Oakland Projects and Business Development (San Pablo, Piedmont: rent, landlords, maintenance)

[jade408]

Oh no, the tech companies have uncovered Oakland as a potential office location.
Creative overflow: Tenants? next stop for stylish digs is Oakland - San Francisco Business Times

It must be the donuts and the ethiopian coffee service:
Donut Savant Is Where It's At | What the Fork | East Bay Food and Restaurant News

Or maybe, they wanted to help inspire the girls:
Girls Inc. hosts groundbreaking ceremony for future move to Oakland – Oakland North : North Oakland News, Food, Art and Events
(everyone I have met who works at Girls Inc lives in Oakland, I know they are excited!)

[jade408]

I was walking on Broadway, and it looks like Camber's got its alcohol permit!
Camber, a Restaurant, and Feezy, a Bar Coming to Oakland’s Uptown -- Grub Street San Francisco

It wasn't clear how far along the construction was when I walked by, but anything groundfloor on Broadway is good news!

Also, Grand is getting very busy adjacent to Farley's.
The ethiopian coffee shop will be right next door. ANd there is another place, I forgot the name, and an import from MN the door after, that has some international inspired noodles or pasta. Looks like that block will be pretty hopping, these projects look likt they should open this summer.

[geoking66]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

This is disgusting.

No it's not, it's economics. Much of San Francisco and Oakland was the product of mass speculative development, as is the case in many other cities. As spillover increases across the Bay, it's better that this new development absorb growth rather than jack prices up on a limited inventory.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by geoking66

No it's not, it's economics. Much of San Francisco and Oakland was the product of mass speculative development, as is the case in many other cities. As spillover increases across the Bay, it's better that this new development absorb growth rather than jack prices up on a limited inventory.

That's easy to say if you don't actually know the communities that are being uprooted.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by geoking66

No it's not, it's economics. Much of San Francisco and Oakland was the product of mass speculative development, as is the case in many other cities. As spillover increases across the Bay, it's better that this new development absorb growth rather than jack prices up on a limited inventory.

Sure it's economics. It also tears apart neighborhoods, and causes people to withdraw from participating in their community, which allows bad guys to assert dominance, financed by their own special brand of economics. Not to mention the rich greedy bastards who don't give a **** about what they do to these established communities. Simply turning everything into spec houses doesn't make for a desirable community. But the hedge fund guys don't live there and aren't affected, so they can just casually blurt, "It's just economics."

[geoking66]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

That's easy to say if you don't actually know the communities that are being uprooted.

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Sure it's economics. It also tears apart neighborhoods, and causes people to withdraw from participating in their community, which allows bad guys to assert dominance, financed by their own special brand of economics. Not to mention the rich greedy bastards who don't give a **** about what they do to these established communities. Simply turning everything into spec houses doesn't make for a desirable community. But the hedge fund guys don't live there and aren't affected, so they can just casually blurt, "It's just economics."

So when people actually come in an invest in otherwise neglected communities, somehow that constitutes as upheaval. I'd like to know where you think the tax base for services that go towards these residents exists, because if you keep pushing away new entrants into the community, particularly those with above-median income, quite frankly that "established" neighborhood (even though historically it was probably wealthier and more established until the mid-20th century exodus, not just Oakland but the vast majority of inner-city or similar neighborhoods) is going to stay depressed. They're only going to come, though, if infrastructure is improved. But hey, let's just generalise a bunch of people and append a conspiracy onto them. The sad part is that across the country I see community involvement at great lengths from these newcomers you obviously don't want. How about we stop looking at the world through a sharp "good vs bad," because quite frankly that doesn't particularly show much in the way of critical analysis.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by geoking66

So when people actually come in an invest in otherwise neglected communities, somehow that constitutes as upheaval. I'd like to know where you think the tax base for services that go towards these residents exists, because if you keep pushing away new entrants into the community, particularly those with above-median income, quite frankly that "established" neighborhood (even though historically it was probably wealthier and more established until the mid-20th century exodus, not just Oakland but the vast majority of inner-city or similar neighborhoods) is going to stay depressed. They're only going to come, though, if infrastructure is improved. But hey, let's just generalise a bunch of people and append a conspiracy onto them. The sad part is that across the country I see community involvement at great lengths from these newcomers you obviously don't want. How about we stop looking at the world through a sharp "good vs bad," because quite frankly that doesn't particularly show much in the way of critical analysis.

Absentee landlords from out-of-state do not encourage community involvement or investment.

[geoking66]

Originally Posted by jade408

Absentee landlords from out-of-state do not encourage community involvement or investment.

No, but their tenants do. Here are the options:

• Keep Oakland frozen, so no development. This either 1) causes rents to spike rapidly as demand increases, leading to natural displacement or 2) keeps the city stagnant as people don't want to move in, leaving it in its current state (which most can agree needs improvement, even with the building blocks and fundamentals in place and primed for growth).
• Allow minimal development, which doesn't particularly do much on the rent or economic development fronts, leading again to sharp increases in rent and displacement.
• Let those developers in and build. Because their investments and construction are by default more expensive, they attract higher-end clientele who can afford higher rents or asking prices that turn profits on those developments. They come in and bring in far more private money than previously seen. Rents will likely rise, but supply will increase to absorb demand, so the rental growth rate should be slightly lower. Only if demand continues to exponentially exceed supply will this paradigm not work. Displacement will likely occur, but can be buffered if demand is absorbed appropriately.

Basically, you'll get the same outcomes no matter what happens, so pick your poison. At least one will add construction jobs, new retail, and a dispersal from our old standard of urban wealth being geographically concentrated. I know I'd rather see some fresh money come into Oakland and better integration with San Francisco and much of the Bay Area, and I'm sure many would agree. No one can stop the migration into cities, so why not welcome it rather than reject new entrants into the market who might actually drive competition? Developers are coming to Oakland because they see potential because it could be exactly what a large proportion of people want and desire: walkable, vibrant urban spaces with demographic and a number of other forms of diversity layered on top. Squandering that will only keep Oakland stigmatised, even as its reputation slowly begins to change.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by geoking66

No, but their tenants do. Here are the options:

• Keep Oakland frozen, so no development. This either 1) causes rents to spike rapidly as demand increases, leading to natural displacement or 2) keeps the city stagnant as people don't want to move in, leaving it in its current state (which most can agree needs improvement, even with the building blocks and fundamentals in place and primed for growth).
• Allow minimal development, which doesn't particularly do much on the rent or economic development fronts, leading again to sharp increases in rent and displacement.
• Let those developers in and build. Because their investments and construction are by default more expensive, they attract higher-end clientele who can afford higher rents or asking prices that turn profits on those developments. They come in and bring in far more private money than previously seen. Rents will likely rise, but supply will increase to absorb demand, so the rental growth rate should be slightly lower. Only if demand continues to exponentially exceed supply will this paradigm not work. Displacement will likely occur, but can be buffered if demand is absorbed appropriately.

Basically, you'll get the same outcomes no matter what happens, so pick your poison. At least one will add construction jobs, new retail, and a dispersal from our old standard of urban wealth being geographically concentrated. I know I'd rather see some fresh money come into Oakland and better integration with San Francisco and much of the Bay Area, and I'm sure many would agree. No one can stop the migration into cities, so why not welcome it rather than reject new entrants into the market who might actually drive competition? Developers are coming to Oakland because they see potential because it could be exactly what a large proportion of people want and desire: walkable, vibrant urban spaces with demographic and a number of other forms of diversity layered on top. Squandering that will only keep Oakland stigmatised, even as its reputation slowly begins to change.

Absentee landlords generally lead to the worst possible outcome for a neighborhood. Generally speaking they do the least to maintain their properties. Having blocks full of absentee landlord won't improve the neighborhood. I am extremely skeptical of individual or corporate investors dealing in single family homes. These aren't developers. The are real-estate speculators.

Developers taking new or underutilized land and converting them to something else is fine. (I.E. the new Australian developers creating that industrial project by the airport.)

Not seeing much positive momentum from these people buying up houses in East Oakland. The odds of it ending well are very slim. I do know of an organization, that is in Oakland, that is actually buying distressed properties and renting them out. They live in Oakland and or the east bay, and most of the workers do. They also hire people that have trouble finding jobs due to their shaky employment history or pasts. This actually helps the community on both ends. They care about their neighborhoods and creating local jobs. These are the types of projects we need more of.

[athleticsfan72737489]

Oakland Turns A Corner As California Faces Budget Woes : NPR

Story on Oakland from NPR's All Things Considered.