5 ms·

NIMBYs are part of the problem, but there are also well-meaning (if poorly executed) safety and zoning regulations that drive up the cost. Rules like parking mi

NIMBYs are part of the problem, but there are also well-meaning (if poorly executed) safety and zoning regulations that drive up the cost. Rules like parking minimums, disability accommodations (i.e elevators) and minimum square footage requirements all contribute to increasing pricing. We have to decide as a society whether housing should be considered a luxury, and those who can't afford things like elevators and parking spots should be forced to live in a tent on the street or not.

oconnore 9y ago
I'm pretty sure that parking minimums, zoning, and minimum ft^2 are just thinly veiled NIMBY tactics, not a separate thing.
- jandrese 9y ago
  Most of those are well intentioned laws to fix actual problems, but the lawmakers didn't take into consideration that not all developments would have those problems. The parking thing is a good example. It basically just says you need to have a space for most people in the building to park so they don't fill up the street parking for the entire block all of the time. A very valuable rule for suburban development where most units will have at least one vehicle. Not so necessary for downtown units where most of the apartments won't own a vehicle. Or there are just cases where the developer is complaining about having to build parking, but if they had built the building as they wanted the parking would have been a total nightmare, not only for residents but also for everybody else in the neighborhood. In other words they're being forced to consider the actual cost of their actions instead of pushing them off on the community and pocketing the profits like in the good old days.
  - sbov 9y ago
    If you could designate a building "car free", and have all local street parking be permit parking, AND don't hand out permits to people living in "car free" buildings, it seems like it would fix the problem. But I don't know how practical it is to do this.
    - jandrese 9y ago
      Sounds like a lot of expensive regulation that builders are going to hate...
      - jdavis703 9y ago
        The city is in charge of handing out parking permits. When you apply for a permit they check their list of "car free" buildings. If you're in a car free building your application is denied. Aside from filing an extra form with the city, the developer saves tens of thousands of dollars per space: https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/8/11890176/it-costs-38000-to-create-one-parking-space-in-sf https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/8/11890176/it-costs-38000-to-cr...
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
HarryHirsch 9y ago
Federal regulations apply in San Francisco, CA as much as they do in Binghamton, NY. You'd think withdrawal from broad swathes of the country to a few hub cities is the problem, driven by ever increasing automatization and volatility in the labour market.
- api 9y ago
  I totally agree on the hub cities phenomenon. I've been noticing it for 15+ years. I've talked to older people (>50) and they say that no-- when they were in their 20s and 30s you did not have to be in one of about eight cities to advance your career. Your career could advance in St. Louis, Cincinnati, or Phoenix. Stuff actually happened in places other than the big coastal cities. I don't know the explanation for this, but IMHO it's one of the absolute worst trends of the early 21st century. It's also the opposite of what the Internet was supposed to do. I'm supposed to be able to live in some tiny town in West Virginia and have a broadband Internet line and work alongside people in NYC. Technically it's possible but the culture has shifted radically toward hyper-concentration of all innovation and advancement into a few places.
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    I think it's due to the fact that no one stays with the same employer for more than four years. Back then, you could look forward to a decades-long career with the same company (my father-in-law was with IBM all his life) - you joined Dow out of university and could expect to stay with them for 20 years. But who would even consider moving to Midland, MI nowadays? It's a godforsaken place an hour north of Flint! You can't risk buying a house in a one-company town! So we all submit to the Boston or Bay area commute madness.

oconnore 9y ago

I'm pretty sure that parking minimums, zoning, and minimum ft^2 are just thinly veiled NIMBY tactics, not a separate thing.

jandrese 9y ago
Most of those are well intentioned laws to fix actual problems, but the lawmakers didn't take into consideration that not all developments would have those problems. The parking thing is a good example. It basically just says you need to have a space for most people in the building to park so they don't fill up the street parking for the entire block all of the time. A very valuable rule for suburban development where most units will have at least one vehicle. Not so necessary for downtown units where most of the apartments won't own a vehicle. Or there are just cases where the developer is complaining about having to build parking, but if they had built the building as they wanted the parking would have been a total nightmare, not only for residents but also for everybody else in the neighborhood. In other words they're being forced to consider the actual cost of their actions instead of pushing them off on the community and pocketing the profits like in the good old days.
- sbov 9y ago
  If you could designate a building "car free", and have all local street parking be permit parking, AND don't hand out permits to people living in "car free" buildings, it seems like it would fix the problem. But I don't know how practical it is to do this.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    Sounds like a lot of expensive regulation that builders are going to hate...
    - jdavis703 9y ago
      The city is in charge of handing out parking permits. When you apply for a permit they check their list of "car free" buildings. If you're in a car free building your application is denied. Aside from filing an extra form with the city, the developer saves tens of thousands of dollars per space: https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/8/11890176/it-costs-38000-to-create-one-parking-space-in-sf https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/8/11890176/it-costs-38000-to-cr...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

HarryHirsch 9y ago

Federal regulations apply in San Francisco, CA as much as they do in Binghamton, NY. You'd think withdrawal from broad swathes of the country to a few hub cities is the problem, driven by ever increasing automatization and volatility in the labour market.

api 9y ago
I totally agree on the hub cities phenomenon. I've been noticing it for 15+ years. I've talked to older people (>50) and they say that no-- when they were in their 20s and 30s you did not have to be in one of about eight cities to advance your career. Your career could advance in St. Louis, Cincinnati, or Phoenix. Stuff actually happened in places other than the big coastal cities. I don't know the explanation for this, but IMHO it's one of the absolute worst trends of the early 21st century. It's also the opposite of what the Internet was supposed to do. I'm supposed to be able to live in some tiny town in West Virginia and have a broadband Internet line and work alongside people in NYC. Technically it's possible but the culture has shifted radically toward hyper-concentration of all innovation and advancement into a few places.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  I think it's due to the fact that no one stays with the same employer for more than four years. Back then, you could look forward to a decades-long career with the same company (my father-in-law was with IBM all his life) - you joined Dow out of university and could expect to stay with them for 20 years. But who would even consider moving to Midland, MI nowadays? It's a godforsaken place an hour north of Flint! You can't risk buying a house in a one-company town! So we all submit to the Boston or Bay area commute madness.