Could The Bay Area Solve Its Housing Crisis By Building In City Centers?

[M II A II R II K]

Could The Bay Area Solve Its Housing Crisis By Building In City Centers? An S.F. Group Thinks So


May 13, 2021

By J.K. Dineen

Read More: https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/ar...y-16172573.php

Report: https://www.spur.org/featured-projec...ional-strategy

The Bay Area of 2070 would be a place where homeless encampments are a thing of the past. Builders would be allowed to construct three- or four-unit buildings in suburban single-family neighborhoods. Speculators would no longer be able to evict tenants in order to convert apartments to condos. And new housing would not gobble up precious farm land in counties like San Joaquin or Contra Costa, but would be built mostly in five-story buildings in historic downtowns like Alameda, Fairfield, Mountain View, Pleasanton and Santa Rosa.

- This is just a narrow slice of the vision laid out in a series of 26 reports by the urban think tank SPUR, set to be released Thursday. The 50-year “regional strategy,” Bay Area 2070, attempts to redesign the region by looking at housing, transportation, growth, racial equity and climate. It includes 175 policy recommendations on everything from rent control to rapid bus lines to protecting against sea level rise. — The ambitious SPUR project, the result of three years of work by the San Francisco group, starts with the premise that over the next 50 years the nine-county Bay Area will grow by 4 million residents and need 2.2 million new housing units. Under the current land-use approaches taken by the cities and counties in the region, it’s likely that about 1.4 million homes would be produced, and much of that would be put in the wrong places farmland and open areas that are far from transit, SPUR said. — The SPUR reports compare two scenarios: “business as usual,” based on current zoning and land-use patterns; and a “new civic vision,” which imagines a more equitable and sustainable region with reformed land-use regulations.

- According to SPUR, the “business as usual” approach would result in 358,000 new housing units and office space for 646,000 workers being plopped down in hazardous and protected areas such as farmland and low-lying waterfront areas. But the SPUR scenario would add almost no new jobs or housing in these zones. SPUR estimates that 500,000 new homes could be built in transit-oriented downtowns and another 543,000 units could be built along major commercial corridors such as El Camino Real on the Peninsula, Geary Boulevard in San Francisco and San Pablo Avenue and International Boulevard in the East Bay. — The “business as usual” planning would result in about 850,000 jobs in transit-friendly, walkable neighborhoods while the SPUR approach would add about 2 million jobs in those areas. SPUR calculates that about 523,000 units could be added in smaller buildings two- to six-unit constructs in areas currently zoned for single-family homes. — SPUR board member Robert A. Wilkins Sr., a management consultant and former longtime CEO of the YMCA of the East Bay, said the strategy’s goals on housing increased density near jobs and transit is not breaking new ground. But the difference is that the strategy is “people centered.”

- The SPUR report is careful not to call for the overdevelopment of “communities of concern” traditionally working-class, Black and brown neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement and gentrification. The “new civic vision” would add slightly less overall housing within these communities compared to continuing business as usual. Tomiquia Moss, a SPUR board member and CEO of All Home, said the 50-year plan imagines a “more equitable and just Bay Area” where homelessness is eradicated and “housing is seen as a right.” The lengthy horizon makes sense given that the crises facing the region housing, homelessness, traffic gridlock took at least that long to develop, she said. — One of the report’s authors, Stephen Engblom, executive vice president of the architecture and engineering firm AECOM, said he and his fellow researchers challenged themselves to reimagine suburban places like shopping centers and office parks, many of which have high vacancies, as well as downtown areas that suffered as retail moved into malls and big box stores on the edge of town.

.....

[Pedestrian]

Builders would be allowed to construct three- or four-unit buildings in suburban single-family neighborhoods . . . . careful not to call for the overdevelopment of “communities of concern” traditionally working-class, Black and brown neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement and gentrification. The “new civic vision” would add slightly less overall housing within these communities . . . .

In other words, throw the middle home-owning class under a bus but for gosh sakes don't upset any "progressive" apple carts.

It's the Bay Area way. But these matters will likely be decided at the state level and the suburban homeowners of Southern California are not going to allow it.

It sounds like the report has at least one thing right: "500,000 new homes could be built in transit-oriented downtowns and another 543,000 units could be built along major commercial corridors such as El Camino Real on the Peninsula, Geary Boulevard in San Francisco and San Pablo Avenue and International Boulevard in the East Bay. Since these strips are already commercial, building UP along them doesn't involve busting neighborhoods of single family homes. And there's far more of them than mentioned. In San Francisco, besides Geary Blvd, there Third St, Clement St, Potrero Ave and so on, all of which could be lined with 5-12 story buildings that retain the retail on the ground floor (although there's a good argument to be made that SF has too much retail space already due to Planning Dept. requirements that most buildings have ground floor retail and the rise of online commerce).

[Pedestrian]

One of our forumers lives in the kind of place such ideas go to die in CA:

Piedmont residents wrestle with how to add more housing to exclusive enclave
Sarah Ravani
May 20, 2021
Updated: May 20, 2021 8:53 a.m.

Piedmont and Oakland are neighbors, but the cities are very different demographically — and in how they approach building housing. With new, much higher housing goals set by the state, small, wealthy Bay Area enclaves like Piedmont are suddenly being asked to plan for a lot more housing, including a lot more affordable homes. And some Piedmont residents want to look to Oakland for help.

In the last housing cycle, Piedmont was asked to plan for 60 new homes and the city fell short, issuing permits for just 37 units. This cycle, the city is expected to plan for nearly 600 new homes. But some city residents prefer to keep that housing out of the mostly single-family, white and wealthy area.

In a staff report, the city highlighted several ideas from residents about how to build more affordable housing, including placing it on land annexed from Oakland and subsidizing development of new units, and purchasing apartments for teachers and first responders in the neighboring city.

. . . affluent Palo Alto is in the same situation and has already started to resist. The state requires cities to outline housing development goals every eight years, though those goals are rarely met.

Piedmont’s Fair Housing Community Survey — results of which were presented Wednesday to the city’s Housing Advisory Committee — asked 877 city residents in March and April if they support development and their preference on where it should be prioritized.

Piedmont — which has a median household income of nearly $225,000 per year and is 74% white — is mostly zoned for single-family homes.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/ar...e-16189457.php

New housing? Build it in Oakland, even if we have to seize part of Oakland, call it Piedmont, and build it there.