HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 5:48 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
My understanding is a lot of houses in Silicon Valley are effectively being used as multi-units right now. Like, it's so expensive that three couples will share renting a three-bedroom, with each paying 1/3rd of the rent.

Because of this, I would guess that a lot of reconfiguration could take place of existing housing without much change in the overall built form. It probably would not negatively impact parking at all.
This is 100% correct. The ability to add extra units doesn't matter much if setbacks and height limits constrain the buildable envelope to only what an SFH would take up. But reconfiguring the interior is relatively cheap and easy, assuming the parking requirements don't get in the way.

I just looked at the Cupertino zoning code for residential zones and holy shit, good luck expanding homes anywhere. You can't even add a 2nd story to your house if there's a chance it might shade your neighbor. Ever after SB-9, the best you can do under all those regulations is subdividing an existing house. If you have a basement (not common in California), maybe that can be converted to an apartment. Even Cupertino now has an ADU section of their zoning code where any new ADU does not face additional parking requirements.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 5:56 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
People seem to be expecting a flood of new units in existing neighborhoods. That seems farfetched.

Much of the new housing should be denser new developements. That'll be easy and very profitable for most who bought land under the old rules.

I agree that existing HOAs typically won't allow densification.

For the rest, let's hypothetically imagine 1,000,000 new units on existing house lots over 10-15 years. Total wild guess.

Many will be apartments, typically in transit-served areas (one hopes). Let's say 500,000.

Then let's say another 500,000 true accessory or side units in existing SFR areas. If the non-HOA denominator is 5,000,000 houses in the state (wild guess), that's a 10% increase. And it's over many years, following building codes. Maybe some areas don't get many and others see a 20% increase. Even 20% is just not that many when phased in over time.

Yet even that moderate amount can reset price norms because the market will be based on much cheaper land values per unit.

Traffic keeps coming up. I suspect a large percentage of construction will be CLOSER to jobs. The measures won't cut traffic, but they'll make a lot of long commutes shorter ones. And they'll put more people into transit and walking range.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 6:10 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
You fetishize it but you have never been to Japan (or Cupertino for that matter). You just have opinions. Tokyo is one of my favorite cities in the world, and I often compare it favorably to my own city, but the housing stock there is a weak point. Everyone knows this. It's mostly generic postmodern boxes, not traditional architecture. Many houses are built to be disposable - to last one human lifetime. It's not something that California homeowners are looking to for inspiration. Sorry to inform you of this. In fact, any halfway decent suburb in California has much higher quality housing stock than 90% of Tokyo. And now you know.
I don't intend to be arrogant, but I'm hardly ever surprised by any place I visit, whatever the country. I'm so interested about geography, history and urbanism that my research lasts way more than the actual travel.

I've never been to Japan, but I have close Japanese-Brazilian friends that have lived there and be sure I'm very very familiar to Japanese cities layout and urban form. And California, well, aside being the centre of world media, Hollywood, I'm on an urbanism forum dedicated exclusively to the US cities for the past 13 years. So without false modesty I know one or two things about Californian cities as well.

You might don't like dense SFH residential areas (even using very derrogatory terms to refer to them, "third world", "slum", but I do. I do like those simple, monotonous Japanese way to build their compact houses. I prefer them to any thing I saw on Cupertino. And that's appearance I'm talking. To actually live there, hands down: Japanese urban form is much superior to me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Its advantage is its urban form, not the construction quality or aesthetics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Honestly, aesthetics are overrated when it comes to urbanism. When you go to the really old sections of a lot of Mediterranean cities, most of the buildings are pretty plain outside of the area around the town square. This makes sense, because the buildings are jammed so close together there is literally no way to see the facades from the streets. The view that people engage with is the "streets" - the pedestrian walkways that you travel down.
Indeed. Athens, for instance, always deemed ugly but it has an amazing urban form. Make pedestrian life, public transit being viable.

Suburban Atlanta tree cover is beautiful (not Cupertino though), but it's horrible for the environment and urban lifestyle.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 6:17 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
I think a lot of people on this forum need to realize that the vast majority of people disagree with their preferences.

Most people want more space not less. this is quite obvious as people get wealthier they nearly universally get larger and larger and more private homes and estates.
A lot of people on this forum need to realize that the vast majority of people on Earth live outside the US.

And urban forms that might look strange to you, might be incredibly common for people on other countries. Heck, even in the US there are 10-11 million people in New York area living an urban form completely different from the rest of the country.

Nobody is saying Americans should life in smaller houses. It's actually the opposite: zoning laws are preventing the Americans to build smaller and fortunately lawmakers are finally realizing that.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 6:22 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
I don't intend to be arrogant...
With respect to the topic of this thread. What you prefer literally does not matter. What I prefer will soon become reality in my neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 6:24 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
A lot of people on this forum need to realize that the vast majority of people on Earth live outside the US.

And urban forms that might look strange to you, might be incredibly common for people on other countries. Heck, even in the US there are 10-11 million people in New York area living an urban form completely different from the rest of the country.

Nobody is saying Americans should life in smaller houses. It's actually the opposite: zoning laws are preventing the Americans to build smaller and fortunately lawmakers are finally realizing that.
Brah we have had this debate before, nobody cares about anything outside of the USA. I know this is tough to swallow but until you do you are going to have a bad time.

But to push back on your statement the rich in EVERY COUNTRY and in virtually all societies live in large estates and homes. Everywhere and at all times. the middle class of the USA is quite wealthy by global standards and is able to get halfway/imitate to what is typically reserved for the rich alone in most places.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 6:26 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
People seem to be expecting a flood of new units in existing neighborhoods. That seems farfetched.

Much of the new housing should be denser new developements. That'll be easy and very profitable for most who bought land under the old rules.

I agree that existing HOAs typically won't allow densification.

For the rest, let's hypothetically imagine 1,000,000 new units on existing house lots over 10-15 years. Total wild guess.

Many will be apartments, typically in transit-served areas (one hopes). Let's say 500,000.

Then let's say another 500,000 true accessory or side units in existing SFR areas. If the non-HOA denominator is 5,000,000 houses in the state (wild guess), that's a 10% increase. And it's over many years, following building codes. Maybe some areas don't get many and others see a 20% increase. Even 20% is just not that many when phased in over time.

Yet even that moderate amount can reset price norms because the market will be based on much cheaper land values per unit.

Traffic keeps coming up. I suspect a large percentage of construction will be CLOSER to jobs. The measures won't cut traffic, but they'll make a lot of long commutes shorter ones. And they'll put more people into transit and walking range.
Yeah I'm thinking it won't make a dent. New construction will still account for most new units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 6:35 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
You might don't like dense SFH residential areas (even using very derrogatory terms to refer to them, "third world", "slum", but I do. I do like those simple, monotonous Japanese way to build their compact houses. I prefer them to any thing I saw on Cupertino. And that's appearance I'm talking. To actually live there, hands down: Japanese urban form is much superior to me.
This isn't the issue. It's irrelevant whether you or I prefer a differing urban form.

The issue is whether average Americans want such neighborhoods and lifestyles. They (generally speaking) don't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 6:43 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
People seem to be expecting a flood of new units in existing neighborhoods. That seems farfetched.

Much of the new housing should be denser new developements. That'll be easy and very profitable for most who bought land under the old rules.

I agree that existing HOAs typically won't allow densification.

For the rest, let's hypothetically imagine 1,000,000 new units on existing house lots over 10-15 years. Total wild guess.

Many will be apartments, typically in transit-served areas (one hopes). Let's say 500,000.

Then let's say another 500,000 true accessory or side units in existing SFR areas. If the non-HOA denominator is 5,000,000 houses in the state (wild guess), that's a 10% increase. And it's over many years, following building codes. Maybe some areas don't get many and others see a 20% increase. Even 20% is just not that many when phased in over time.

Yet even that moderate amount can reset price norms because the market will be based on much cheaper land values per unit.

Traffic keeps coming up. I suspect a large percentage of construction will be CLOSER to jobs. The measures won't cut traffic, but they'll make a lot of long commutes shorter ones. And they'll put more people into transit and walking range.
I think we should all expect that institutional money will begin buying up SFHs all across California and tearing them down to build duplexes or more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 6:58 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Brah we have had this debate before, nobody cares about anything outside of the USA. I know this is tough to swallow but until you do you are going to have a bad time.

But to push back on your statement the rich in EVERY COUNTRY and in virtually all societies live in large estates and homes. Everywhere and at all times. the middle class of the USA is quite wealthy by global standards and is able to get halfway/imitate to what is typically reserved for the rich alone in most places.


Let's correct: people in the US don't care about anything outside of the US. Be sure the vast majority of the people that don't live in the US care about their own countries, their own lives.

But why do you assume I care about it. You are the one seemed specially proud about your country's allegedly accomplishment instead of your own personal accomplishments. That's a bit odd.

I'm just pointing out that regardless you know about them, there are plenty of different urban forms different from the US suburbia. In fact, in the US itself, many of the rich in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston actually live in quite dense environments.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 7:02 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This isn't the issue. It's irrelevant whether you or I prefer a differing urban form.

The issue is whether average Americans want such neighborhoods and lifestyles. They (generally speaking) don't.
If Americans do want more dense and urban neighborhoods, we will build it in accordance with our own needs, preferences and urban traditions. It will not look like anything else in the world. This is apparently a hard concept to grasp for some.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 7:10 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This isn't the issue. It's irrelevant whether you or I prefer a differing urban form.

The issue is whether average Americans want such neighborhoods and lifestyles. They (generally speaking) don't.
Crawford, whatever. You are the one that originally stating Cupertino would look "uglier" if it became denser.

I just said that denser SFH would be something like Latin America, Southern Europe and Japan, which is, in my opinion not necessarily ugly. Period.

I really have no idea how Cupertino will look like with those changes nor I'm interested on it. I posted on this thread just to welcome more house units being built in California that might help them out with their prices. How they'll look like is a secondary issue to me.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 7:51 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post


Let's correct: people in the US don't care about anything outside of the US. Be sure the vast majority of the people that don't live in the US care about their own countries, their own lives.

But why do you assume I care about it. You are the one seemed specially proud about your country's allegedly accomplishment instead of your own personal accomplishments. That's a bit odd.

I'm just pointing out that regardless you know about them, there are plenty of different urban forms different from the US suburbia. In fact, in the US itself, many of the rich in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston actually live in quite dense environments.
You dont know anything about me Bruv, You also seemingly cant get beyond your preconceived notions.

"In fact, in the US itself, many of the rich in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston actually live in quite dense environments."

Dense environments but not dense living conditions, having a 6,000 squarefoot brownstone or 5,000 sqft penthouse does not exactly lend to your conclusions. Not to mention many of those people also have multiple homes for when their city quarters feel too stifling.

More money = more living space that's true almost universally as far as I can tell. If you want to pretend that isn't the case its just because you wish to be obtuse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 8:26 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
This whole argument is really odd.

This new law, as many others have noted here is not going to really solve the problem. We are not going to see large swaths of Cupertino being razed and then reconstructed with 5 story buildings wall to wall.

I suggest looking at Google Earth and analyzing lot sizes in California cities. Quite small compared to almost any other US state. We’re not going to see as many accessory dwelling units as some people think because

1) no space
2) not everyone wants to divide their 900 square foot bungalow in half and rent it out.

What Califórnia really needs is aggressive multi-family development with less legal red tape. Downtown LA should have 100,000 residential units under construction, but of course it doesn’t, because the legal difficulties in California make it one of the hardest places to build anything.

Also, to those hoping this new law will disfigure low density wealthy neighborhoods statewide- i would suggest a reality check. This will only increase demand, as the more marginal neighborhoods will be completely jam packed by shoddy accessory units and will create more pollution, visual pollution, and traffic issues. It will, as always, be a negative to the middle and lower class.

Again, odd to me that a lot of people are blindly cheerleading for this. It’s not a development model anyone should be excited about- it is not going to increase street activity and will generally lower quality of life. It remains to be seen if it actually lowers prices significantly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 8:37 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
You dont know anything about me Bruv, You also seemingly cant get beyond your preconceived notions.

"In fact, in the US itself, many of the rich in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston actually live in quite dense environments."

Dense environments but not dense living conditions, having a 6,000 squarefoot brownstone or 5,000 sqft penthouse does not exactly lend to your conclusions. Not to mention many of those people also have multiple homes for when their city quarters feel too stifling.

More money = more living space that's true almost universally as far as I can tell. If you want to pretend that isn't the case its just because you wish to be obtuse.
Obtuse? This thread is about people NOT having enough money to buy houses on the cities they live/work.

And in order to solve this problem, California average house size will decrease, their urban areas will be denser.

All your patriotic outburst MURICA IS GREAT, we got lots of money, big houses, big pickup trucks, might help you feel better about yourself, but it's really not the topic of this thread.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 8:42 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post

All your patriotic outburst MURICA IS GREAT,
When did I ever say this? You are a straw manning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 8:43 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
(...)

Again, odd to me that a lot of people are blindly cheerleading for this. It’s not a development model anyone should be excited about- it is not going to increase street activity and will generally lower quality of life. It remains to be seen if it actually lowers prices significantly.
I don't think people are doing that, but just welcoming this as the first step in the right direction, specially in a state so NIMBY as California.

As we say in Portuguese something like "don't let the perfect to be the enemy of the good". California won't change easily, but if this will help them to add more housing units, why not?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
When did I ever say this? You are a straw manning.
"Only the US matter, you're hurt by that". This kind of childish nonsense.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 8:55 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,785
I think it's a false perception that Americans prefer detached single-family housing. So much of America's housing policy favors that style of housing that it most likely distorts the market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 8:57 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
Although Americans have always enjoyed having space, how long will the current tastes last, especially as the world becomes interconnected and the stress to rethink how to best use our limited developed land increases.

I can understand that California homeowners want to maintain value and other aesthetics of their existing neighborhoods. But the state is still growing and is still an economic center that provides jobs and a lifestyle other states can't compete with.

The longer things stay the same, the more the wealth disparity will increase. Parts of LA and SF are looking more and more like a third world country, something we ironically detest even though the policies we want to maintain are leading us down that path.

I have accepted the fact that things will just have to get worse. How worse? Shit, I'm waiting for the tent cities to take over every major Western city and for van/car life to be a common thing everywhere. You think you can avoid Skid Row without being a millionaire in a gated community or a penthouse in a rich neighborhood? Get ready to see the rise of the American favela, the return of the Hoovervilles.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 8:59 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I think we should all expect that institutional money will begin buying up SFHs all across California and tearing them down to build duplexes or more.
Yes, to a point. But generally that would be the underutilized sites and crappier houses.

Imagine two $700,000 townhouses on a new $100,000 development site.

Now imagine two $700,000 townhouses on a $700,000 property. The development cost is likely to be far higher than the $700,000 difference. Money will prefer the earlier option.

If the existing house needs major work and sells for $500,000, plus you can actually fit three $700,000 townhouses, then it might work very well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:52 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.