California’s New Housing Laws: Here’s What to Know

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ I suppose then the practical answer to the question of whether this applies to areas like Bel-Air is that generally it won’t happen. In those super-prime markets the larger lot is worth more than two smaller lots would be, for the same reason that combining two Manhattan co-ops into a massive duplex yields a property more valuable than the sum of its parts (due to prestige, scarcity value, etc).

Yes, exactly. The law simply gives the property owners the choice and restricts localities from removing that choice.

This will likely change some neighborhoods in Cupertino and Mountain View and Fremont, but not likely the super high end areas. The suburbs with quarter acre lots mostly filled with tech couples making a few hundred thousand a year, where subdividing and developing may yield a profit of a couple million.

[eschaton]

Super high-end areas comprise at most a few percent of the developable acreage in the SF Bay Area and Los Angeles (even when considering their larger lot sizes). You can expand housing supply plenty even without them.

[Gordo]

^Totally agree. I was just confirming that this doesn't force any individual or even group of individuals that agree together to not subdivide their lots. It just prevents the local government from saying that individuals can't subdivide their property.

[Crawford]

This is good from a public policy perspective, but man, places like Cupertino are gonna be even crappier. They're already packed-in borg housing with stressed out households with no open space, and now people are gonna start adding backyard in-law housing and the like. Gonna be total shit suburbia.

The really rich areas will probably be unchanged, though.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is good from a public policy perspective, but man, places like Cupertino are gonna be even crappier. They're already packed-in borg housing with stressed out households with no open space, and now people are gonna start adding backyard in-law housing and the like. Gonna be total shit suburbia.

The really rich areas will probably be unchanged, though.

Or it could turn into, like, Chelsea (the London one), with £8m townhouses and £3m mews (carriage) houses where the garden used to be.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is good from a public policy perspective, but man, places like Cupertino are gonna be even crappier. They're already packed-in borg housing with stressed out households with no open space, and now people are gonna start adding backyard in-law housing and the like. Gonna be total shit suburbia.

The really rich areas will probably be unchanged, though.

It will become Latin America, Southern Europe, Japan.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

Or it could turn into, like, Chelsea (the London one), with £8m townhouses and £3m mews (carriage) houses where the garden used to be.

Have you been to Cupertino? The odds that it will resemble London's Chelsea are laughable.

Hell, the odds that it will resemble Burlingame are laughable. If you're lucky it might look like suburban Toronto, which is a hideous shitshow, but at least slightly more sustainable than the U.S. equivalents.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

It will become Latin America, Southern Europe, Japan.

Yeah, but with four SUVs in the driveway and three generations paying $2 million for a crapbox.

Suburbia in Latin American and Southern Europe is mostly slum housing, or at least lower class housing. In Japan it's just hideous.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, but with four SUVs in the driveway and three generations paying $2 million for a crapbox.

Suburbia in Latin American and Southern Europe is mostly slum housing, or at least lower class housing. In Japan it's just hideous.

Indeed, but it works better than US suburbia. And with all those extra units being added, maybe prices will be a bit lower.

P.S. I just remembered than the older Cape Town suburbia is quite dense and very cute. Maybe California should look at them. For one thing, California and the Cape are similar places.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Indeed, but it works better than US suburbia. And with all those extra units being added, maybe prices will be a bit lower.

P.S. I just remembered than the older Cape Town suburbia is quite dense and very cute. Maybe California should look at them. For one thing, California and the Cape are similar places.

No. Slums do not "work" better than US suburbia. That kind of housing could never work here. You have a very distorted view of the world and how people live.

[mhays]

I suspect the absence of a yard will be a net positive for a lot of people. A yard is a pain in the ass most of the time.

Density should come with parks of course.

If people think this is going to create unlivable areas, I'd love to hear why. And not just old man anger from Crawford.

Seattle is an example of heavy infill, focused on 20% of the city. Lots of "borg" boxes (not my term) and townhouses replacing back yards, particularly in the last 25 years. I'm not aware of any of these being problematic in a general sense, and prices are certainly high.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

No. Slums do not "work" better than US suburbia. That kind of housing could never work here. You have a very distorted view of the world and how people live.

I was not talking about slums, but the dense middle-casse, lower middle-class neighbourhoods in Latin America, Southern Europe and Japan. Something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@-23.589...7i16384!8i8192 or https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5703...7i16384!8i8192 or https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2918...7i16384!8i8192

They're not exactly beautiful places, but it's not horrible either. When I was younger, I was more critical to this dense style, today I find them ok. In fact, I prefer all the three examples than Cupertino as it looks today.

As we live in a world more and more concerned with waste, environment impact, climate change, they're definitely more sensible choices than the American suburbia. In fact, from an environmental point of view, anything is better than traditional American suburbia.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I was not talking about slums, but the dense middle-casse, lower middle-class neighbourhoods in Latin America, Southern Europe and Japan. Something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@-23.589...7i16384!8i8192 or https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5703...7i16384!8i8192 or https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2918...7i16384!8i8192

They're not exactly beautiful places, but I guess it's ok. In fact, I prefer all the three examples than Cupertino today.

As we live in a world more and more concerned with waste, environment impact, climate change, they're definitely more sensible choices than the American suburbia.

The only way US suburbia ever looks like that is if per capita GDP collapses to third world levels.

[Crawford]

Those are slums. Not shantytowns, of course, but slums. And the idea that people in Cupertino want to live like that is laughable. That's pretty much the suburban American middle class nightmare.

Dems need to tread very carefully with this. You don't get more sustainable living by forcing this kind of housing on sprawl. They should massively upzone along transit and prewar density, but the Cupertinos of the world shouldn't exist, you don't make them better by reinforcing their worst attributes.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The only way US suburbia ever looks like that is if per capita GDP collapses to third world levels.

I didn't say US suburbs will or should like this. It was Crawford arguing if the new Californian law, Cupertino will turn into this.

And again: I prefer to live in those three streets than the average Cupertino street: it's horrible with all that asphalt, 50 feet wide streets. Gosh that's bad.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Those are slums. Not shantytowns, of course, but slums. And the idea that people in Cupertino want to live like that is laughable. That's pretty much the suburban American middle class nightmare.

Dems need to tread very carefully with this. You don't get more sustainable living by forcing this kind of housing on sprawl. They should massively upzone along transit and prewar density, but the Cupertinos of the world shouldn't exist, you don't make them better by reinforcing their worst attributes.

Those are not slums. The material they used is much better than the mass-produced things you get everywhere in the US. And I'd bet their interiors are much better than the cheap stuff you find in the typical American suburbia.

But it's just a matter of taste, really. If Cupertino densify, it's because people want it so. Otherwise, it will remain the same.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The only way US suburbia ever looks like that is if per capita GDP collapses to third world levels.

GDP has nothing to do with it. It's zoning requirements.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

GDP has nothing to do with it. It's zoning requirements.

Indeed. Two of those pics are from very well-established first world countries, and one of the middle-class hood in São Paulo (whose GDP per capita is twice as high as Brazilian, from a hood above the city average).

As we're an urbanism forum, it's quite shocking to see vernacular architecture from abroad being met with very derogatory terms such as "slum" or "third world". It's a very narrow view of architecture/urbanism.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

GDP has nothing to do with it. It's zoning requirements.

No amount of zoning changes will make Cupertino look like that. Maybe in 50 years it'll look like Santa Monica or something as a best case scenario. It'll never look like a third world slum without a corresponding collapse in personal wealth.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

As we're an urbanism forum, it's quite shocking to see vernacular architecture from abroad being met with very derogatory terms such as "slum" or "third world". It's a very narrow view of architecture/urbanism.

Not everyone finds it as impressive as you do