3 ms·

CA’s deregulatory moves have been great steps in the right direction, and progress is usually incremental. But realistically the whole Bay Area should be at “if

CA’s deregulatory moves have been great steps in the right direction, and progress is usually incremental. But realistically the whole Bay Area should be at “if you want to build a 10 or 20 story apartment building on your own land, go for it.” Allowing duplexes on smaller lots is great, but doesn’t go far enough. I actually think the momentum is in CA’s favor and they will be in a better position than, for instance, TX in 10-20 years, as it relates to housing affordability.

ProfessorLayton 3y ago
>But realistically the whole Bay Area should be at “if you want to build a 10 or 20 story apartment building on your own land, go for it.” While I think apartments are fine, it would help immensely if the absurd setback and height requirements were revised to something reasonable. For example, take a standard sized lot in Alameda County (Basically all of the East Bay Area): A standard lot is 5,000 square feet. 50'x100' - Front setback requirements: 20' - Back setback requirements: 20' - Side setback requirements: 5' per side - Max building height: 25' (2 stories max) Total setback square feet: 2,600 out of 5,000 Taken together, it's illegal to build on 52% of the land one owns! Another way to think about this is that one must buy at least 52% more land than necessary to build on. This is completely absurd, and is contributing to the housing shortage throughout the Bay, and the state. Some setbacks are fine, but really, 52%?! Source: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/ordinance/documents/R-2_DistrictZoningRegulations.pdf https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/ordinance/documents/R-2_D...
dontmobile 3y ago
Agreed. Though the 20 story apartment building is something I don't see happening tbh. The momentum is definitely here but I don't see it reaching that ideal. As with the highspeed rail it will likely hit some sort of deadlock compromise.
- evancox100 3y ago
  Yes, I'll accept the incremental progress. I hope we can have similar solutions put in place where I live (TX).

ProfessorLayton 3y ago

>But realistically the whole Bay Area should be at “if you want to build a 10 or 20 story apartment building on your own land, go for it.” While I think apartments are fine, it would help immensely if the absurd setback and height requirements were revised to something reasonable. For example, take a standard sized lot in Alameda County (Basically all of the East Bay Area): A standard lot is 5,000 square feet. 50'x100' - Front setback requirements: 20' - Back setback requirements: 20' - Side setback requirements: 5' per side - Max building height: 25' (2 stories max) Total setback square feet: 2,600 out of 5,000 Taken together, it's illegal to build on 52% of the land one owns! Another way to think about this is that one must buy at least 52% more land than necessary to build on. This is completely absurd, and is contributing to the housing shortage throughout the Bay, and the state. Some setbacks are fine, but really, 52%?! Source: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/ordinance/documents/R-2_DistrictZoningRegulations.pdf https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/ordinance/documents/R-2_D...

dontmobile 3y ago

Agreed. Though the 20 story apartment building is something I don't see happening tbh. The momentum is definitely here but I don't see it reaching that ideal. As with the highspeed rail it will likely hit some sort of deadlock compromise.

evancox100 3y ago
Yes, I'll accept the incremental progress. I hope we can have similar solutions put in place where I live (TX).