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

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

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.

I wouldn't call Japan a third world slum, lol.

Cupertino won't look like that, but I can point you to a bunch of bombed out Rust Belt suburbs that it might look like in the future.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I wouldn't call Japan a third world slum, lol.

Cupertino won't look like that, but I can point you to a bunch of bombed out Rust Belt suburbs that it might look like in the future.

Japanese suburbs are very ugly though, totally unlike its vibrant commercial areas. Just drab and gray and boring. American suburbs look like bucolic postcard images in comparison.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Not everyone finds it as impressive as you do

I don't find them "impressive". Nobody finds them "impressive". They're the opposite of impressive: they're just examples of regular housing, made for regular people, from different continents.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I wouldn't call Japan a third world slum, lol.

Cupertino won't look like that, but I can point you to a bunch of bombed out Rust Belt suburbs that it might look like in the future.

Exactly. For one thing, those traditional, dense residential districts that are rule everywhere outside the US, are much more resilient when it comes to urban decay.

And as the subject here is densification, to add more houses in the relatively dense Californian urban/suburban areas, those denser places are the ones we might want to look to.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

And as the subject here is densification, to add more houses in the relatively dense Californian urban/suburban areas, those denser places are the ones we might want to look to.

There are already excellent examples of high quality American suburbia that have densified along these lines (Santa Monica for example). Why would we want to "look to" third world slums as a model for development?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

There are already excellent examples of high quality American suburbia that have densified along these lines (Santa Monica for example). Why would we want to "look to" third world slums as a model for development?

France, Japan (whose life expectancy, for instance, is 6-7 years above the US) are not third world slums. And neither São Paulo street I linked here.

There are plenty of lowrises and midrises in Santa Monica. If I'm not mistaken, the legislation aims to allow to subdivide plots, not to grow taller. That's why dense, horizontal residential areas are the places you should look at.

BTW, I gather you live in New York's Billionaire Row, right? That's the only explanation for the dismissive attitude you're showing here.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

France, Japan (whose life expectancy, for instance, is 6-7 years above the US) are not third world slums. And neither São Paulo street I linked here.

There are plenty of lowrises and midrises in Santa Monica. If I'm not mistaken, the legislation aims to allow to subdivide plots, not to grow taller. That's why dense, horizontal residential areas are the places you should look at.

BTW, I gather you live in New York's Billionaire Row, right? That's the only explanation for the dismissive attitude you're showing here.

If Santa Monica is too tall, then how about the Fairfax district? The point is, there are PLENTY of examples of dense multifamily, and mixed housing suburban neighborhoods in the US. They work very well within the American urban context, so I'm not sure why you keep touting these ugly third world looking slums as a model for America. It's truly bizarre.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

If Santa Monica is too tall, then how about the Fairfax district? The point is, there are PLENTY of examples of dense multifamily, and mixed housing suburban neighborhoods in the US. They work very well within the American urban context, so I'm not sure why you keep touting these ugly third world looking slums as a model for America. It's truly bizarre.

Again, it was Crawford that said Cupertino would look even uglier with the new legislation. I have no idea how it will look.

I just pointed out that becoming denser doesn't mean it would look uglier and post examples of places that are very nice dense SFH neighbourhoods. In fact, I find them more attractive than Cupertino as it is.

And once again, you're completely out of the line, using derrogatory terms to refer to other countries, that are supposedly "inferior". Why do you do that?

At least where I'm from, it's very tacky to imply people or places are inferior on the grounds they are poorer.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Again, it was Crawford that said Cupertino would look even uglier with the new legislation. I have no idea how it will look.

I just pointed out that becoming denser doesn't mean it would look uglier and post examples of places that are very nice dense SFH neighbourhoods. In fact, I find them more attractive than Cupertino as it is.

And once again, you're completely out of the line, using derrogatory terms to refer to other countries, that are supposedly "inferior". Why do you do that?

At least where I'm from, it's very tacky to imply people or places are inferior on the grounds they are poorer.

I did no such thing. You are the one completely out of line.

[Gordo]

If Cupertino residents start subdividing their lots and building housing that people find make the city less attractive, prices will stabilize and/or fall, and fewer people will subdivide and develop more intensely because of the lower prices.

This seems like exactly the type thing that markets are really good at if you let individuals exercise their property rights.

[eschaton]

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.

[JManc]

I'm moving to Fremont and they are building a LOT of multi-family housing out there. Still crazy ass expensive.

[Buckeye Native 001]

You and your wife are leaving Houston!?

[10023]

Originally Posted by Gordo

If Cupertino residents start subdividing their lots and building housing that people find make the city less attractive, prices will stabilize and/or fall, and fewer people will subdivide and develop more intensely because of the lower prices.

This seems like exactly the type thing that markets are really good at if you let individuals exercise their property rights.

That’s basically the objective of the policy, isn’t it?

More housing units, reduced price per square foot, but a higher aggregate value (which facilitates everything).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

That’s basically the objective of the policy, isn’t it?

More housing units, reduced price per square foot, but a higher aggregate value (which facilitates everything).

I don't think it would necessarily decrease the price per square foot. I would actually expect the price per square foot to increase, but the average price per unit to decrease.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Japanese suburbs are very ugly though, totally unlike its vibrant commercial areas. Just drab and gray and boring. American suburbs look like bucolic postcard images in comparison.

Let's be honest, though; not all of US suburbia looks bucolic.

I did a random Google street view of Fremont, CA, and this is what I got:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5493...4!8i8192?hl=en

This to me looks like a South El Monte, CA barrio. It has a security door, and I bet you anything this house is over a million bucks because it's in Fremont, whereas for about the same price I'm sure, you could get this hilltop home in Los Angeles: https://www.theeastsiderla.com/spons...VHULahg7jShLW8

And those 3 Google street views that yuriandrade posted look far more interesting to me and full of character than the Fremont street view I posted. Definitely more character than Cupertino, too.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Let's be honest, though; not all of US suburbia looks bucolic.

I did a random Google street view of Fremont, CA, and this is what I got:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5493...4!8i8192?hl=en

This to me looks like a South El Monte, CA barrio. It has a security door, and I bet you anything this house is over a million bucks because it's in Fremont, whereas for about the same price I'm sure, you could get this hilltop home in Los Angeles: https://www.theeastsiderla.com/spons...VHULahg7jShLW8

And those 3 Google street views that yuriandre posted look far more interesting to me and full of character than the Fremont street view I posted.

That's a particularly ugly house and street, and sure, a lot of US suburbia looks like that. On average though, US suburbs look way better than their Japanese counterparts - more colorful, diverse and interesting architecture, more greenery, tree cover, sidewalks etc. It's not really a fair comparison though, the Japanese version will be more urban by virtue of smaller lot sizes and a tighter street grid. It's better to compare those neighborhoods with areas of equivalent density in the US - rowhouses, small apartment buildings and the like.

[mhays]

I'd take a Japanese suburb 1000 times over a US one, or I would if I spoke Japanese. Lifestyle and covenience would trump trees.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd take a Japanese suburb 1000 times over a US one, or I would if I spoke Japanese. Lifestyle and covenience would trump trees.

I grew to love the Japanese aesthetics as well. They're very good on it. And the French and Brazilian streets, at least in my culture, has this "grandma's house" quality. Very welcoming places.

I find Atlanta's "under the forest" northern suburbs looking quite beautiful at first glance, but I could never see myself to live in such car-dependent environment. Needless to say if the whole world decided to live in such places, environment would collapse completely.

It's also odd this backlash against foreign residential areas, specially as American scholars from Jane Jacobs to Jeff Speck all praise international examples even from the "third world" as way to make US cities/suburbs more functional, more pedestrian friendly, more pleasant overall.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd take a Japanese suburb 1000 times over a US one, or I would if I spoke Japanese. Lifestyle and covenience would trump trees.

That's just a preference for a more dense and urban environment though. If we're comparing apples to apples, I would take equally dense Fairfax or West Hollywood over the Japanese equivalent. Much nicer housing stock.

[edale]

It's definitely going to be interesting to watch how California's suburbs evolve with these new housing laws. From a Midwest or East Coast perspective, most of LA and SF's suburbia is already quite dense. Even upper middle class subdivisions have homes crammed in there at densities I find totally odd for suburbs. To think of these neighborhoods now getting even more subdivided and packed in...Idk, I just don't know who would want to live in places like that. Personally, I don't see the point of living in the burbs if you don't even have a little space and privacy. That type of living situation is the worst of both the urban and suburban worlds. Beyond growing the housing stock, maybe these new housing laws will also bring housing prices down by simply making many suburban areas less appealing.