Oakland Projects and Business Development (San Francisco, Nice: basement, communities, incorporated)

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by jade408

It is undergoing extensive remodeling, and the new pricing is way above market. I assume it used to be a fairly affordable building, and now the average price is well above $2000. Several other similar things happening over there. I am sure they are renovating that place enough so they can get a rent control exemption!

Since the prices have basically doubled over there in the last 5ish years, on existing housing stock, it is causing displacement.

This is all a very predictable outcome of having almost no housing built in Oakland since 2008. If we had new buildings, there would be less demand for fixing up old buildings and those landlords would have less ability to charge high end rents.

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

This is all a very predictable outcome of having almost no housing built in Oakland since 2008. If we had new buildings, there would be less demand for fixing up old buildings and those landlords would have less ability to charge high end rents.

There should be an ordinance that inhibits landlords from passing on remodeling costs to current tenants, which is an obvious way to price them out. That's definitely an unfair and shady practice.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

This is all a very predictable outcome of having almost no housing built in Oakland since 2008. If we had new buildings, there would be less demand for fixing up old buildings and those landlords would have less ability to charge high end rents.

Oakland is still pretty redlined for developers to get loans. Oakland is getting more popular because the region on the whole isn't building enough urban-ish walkable housing. Oakland isn't building because projects can't get funded. It is a neverending circle.

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

There should be an ordinance that inhibits landlords from passing on remodeling costs to current tenants, which is an obvious way to price them out. That's definitely an unfair and shady practice.

Should apartments be permanently maintained to a bare minimum level? If landlords aren't allowed to profit off improvements obviously they're going to stop making improvements. It's not an easy issue.

[Obamadon1]

Originally Posted by jade408

Oakland is still pretty redlined for developers to get loans. Oakland is getting more popular because the region on the whole isn't building enough urban-ish walkable housing. Oakland isn't building because projects can't get funded. It is a neverending circle.

That's part of it, but it wasn't the thing that stopped E 12th from being built. There are things the city controls, like zoning and regulations that raise costs for developers (parking, public art, affordable housing impact fees, etc). If we don't have enough housing being built, there are steps we can take as a city to encourage more to be built.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Obamadon1

That's part of it, but it wasn't the thing that stopped E 12th from being built. There are things the city controls, like zoning and regulations that raise costs for developers (parking, public art, affordable housing impact fees, etc). If we don't have enough housing being built, there are steps we can take as a city to encourage more to be built.

I went to a panel discussion a few months ago about development in Oakland, and the panelists were mostly real estate developers. There were some interesting comments, but what stood out to me was two comments.

1. Oakland's goal is to create mixed use housing (commercial/residential in the same place)
2. Mixed use housing is harder to find funding for, even in SF. Mostly because no REIT invests in it.

https://fundrise.com/education/blog-...tle-bit-easier

Developers with "deep pockets" haven't wanted to invest in and build in Oakland. Lenders don't want to lend. And big developers do not think they can get the profit margins they want in Oakland.

The city hasn't done a good job of PR on the whole (across all functions). And there has been no real window of opportunity for large scale development to happen easily. Redevelopment helped, and then got cut.

E. 12th was a shady deal, period.

[ssmaster]

Originally Posted by jade408

I went to a panel discussion a few months ago about development in Oakland, and the panelists were mostly real estate developers. There were some interesting comments, but what stood out to me was two comments.

1. Oakland's goal is to create mixed use housing (commercial/residential in the same place)
2. Mixed use housing is harder to find funding for, even in SF. Mostly because no REIT invests in it.

https://fundrise.com/education/blog-...tle-bit-easier

Developers with "deep pockets" haven't wanted to invest in and build in Oakland. Lenders don't want to lend. And big developers do not think they can get the profit margins they want in Oakland.

The city hasn't done a good job of PR on the whole (across all functions). And there has been no real window of opportunity for large scale development to happen easily. Redevelopment helped, and then got cut.

E. 12th was a shady deal, period.

I disagree that lenders don't want to Lend and developers don't want to build. The developers aren't allowed to build what they would like to build..the Emerald views project has been dying to slow death since 2007 because Some vocal oaklanders are against the project. Some people complain about working class people displaced but allowing projects like emerald views would not displace working class folks and drive the local economy by bringing in people with disposable income. 42 stories 370 units funded and ready to go.
Ian Birchall and Associates

[jade408]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

I disagree that lenders don't want to Lend and developers don't want to build. The developers aren't allowed to build what they would like to build..the Emerald views project has been dying to slow death since 2007 because Some vocal oaklanders are against the project. Some people complain about working class people displaced but allowing projects like emerald views would not displace working class folks and drive the local economy by bringing in people with disposable income. 42 stories 370 units funded and ready to go.
Ian Birchall and Associates

This project I think was killed by the very influential Oakland Heritage Association. It is tricky, because that building is at the edge of downtown and "out of scale" with the surrounding buildings. And there is the whole garden thing.

Oakland's Emerald Views high rise battle heating up again - San Jose Mercury News

But here, it seems like developers can't make their desired margins:
Oakland highrises struggle to break ground as developers deal with razor-thin margins - San Francisco Business Times

[Stephen1110]

Another SF company leases in Oakland as migration intensifies

CoreLogic Inc., a financial research firm, has leased a full floor at 555 12th St. at Oakland City Center...The annual asking rent for the CoreLogic deal was in the mid-$40s per square foot, close to the threshold needed to justify new construction.

Another S.F. company leases in Oakland as migration intensifies - San Francisco Business Times

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by jade408

But here, it seems like developers can't make their desired margins:
Oakland highrises struggle to break ground as developers deal with razor-thin margins - San Francisco Business Times

True, but the tide is changing as indicated by the numerous developer interests in tower proposals and Oakland's hot real estate market and its relationship to San Francisco's hot real estate market. The areas where the return on investment is the highest for developers is Uptown, Jack London Square, the Broadway corridor (and Temescal) where almost all the tower proposals are located.