4 ms·

True, but new housing wouldn't be needed if there wasn't such a high influx of people moving into the Bay area. Sure tech isn't the only player in the game, but

True, but new housing wouldn't be needed if there wasn't such a high influx of people moving into the Bay area. Sure tech isn't the only player in the game, but they're surely one of the biggest. If less people were moving there for high paying jobs - rent wouldn't rise as quickly or as drastically.

falsedan 9y ago
> new housing wouldn't be needed Bay Area housing supply has been growing less than demand for the last 30 years. New housing is needed, regardless of who is employing whom.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  California building codes are pretty extreme from what I've seen, they go as far as measuring the pull force required to open a door for example. This seems like a place where a little deregulation would go a long way.
  - mvid 9y ago
    That's a nice idea, but this is a region where the ground you build on is your enemy.
    - falsedan 9y ago
      Counterpoint: Tokyo.
      - mvid 9y ago
        I am highly confident that the regulation in Tokyo is stricter, not less strict
  - cbr 9y ago
    Building codes aren't the problem, it's zoning. If a developer had an empty acre in SF or Palo Alto, or permission to replace low rise housing with skyscrapers, they'd build. The cost of building probably does have an effect on the margin, but it is so much less of a factor than restrictions on what can be built.
    - saltyworker 9y ago
      A recent article about building in Millbrae mentions developer fees of 26k per unit being build. I'm all for deregulation to make it easier to build, but the code compliance and fees are also part of the problem. http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/millbrae-bart-station-development-skids-to-halt/article_3e12c2e4-823d-11e7-a10a-f3f7b13f5911.html http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/millbrae-bart-stati... From the National Association of Home Builders, it looks like "average" is approximately $9,400 per unit in "fees". Not sure if that's apple to apples with the Bay Area, but in either way that fee just seems kind of crazy. Rows A-C, summing fees, on the Construction Costs table here: https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=248306 https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=24...
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    When zoning aggressively blocks dense housing, I don't think it's the little code details that matter.
    - KekDemaga 9y ago
      You are correct, I was conflating zoning and building codes a bit there. Zoning should take the lions share of blame when it comes to costs.
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        I didn't really understand zoning until I witnessed a bunch of Southern middle-class white moms agreeing with their middle-class black mom neighbor about how they all hoped that the new construction on the [formerly agricultural] lot next to the subdivision would be restaurants instead of apartment buildings, because the latter attracts "the wrong kind of people". Then I looked at the zoning map for the municipality, and read the zoning codes. From outward appearances, it's to keep the poor people away from the rich people. And not just at night when everyone goes home, either. All the time, everywhere. Jobs, schools, commutes, shopping, entertainment. It's the new age of redlining, with a global substitution of bank account sizes for skin colors. I couldn't tell what degree of intent was there, but on the ground, the zoning board has reinvented the ghetto. The poor folks get to live next to the railroad tracks. Rich folks get to live next to the zone marked as protected wetland/watershed, so that it can never be developed.
        dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        The kind of behavior is the status quo everywhere not just the south. It's a byproduct of people only getting involved in these things when they think it's going to affect them in a negative way. I.e. Only the people who associate apartments with black people and don't like black people care about the issue.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Isn't the door pull thing for handicapped accessibility?
  - midnightclubbed 9y ago
    The price of land dwarfs the cost of construction. Outside of the Bay there are huge housing developments underway and although I am sure property developers would rather have less regulation they do not seem to be struggling to build homes. In a state with active fault lines and environmental pressures from much of it being in the desert deregulation is not going to help our long term prosperity or safety.
    - scriptkiddy 9y ago
      This is kind of part of the problem. Housing developers are enabling large hub cities to offload the cost of housing to smaller outlying towns. Of course, the developers aren't doing this willingly. The other problem is that housing developers in California have a tendency to build huge, sprawling suburban communities. This just increases sprawl. Imagine a 1 sq. mile tract of land. Assuming a housing developer builds a ton of two story, single family homes here, each on a 1/4 acre of land, we can calculate that they can build 2560 homes +/- 500 based on topography and landscaping etc. There are no reliable numbers as to the average of units in an apartment building. Therefore, we will have to make some assumptions. Let's go ahead and say that that the developer decides to build apartments instead of tract-homes. Each apartment building will be 2 acres in area. Even if the apartments are huge: 1500 sq ft +, we can calculate that a 2 acre apartment building can have about 20 units per floor. Lets say that these apartment buildings are a modest 2 stories tall. 20 * 2 = 40. That means, covering the same 1 sq. mile of land with modest apartment buildings could create 12800 residences. That's a 500% increase in residences. In urban centers, zoning laws allow for much taller structures. Structures can be hybridized to allow for both commercial and residential tenants. Building large, hybrid-use, multi-tenant structures will alleviate some of the pressure on the housing market and lead to shorter commutes for most people. This is because you can fit more people into a smaller land area. It's common sense I'm sure. So, why aren't developers building these structures? The short answer is that they can't. City zoning laws, angry property owners, and the lack of open land in desirable areas all get in the way.
cbhl 9y ago
Municipalities can choose that! But they don't, because the tax revenues from having jobs there is too lucrative. Every year, you'll see parts of the bay area add xx,xxx new jobs but only x,xxx new homes.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  This is what I would so much like Sacramento to legislate. Severely limit commercial development in any municipality with less than a certain ratio of houses to jobs.
stingrae 9y ago
I don't understand what your point is. The Bay Area is a desirable place to be and demand isn't going to magically shrink.
aidenn0 9y ago
Google tried to build housing in the bay area for their employees, and were denied permits by the municipality.

falsedan 9y ago

> new housing wouldn't be needed Bay Area housing supply has been growing less than demand for the last 30 years. New housing is needed, regardless of who is employing whom.

KekDemaga 9y ago
California building codes are pretty extreme from what I've seen, they go as far as measuring the pull force required to open a door for example. This seems like a place where a little deregulation would go a long way.
- mvid 9y ago
  That's a nice idea, but this is a region where the ground you build on is your enemy.
  - falsedan 9y ago
    Counterpoint: Tokyo.
    - mvid 9y ago
      I am highly confident that the regulation in Tokyo is stricter, not less strict
- cbr 9y ago
  Building codes aren't the problem, it's zoning. If a developer had an empty acre in SF or Palo Alto, or permission to replace low rise housing with skyscrapers, they'd build. The cost of building probably does have an effect on the margin, but it is so much less of a factor than restrictions on what can be built.
  - saltyworker 9y ago
    A recent article about building in Millbrae mentions developer fees of 26k per unit being build. I'm all for deregulation to make it easier to build, but the code compliance and fees are also part of the problem. http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/millbrae-bart-station-development-skids-to-halt/article_3e12c2e4-823d-11e7-a10a-f3f7b13f5911.html http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/millbrae-bart-stati... From the National Association of Home Builders, it looks like "average" is approximately $9,400 per unit in "fees". Not sure if that's apple to apples with the Bay Area, but in either way that fee just seems kind of crazy. Rows A-C, summing fees, on the Construction Costs table here: https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=248306 https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=24...
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  When zoning aggressively blocks dense housing, I don't think it's the little code details that matter.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    You are correct, I was conflating zoning and building codes a bit there. Zoning should take the lions share of blame when it comes to costs.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      I didn't really understand zoning until I witnessed a bunch of Southern middle-class white moms agreeing with their middle-class black mom neighbor about how they all hoped that the new construction on the [formerly agricultural] lot next to the subdivision would be restaurants instead of apartment buildings, because the latter attracts "the wrong kind of people". Then I looked at the zoning map for the municipality, and read the zoning codes. From outward appearances, it's to keep the poor people away from the rich people. And not just at night when everyone goes home, either. All the time, everywhere. Jobs, schools, commutes, shopping, entertainment. It's the new age of redlining, with a global substitution of bank account sizes for skin colors. I couldn't tell what degree of intent was there, but on the ground, the zoning board has reinvented the ghetto. The poor folks get to live next to the railroad tracks. Rich folks get to live next to the zone marked as protected wetland/watershed, so that it can never be developed.
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        The kind of behavior is the status quo everywhere not just the south. It's a byproduct of people only getting involved in these things when they think it's going to affect them in a negative way. I.e. Only the people who associate apartments with black people and don't like black people care about the issue.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Isn't the door pull thing for handicapped accessibility?
- midnightclubbed 9y ago
  The price of land dwarfs the cost of construction. Outside of the Bay there are huge housing developments underway and although I am sure property developers would rather have less regulation they do not seem to be struggling to build homes. In a state with active fault lines and environmental pressures from much of it being in the desert deregulation is not going to help our long term prosperity or safety.
  - scriptkiddy 9y ago
    This is kind of part of the problem. Housing developers are enabling large hub cities to offload the cost of housing to smaller outlying towns. Of course, the developers aren't doing this willingly. The other problem is that housing developers in California have a tendency to build huge, sprawling suburban communities. This just increases sprawl. Imagine a 1 sq. mile tract of land. Assuming a housing developer builds a ton of two story, single family homes here, each on a 1/4 acre of land, we can calculate that they can build 2560 homes +/- 500 based on topography and landscaping etc. There are no reliable numbers as to the average of units in an apartment building. Therefore, we will have to make some assumptions. Let's go ahead and say that that the developer decides to build apartments instead of tract-homes. Each apartment building will be 2 acres in area. Even if the apartments are huge: 1500 sq ft +, we can calculate that a 2 acre apartment building can have about 20 units per floor. Lets say that these apartment buildings are a modest 2 stories tall. 20 * 2 = 40. That means, covering the same 1 sq. mile of land with modest apartment buildings could create 12800 residences. That's a 500% increase in residences. In urban centers, zoning laws allow for much taller structures. Structures can be hybridized to allow for both commercial and residential tenants. Building large, hybrid-use, multi-tenant structures will alleviate some of the pressure on the housing market and lead to shorter commutes for most people. This is because you can fit more people into a smaller land area. It's common sense I'm sure. So, why aren't developers building these structures? The short answer is that they can't. City zoning laws, angry property owners, and the lack of open land in desirable areas all get in the way.

cbhl 9y ago

Municipalities can choose that! But they don't, because the tax revenues from having jobs there is too lucrative. Every year, you'll see parts of the bay area add xx,xxx new jobs but only x,xxx new homes.

WalterSear 9y ago
This is what I would so much like Sacramento to legislate. Severely limit commercial development in any municipality with less than a certain ratio of houses to jobs.

stingrae 9y ago

I don't understand what your point is. The Bay Area is a desirable place to be and demand isn't going to magically shrink.

aidenn0 9y ago

Google tried to build housing in the bay area for their employees, and were denied permits by the municipality.