Peace out.

Oakland is rewriting its planning code to make it easier for developers. On one hand, they are proposing to eliminate parking requirements for new residential buildings. Currently, the code requires developers to build 1 parking space per unit, which costs $35,000 - $75,000 a space. So for a 200 unit high-rise, developers can shave off $15 million in construction costs. Now the project is more financially feasible. On the other hand, the city is proposing impact fees for new development (to fund affordable housing, infrastructure, transit). Maximum impact fees are $55,909 (low,mid-rise) - $71,541(high-rise) per unit. So for that 200 unit high-rise, that's $14.3 million in additional costs. Thus, if both new codes are in effect, there will be no cost savings.

I see the benefit of impact fees, but it doesn't make sense for Oakland right now. Construction costs are about 10% lower in Oakland than SF, but perhaps essentially negligible still. Another difference between SF and Oakland is that rents only justify construction in select areas of Oakland. Mason at Hive, the new apartments in Uptown currently is fetching $2800 for a 1br. But Uber's arrival is definitely game changing. Its $8.2 billion in venture capital funding will translate into an increase of $565 in rent. The cranes will surely follow if they haven't already.

Originally Posted by mini_cute

And NIMBYs too. The recent article I am quoting below is about a proposed residential building in Berkeley, but these kinds of things happen in SF, Oakland, and elsewhere in the Bay Area too.

"There’s a problem, though — in the form of a handful of appeals to halt construction of the market-rate housing. It seems like some residents think the design is bland and unattractive, doesn’t conform to surrounding buildings, threatens the landmark status of the historic Hotel Shattuck, and doesn’t even take wind velocity into account in its design."
Berkeley Plaza housing needed, but meets with resistance - San Francisco Chronicle

Like what's happening over the proposed Shoreline Park at Brooklyn Basin. After reading, look at the full design of the park......

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenD...the-waterfront

or the Lake Merritt site. UrbanCore has the financing and offers 260 market rate units + 90 affordable units. Give them the site. We'll see what happens...

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ersy-saha.html

[Ultrarunner]

A couple of thoughts...

If the owner would like to sell... it would make sense to investigate.

Both of my brothers had roommates starting out and interest rates have never been this low and add to that there are first time homebuyer programs and special programs for public school teachers.

The landlord selling could be an opportunity is all I'm saying.

The other is hindsight... I helped a family get started when the market crashed... every block in Oakland had at least one foreclosure and we looked at a one bedroom condo on Mac Arthur that was 80k which made owning less than rent... it was small and monthly fees.

They did buy a single family home on 65th ave for 120k... it was a foreclosure with 3 bedrooms, dining and yard with one car garage... the neighbors on both sides had been there for years and there homes showed pride of ownership... one came out and asked if they were going to be the new neighbors... Oakland is like this and this is why generalizations fail.

When they were looking Oakland had over a 100 homes for sale under 100k... mostly in East Oakland just above or below East 14th... exactly where I bought my first home.

Of course there is little motivation to buy when you like where you rent...

Not everyone raises rents just because... but to find these deals you generally need to find a Mom and Pop small owner that has owned for a long time... not an apartment where the question is not if the rent is going up but how much...

Call it the SF effect because much of the rise in East Bay values is due to SF...

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

A couple of thoughts...

Below 64th ave, homes are selling for <$200k, but what's the forecast for those home values as it is the roughest part of Oakland as I don't see them going any higher.

[Ultrarunner]

Don't know... just a few years ago conventional thinking was Oakland was done... would never recover in our lifetimes and that was fact.

It really depends if someone is looking for a home to live in vs paying rent...

As long as the fundamental owner occupied value of shelter is there... anything else is speculation...

I was told the same thing when I bought my home below East 14 on 92nd Ave...

My Grandparents came and did not have the heart to tell me they thought I had just made a huge mistake... they said I was young and I should just walk away... I would have none of that... all my friends were renting I was owned my own home and still own that home today and with my second renter since I moved.

I imagine 5th generation Oakland living helps to tune out the noise... we use to joke and say nothing bad ever happens before noon... because all the low lifes are still in bed.

Only point is homes in the sky high SF Bay Area are available and in some of the most geographically desirable locations... no hour plus commutes and no A/C required.

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Don't know... just a few years ago conventional thinking was Oakland was done... would never recover in our lifetimes and that was fact.

It really depends if someone is looking for a home to live in vs paying rent...

As long as the fundamental owner occupied value of shelter is there anything else is speculation...

I was told the same thing when I bought my home below East 14 on 92nd Ave...

My Grandparents came and did not have the heart to tell me they thought I had just made a huge mistake... they said I was young and I should just walk away... I would have none of that... all my friends were renting I was owned my own home and still own that home today and with my second renter since I moved.

I imagine 5th generation Oakland living helps to tune out the noise... we use to joke and say nothing bad ever happens before noon... because all the low lifes are still in bed.

Only point is homes in the sky high SF Bay Area are available and in some of the most geographically desirable locations... no hour plus commutes and no A/C required.

I was speaking in terms of buying a home to live and then selling for profit. Buying at $200k is it possible that the home values in that area would increase in the near future to cash out. You can definitely manage in that area though. As long as you have no involvement in whats going on then the worse will not happen to you.

[Bonez765]

Originally Posted by BayDude

Once again, I am proven right:

Black Man Asks Woman For Phone Number In Oakland, She Posts Flyer About It And Calls Cops: SFist

There is an epidemic of racial profiling in Oakland (and in the Bay Area in general), on all levels.

People don't post warning flyers of "strange" black men talking to white women in "tolerant", "integrated" cities.

Is Oakland turning into Mobile, Alabama? lol

Dude, I don't like using the word creep but come on, the dude went too forward on a white girl. That's the last thing you should do if you want to game a white girl. You always have to play it indirect and take your time with them. Go too quick and you scare them. Think how you approach a cat. You let the cat get slowly comfortable with you and if the cat likes you, then you proceed to touch it. The guy had bad game and he ran into a paranoid white chick.

[04kL4nD]

There is ZERO proof it was a white girl who made that flier. You can make all the assumptions you want, but there's no hard evidence to back it up.

[Bisaro TMF]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

There is ZERO proof it was a white girl who made that flier. You can make all the assumptions you want, but there's no hard evidence to back it up.

Yeah it could have been an Asian woman too. Asian women are terrified of Blacks and only want White men or other Asians approaching them.

[Bonez765]

Originally Posted by Bisaro TMF

Yeah it could have been an Asian woman too. Asian women are terrified of Blacks and only want White men or other Asians approaching them.

It stills comes down to the brotha having weak game and the chick being paranoid as ****. Besides, black men typically aren't into Asian women. Most I know tend to like girls who are bigger than the average Asian girl (and I'm not talking of black guys going for fat girls). Black guys tend to like more girls of which can be found in abundance in places like Brazil or Colombia; meaty girls with bubble butt and big chest, but flat stomach.

[ssmaster]

When the conversation in this thread was about whether or not to invest in Oakland ,whether to live in Oakland if you did buy an investment property etc this thread was interesting.
If The conversation continues to generalize Asian White Black and Latino people,it should be closed