4 ms·
Well that valley has pretty much every bit of flat land developed, so where are you going to put these high density developments without knocking down existing
by xienze 10y ago
Well that valley has pretty much every bit of flat land developed, so where are you going to put these high density developments without knocking down existing houses?
- TulliusCicero 10y agoI also wanted to note that not all of the new housing is coming on top of houses. Close to where I live, there's a strip mall with an enormous parking lot that just got knocked down and is being converted to mixed-use development, including lots of apartments[1]. A bit further away next to Lawrence Caltrain station, and old suburban-style office park was torn down and again, has a big mixed-use development being built there[2]. 1 - http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/10/13/santa-clara-kohls-to-close-after-holidays-as-essex.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/10/13/santa-cla... 2 - http://blogs.mercurynews.com/internal-affairs/2014/05/19/santa-claras-big-new-project-and-its-back-story/ http://blogs.mercurynews.com/internal-affairs/2014/05/19/san...
- hx87 10y agoAllow residents of those existing houses to add additional floors, convert garages, add a granny flat, et cetera. Large parts of Boston consist of nothing but 3-story, 3-unit apartments, often with a live-in landlord, and it's quite dense.
- xienze 10y agoI don't think there's enough people in the valley with the money and the desire to convert and rent out part of their house to do much of anything about the demand.
- hx87 10y agoYou might have a point about desire, but with the levels of land value inflation there, almost any owner can take out enough of a home equity loan to finance the construction or conversion of additional units.
- kqr2 10y agoWe should let the market decide. The same argument was used against airbnb : who wants to rent out part of their house to strangers?
- TulliusCicero 10y agoI disagree, but either way, looser zoning would allow it to happen, not force it to happen. If people don't want to sell, well, nobody would make them.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- TulliusCicero 10y agoWhat's wrong with knocking down existing houses? If the homeowners want to sell to developers that will build higher-density housing on their land, what exactly is the problem? I mean, probably every dense neighborhood in the world was at one time lower-density, and had its old buildings knocked down and replaced. This isn't anything new.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> If the homeowners want to sell to developers that will build higher-density housing on their land, what's wrong with that? Generally, not all of them do, which is why redevelopment usually involves use of eminent domain.
- TulliusCicero 10y agoSource on that? AFAIK eminent domain for private development is rare, the vast, vast majority of the time developers just offer enough money to convince people to sell.
- pyre 10y agoNot so rare that it doesn't have a Supreme Court case[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
- TulliusCicero 10y agoIt's my understanding that the Supreme Court case is so notable precisely because eminent domain for private development is so rare.
- xienze 10y agoI didn't say there's anything wrong with that but it's certainly a hurdle to clear (what if one person refuses to sell?).
- skewart 10y agoThe same places that you put urban developments in most cities - you repurpose existing underused buildings and spaces in existing urban neighborhoods. There are lots and lots of parking lots, underutilized commercial buildings, and low density apartment complexes that can be redeveloped at a relatively higher density.
- raldi 10y agoPlaces like this: http://missionlocal.org/2016/01/community-meeting-on-new-sf-mission-housing-turns-ugly/ http://missionlocal.org/2016/01/community-meeting-on-new-sf-...