4 ms·

I've lived in downtown berkeley for five years and pay 1100 per month for a studio apartment. For those arguing that the city could zone and facilitate buildin

I've lived in downtown berkeley for five years and pay 1100 per month for a studio apartment. For those arguing that the city could zone and facilitate building affordable non subsidized housing, where exactly would it be built? There isn't an abundance of empty lots AFAIK and it seems enormous highrises would have to be built in large numbers to make any dent in having prices come down. I would love more options but without even mildly specific suggestions articles like these seem to lack any pragmatism.

inostia 9y ago
Why not relaxing rules for property owners to build units in their own backyards? See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/california-today-housing-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/california-today-housi...
- berkeleyguy 9y ago
  Coach house airbnbs and one off rentals could be great or terrible. In either case I think its hard to argue this would get rents to go down. My personal bet is the proliferation of these cute backyard dwellings would actually make rents go higher because these would go for a premium over 50 year old crummy spots.
- taysic 9y ago
  "She spent about $100,000 to add a cottage in her backyard in Berkeley in 2011, and has been renting it out for between $1,500 and $2,000 a month. It paid for itself in under five years, she said." Why do they need to be relaxed if its already profitable to build one? I wonder what about building such a unit requires too much red tape. Too bad they don't go into it in the article.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    There is a specific movement to increase the minimum lot size you need to build one, which would remove the possibility of more than 100 such units.
santaclaus 9y ago
> There isn't an abundance of empty lots AFAIK Huge swaths of south and southwest Berkeley (especially near the Emeryville and Oakland border) seem to be fallow, formerly industrial spaces when I drive through. Lots of opportunity for infill there.
- berkeleyguy 9y ago
  Are you genuinely suggesting these are the areas of Berkeley that are the subject of the article and general sentiment? Emeryville is a veritable utopia at first glance and has tax incentives for businesses out the wazoo. I'm open to the idea that these areas could be developed, but most mission hipsters consider these areas ikealand at best. I tend to think the valid critique of high prices in berkeley surrounds the existing popular areas.
  - taysic 9y ago
    Yes the article mentions that a 3 unit building in South Berkeley was rejected for no good reason. There is demand in that area and it would alleviate overall housing costs to build more there. Note that just because these areas are not as trendy as others, they are still very expensive. "Arreguin recently joined a Council majority in rejecting a three-unit project at 1310 Haskell Street in South Berkeley that met applicable zoning laws. This was after a previous rejection caused the city to be sued. The city settled the suit and agreed to another hearing. Despite the city attorney warning the Council that they would again be sued if they did not grant approval, the Council voted it down again."
fiter 9y ago
There are a fair number of "open air" parking lots that I see when just taking a look at satellite imagery. The second step would be increasing density on Shattuck (lots of single story buildings on or near) or increasing density over the single family homes/duplexes that are very close to downtown.
ThrustVectoring 9y ago
The options aren't just single family houses and high-rises. You relax the zoning requirements that raise the lot size required per resident. Lot size minimums, boundary minimums between houses, number of floors, parking minimums, and minimum unit size. Re-legalize single-room occupancy units, so that people who can only afford the bare minimum (room with a lock) can buy that and not be homeless. Or if those technical requirements that make cheap housing illegal aren't palatable, then just add in much more mixed frame construction. It's already fairly popular, I've seen a bunch of buildings under construction like this. It's basically 1-2 floors of steel or concrete frame for commercial use, along with 3-5 floors of residential wood framed units on top of that. Replace low-density commercial with that mid-density mixed-use, add in mid-rise townhouses, and you've got plenty of room to have five times as many folks in Berkeley. Of course, the real problem is that housing is too regional for this to make a big difference. It's a huge cost to Berkeley, and what it does is relieve pressure in the greater metropolitan area as people shift their commutes to take advantage of this.

inostia 9y ago

Why not relaxing rules for property owners to build units in their own backyards? See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/california-today-housing-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/california-today-housi...

berkeleyguy 9y ago
Coach house airbnbs and one off rentals could be great or terrible. In either case I think its hard to argue this would get rents to go down. My personal bet is the proliferation of these cute backyard dwellings would actually make rents go higher because these would go for a premium over 50 year old crummy spots.
taysic 9y ago
"She spent about $100,000 to add a cottage in her backyard in Berkeley in 2011, and has been renting it out for between $1,500 and $2,000 a month. It paid for itself in under five years, she said." Why do they need to be relaxed if its already profitable to build one? I wonder what about building such a unit requires too much red tape. Too bad they don't go into it in the article.
- closeparen 9y ago
  There is a specific movement to increase the minimum lot size you need to build one, which would remove the possibility of more than 100 such units.

santaclaus 9y ago

> There isn't an abundance of empty lots AFAIK Huge swaths of south and southwest Berkeley (especially near the Emeryville and Oakland border) seem to be fallow, formerly industrial spaces when I drive through. Lots of opportunity for infill there.

berkeleyguy 9y ago
Are you genuinely suggesting these are the areas of Berkeley that are the subject of the article and general sentiment? Emeryville is a veritable utopia at first glance and has tax incentives for businesses out the wazoo. I'm open to the idea that these areas could be developed, but most mission hipsters consider these areas ikealand at best. I tend to think the valid critique of high prices in berkeley surrounds the existing popular areas.
- taysic 9y ago
  Yes the article mentions that a 3 unit building in South Berkeley was rejected for no good reason. There is demand in that area and it would alleviate overall housing costs to build more there. Note that just because these areas are not as trendy as others, they are still very expensive. "Arreguin recently joined a Council majority in rejecting a three-unit project at 1310 Haskell Street in South Berkeley that met applicable zoning laws. This was after a previous rejection caused the city to be sued. The city settled the suit and agreed to another hearing. Despite the city attorney warning the Council that they would again be sued if they did not grant approval, the Council voted it down again."

fiter 9y ago

There are a fair number of "open air" parking lots that I see when just taking a look at satellite imagery. The second step would be increasing density on Shattuck (lots of single story buildings on or near) or increasing density over the single family homes/duplexes that are very close to downtown.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago

The options aren't just single family houses and high-rises. You relax the zoning requirements that raise the lot size required per resident. Lot size minimums, boundary minimums between houses, number of floors, parking minimums, and minimum unit size. Re-legalize single-room occupancy units, so that people who can only afford the bare minimum (room with a lock) can buy that and not be homeless. Or if those technical requirements that make cheap housing illegal aren't palatable, then just add in much more mixed frame construction. It's already fairly popular, I've seen a bunch of buildings under construction like this. It's basically 1-2 floors of steel or concrete frame for commercial use, along with 3-5 floors of residential wood framed units on top of that. Replace low-density commercial with that mid-density mixed-use, add in mid-rise townhouses, and you've got plenty of room to have five times as many folks in Berkeley. Of course, the real problem is that housing is too regional for this to make a big difference. It's a huge cost to Berkeley, and what it does is relieve pressure in the greater metropolitan area as people shift their commutes to take advantage of this.