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.
It's disgusting how people want to make the Bay Area just a soulless hipster wasteland of overpriced high rise condos/"luxury" apartments, whole foods, and "hip clubs/bars". I'd rather own a suburban 3/2 or 4/2 with an 1/8th acre+ ranch home. I see those who own real homes with actual land (not that fake HOA condo BS) to be far higher in stature than any yuppie condo complex. I don't care what kind of doorman/gym/pool you have. "Luxury" condos/apartments are no more impressive to me than living in a 6 unit multifamily built in 1955 in a run down neighborhood.
Not everyone wants a SF home. A lot of people like walkable neighborhoods (walkable meaning everything is a walkable distance away). It is much easier to walk to things if not so much land is used to house so few people.
Also, a lot of people find they don't need big houses anymore as they find they are doing more things away from home, especially in California. Yards are just maintenance to some.
Condo lifestyle is real popular with the young and the old. The family generation still prefers SF suburban living.
Nice how you label a lifestyle "disgusting" that you don't prefer.
I do complain about people not adapting. That's not what this thread is about. People who move and live here who decided since they have their plot it can't change at all are the problem. Adding hundreds of thousands of jobs and 10s of thousand housing units makes not sense.
Downtown SF, Oakland and San Jose can and should be denser and taller than they are. 3-6 story condo buildings are not going to "change the character" of downtown Lafayette or Palo Alto or Mountain View. Downtown San Mateo can add a couple 10-12 story buildings along El Camino. If all these cities want to attract employers they need to have a place to live too.
I'm sorry, but your comment is simply ridiculous (and I honestly mean no disrespect). I'm glad you don't complain about people not adapting. Whenever I hear that term "NIMBY", it simply translate to me as a lot of transplants that have no interest in acclimating in any way. Building a couple of 10-12 story building is not going to change the situation. And it's more than obvious that there's way more going on with all the whiners than just that. So let me give it to you in a nutshell...
-Putting skyscrapers all over town is not what anyone that has lived here for any length of time wants. Just like environmentalists want to preserve all the historical beauty and the natural environment (that is not going to change any time soon). The people that scream for high risers have their own self interests in mind and don't give a rat's ass about what the skyline looks like and who's natural habitat they destroy.
-When business was down, everyone was complaining about unemployment and lack of jobs. Now that business is back, we get the whiners that say it's too much. You can't have it both ways
-2/3rds of all houses are not cash sales and with the limited amount of homes available, the market for housing is just fine for those that want to put the effort towards living here
MOST IMPORTANTLY....there is nothing anyone can do about the situation (and all the complaining in the world is not going to change it). The only solution is to do what China does and limit population growth. No matter how many high risers you put in, the supply will still eventually dry up (that's more than obvious). The area is simply too small and there is not enough space to build, regardless of what you think. We could have a recession and prices could come down 25% to 30%....SO WHAT! Does buying a home of $750K to a million makes things that much better? I don't think so.
I'm sorry, but your comment is simply ridiculous (and I honestly mean no disrespect). I'm glad you don't complain about people not adapting. Whenever I hear that term "NIMBY", it simply translate to me as a lot of transplants that have no interest in acclimating in any way. Building a couple of 10-12 story building is not going to change the situation. And it's more than obvious that there's way more going on with all the whiners than just that. So let me give it to you in a nutshell...
NIMBY's are not adapting to the changing region. It is not a native or transplant issue.
For example, over in Oakland at 51/Telegraph, there was a business that closed down in the 90s. That space was slotted for new housing. Perfectly logical location to put up a 5-6 story building of housing. The buildings nearby were of a similar scale.
That lot sat empty for 20 years! They finally starting construction on that stalled condo project.
In Berkeley, at Haste / Telegraph (or Channing), there is a lot that has been empty for 40 years. A few blocks from campus. It is perfect for housing. Still empty because the owner is an egomaniac and refuses to develop. Causes blight on Telegraph.
Quote:
-Putting skyscrapers all over town is not what anyone that has lived here for any length of time wants. Just like environmentalists want to preserve all the historical beauty and the natural environment (that is not going to change any time soon). The people that scream for high risers have their own self interests in mind and don't give a rat's ass about what the skyline looks like and who's natural habitat they destroy.
Who is advocating for "skyscrapers" all over town? Who mentioned skylines? No one in this thread. There is no reason for the Financial District and northern SOMA to not have taller buildings. That is the scale of that part of town. There is space there for higher density and that is where it should go!
I am amazed at how much building has happened in NYC over the past 5 years. Building in logical areas near the subway. It is actually cheaper for me to move to Manhattan when I am priced out of Oakland. How does that even make sense. I have looked. There is great stuff in my budget.
Quote:
-When business was down, everyone was complaining about unemployment and lack of jobs. Now that business is back, we get the whiners that say it's too much. You can't have it both ways
-2/3rds of all houses are not cash sales and with the limited amount of homes available, the market for housing is just fine for those that want to put the effort towards living here
MOST IMPORTANTLY....there is nothing anyone can do about the situation (and all the complaining in the world is not going to change it). The only solution is to do what China does and limit population growth. No matter how many high risers you put in, the supply will still eventually dry up (that's more than obvious). The area is simply too small and there is not enough space to build, regardless of what you think. We could have a recession and prices could come down 25% to 30%....SO WHAT! Does buying a home of $750K to a million makes things that much better? I don't think so.
The market has spoken, we are under developed in walkable transit friendly locations. That is what lots and lots of people want to move into. We need to create more of that. We don't have enough supply to deal with the pent up demand created over the past 40 years. We need to address that. There is a ton of underutilized space that won't displace anyone right next to our transit lines. That's is where we need to place development.
Otherwise we'll keep killing our open space, create more congestion and traffic problems, and jack up our air quality all because people refuse to face reality. People are already here, and there needs to be more places to live.
NIMBY's are not adapting to the changing region. It is not a native or transplant issue.
For example, over in Oakland at 51/Telegraph, there was a business that closed down in the 90s. That space was slotted for new housing. Perfectly logical location to put up a 5-6 story building of housing. The buildings nearby were of a similar scale.
That lot sat empty for 20 years! They finally starting construction on that stalled condo project.
In Berkeley, at Haste / Telegraph (or Channing), there is a lot that has been empty for 40 years. A few blocks from campus. It is perfect for housing. Still empty because the owner is an egomaniac and refuses to develop. Causes blight on Telegraph.
Who is advocating for "skyscrapers" all over town? Who mentioned skylines? No one in this thread. There is no reason for the Financial District and northern SOMA to not have taller buildings. That is the scale of that part of town. There is space there for higher density and that is where it should go!
I am amazed at how much building has happened in NYC over the past 5 years. Building in logical areas near the subway. It is actually cheaper for me to move to Manhattan when I am priced out of Oakland. How does that even make sense. I have looked. There is great stuff in my budget.
The market has spoken, we are under developed in walkable transit friendly locations. That is what lots and lots of people want to move into. We need to create more of that. We don't have enough supply to deal with the pent up demand created over the past 40 years. We need to address that. There is a ton of underutilized space that won't displace anyone right next to our transit lines. That's is where we need to place development.
Otherwise we'll keep killing our open space, create more congestion and traffic problems, and jack up our air quality all because people refuse to face reality. People are already here, and there needs to be more places to live.
To think that it would not ruin the skyline is silly. Of course it will. Two of my clients were right in the middle of a massive fight over putting a single skyscraper up in downtown SF (it was going to block the view of a couple of the buildings and the tenants were furious...that's your reality). The market has spoken and people that aren't whining about it are somehow making it work, aren't they? Of course the question that this whole situation begs, and yet you, nor anyone else around here will ever answer it is...if housing prices were so unaffordable, how are people able to afford the exorbitant rents? And you conveniently dodged my other comment also. Do you think the population is just going to stop flocking to San Francisco? I don't see that happening anytime soon. San Francisco is a very desirable place to live, and therefore will always be expensive. No amount of artificial government interference is going to change that. At some point you just need to accept it.
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 03-01-2016 at 11:15 AM..
Doesn't explain why the tech companies can't just sell their real estate at a profit and leave. They could buy an entire city in the Midwest and invest the rest of their profit.
Easier to pack your bags. Tech isn't going anywhere. Some of it has relocated and we have mini-Silicon Valleys across the country. The concentration won't go anywhere. If you hate the area, don't let the door hit you on the way out. As always, some has to be in the productive sector that pays the taxes for your salary. It does account for your inflated salary. Eg, base salary for a new hire in my field is $107k for San Francisco versus about $80k for Sacramento. Sure, $80k goes farther in Sacramento than $107k in San Francisco. I couldn't buy in most of the Bay Area on $107k. Fixing that will at this point will take at least a decade, probably more, from when the entire region decides to start building the massive number of housing necessary. As is now we're barely adding housing. Since there's no where to put it, expect a lot more of those nasty condos and less ranch homes. It's actually more the I was already here and why does the word have to change types like yourself than the techies resisting that change.
To think that it would not ruin the skyline is silly. Of course it will. Two of my clients were right in the middle of a massive fight over putting a single skyscraper up in downtown SF (it was going to block the view of a couple of the buildings and the tenants were furious...that's your reality). The market has spoken and people that aren't whining about it are somehow making it work, aren't they? Of course the question that this whole situation begs, and yet you, nor anyone else around here will ever answer it is...if housing prices were so unaffordable, how are people able to afford the exorbitant rents? And you conveniently dodged my other comment also. Do you think the population is just going to stop flocking to San Francisco? I don't see that happening anytime soon. San Francisco is a very desirable place to live, and therefore will always be expensive. No amount of artificial government interference is going to change that. At some point you just need to accept it.
They're not. It's why the Bay Area has the highest percentage of super commuters in the country. Stockton is now part of the Bay Area because a large enough percentage of people living all the way out in San Joaquin are now working in the Bay Area. Nobody lives in Stockton because of how glorious it is. They live in Stockton because it's the closest place they can afford to the Bay Area where the work is. I'd find some large closest to live in before doing that on a daily basis but then I don't have a family. As is I go into the city a few times a month and that's bad enough.
They're not. It's why the Bay Area has the highest percentage of super commuters in the country. Stockton is now part of the Bay Area because a large enough percentage of people living all the way out in San Joaquin are now working in the Bay Area. Nobody lives in Stockton because of how glorious it is. They live in Stockton because it's the closest place they can afford to the Bay Area where the work is. I'd find some large closest to live in before doing that on a daily basis but then I don't have a family. As is I go into the city a few times a month and that's bad enough.
Another dodge, but that's fine. I have yet to get anyone to answer either of the questions I posed to them. If indeed it does have the highest amount of commuters, it wouldn't change by throwing up a building or two. There simply isn't anywhere to build that would expand housing to a point that things would be significantly less. You would literally have to build up skyscrapers all over town and the city would look like New York (something most people I know would not like, much to the dismay of the transplants). All you would have is more people flock to the area and housing would still be just as high. I have no idea why you and others continue to deny this. And clearly there are people paying rents as high as $4500 to $5k for housing (and those people could be buying homes if they chose to). And based on what I've heard, often times there are multiple tenants trying to get into many of these units, so hard to believe people can't afford them. There is certainly a market for them.
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 03-01-2016 at 12:37 PM..
The market has spoken, we are under developed in walkable transit friendly locations. That is what lots and lots of people want to move into. We need to create more of that. We don't have enough supply to deal with the pent up demand created over the past 40 years. We need to address that. There is a ton of underutilized space that won't displace anyone right next to our transit lines. That's is where we need to place development.
Otherwise we'll keep killing our open space, create more congestion and traffic problems, and jack up our air quality all because people refuse to face reality. People are already here, and there needs to be more places to live.
Agreed, land around BART stations is really underutilized and underdeveloped. Washington DC has done a much better job at TOD around it's Metro stations. Considering the demand to be near BART I am always surprised how little gets built.
NIMBY's do kill or delay a lot of development. For example, the "Contra Costa Centre" Urban Village around PH BART is like a 1/3 to 1/2 built. The recession halted it but the market picked back up and they still haven't resumed construction. Instead you have a giant empty lot that used to be BART parking fenced off with overgrown weeds. Thankfully they turned the other smaller empty lot into temporary BART parking. I read the developer wanted the rest of the development to be apartments instead of condo's and people freaked out complaining it would change the character of the area. Probably 80% of the units within walking distance of PH BART are already rentals so what difference would it really make? The Bay Area is just terrible when it comes to dealing with its housing supply and gives to much power to a small set of whiny NYMBY's.
Agreed, land around BART stations is really underutilized and underdeveloped. Washington DC has done a much better job at TOD around it's Metro stations. Considering the demand to be near BART I am always surprised how little gets built.
NIMBY's do kill or delay a lot of development. For example, the "Contra Costa Centre" Urban Village around PH BART is like a 1/3 to 1/2 built. The recession halted it but the market picked back up and they still haven't resumed construction. Instead you have a giant empty lot that used to be BART parking fenced off with overgrown weeds. Thankfully they turned the other smaller empty lot into temporary BART parking. I read the developer wanted the rest of the development to be apartments instead of condo's and people freaked out complaining it would change the character of the area. Probably 80% of the units within walking distance of PH BART are already rentals so what difference would it really make? The Bay Area is just terrible when it comes to dealing with its housing supply and gives to much power to a small set of whiny NYMBY's.
Uh oh...I found a native who is in favor of building. Mind exploding.
Putting skyscrapers all over town is not what anyone that has lived here for any length of time wants. Just like environmentalists want to preserve all the historical beauty and the natural environment (that is not going to change any time soon). The people that scream for high risers have their own self interests in mind and don't give a rat's ass about what the skyline looks like and who's natural habitat they destroy.
Read: I already bought before prices got crazy ridiculous and now I want to protect my investment. I'm only concerned about MY self interest. All you horrible transplants should leave because you're destroying my picturesque San Francisco.
Why do you care if SOMA or FiDi has a few more skyscrapers? You don't even live in that part of town. Restricting population isn't necessarily the answer. China has a huge amount of land that's not being developed, all you hear about are the big cities. Preventing foreigners from buying our land, building more to make way for a growing population, and moving large companies and tech to lesser developed cities is a better solution.
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.
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.
