Just some casual observations from someone who doesn't know a lot about city planning, zoning laws, and other things like that but...
I have spent a lot of time in various cities in eastern Asia, namely Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei.
I was always amazed at how much more efficiently space was utilized. Dense, high-rise housing. Smaller apartments for single occupants. Vending machines and convenience stores near ubiquitous so one did not have to go far for basic necessities.
Also, the public transportation was wonderful. Whether subway, taxi, or bus one could get around without any need for a car.
I always wonder why our cities can't be "denser". Perhaps we are too used to our cars and driving everywhere? I'm sure there are a myriad other reasons though.
I always wonder why our cities can't be "denser". Perhaps we are too used to our cars and driving everywhere?
It's cars. Designing for cars is mutually exclusive to designing for pedestrians. Cars require lots of space, wide roads, parking areas which immediately make it impossible to do quick, effective trips on foot. So, if you design for cars you have to use cars. And if you drive you want more of that space yourself while, if you design for walking, it's quite cumbersome to drive, even in small cars which Europeans like a lot.
There was something similar in the small town era of USA when cars weren't yet everywhere. And that is what people seem to instinctively long for: for example, in movies and TV series you see sets built to depict city squares, narrow streets, and people walking around. Of course, the more realistic picture would be a half-dead city centre while everyone keeps driving to that big box retail park around the nearest highway junction...
I live in Mt View, and I can tell you that a rallying cry of anti-development people is "Do you want Mt View to become Tokyo?"
There is a large contingent of people who own single family homes who want to keep things exactly as they are now. They vote in elections. The contingent of people who DO want development largely doesn't live here, so they don't vote. There is no constituency of people who will live here in 10 years when we have higher density!
You hit it right on the head. MV needs to be a lot denser. But the city council, much like other bay area councils, likes things just the way they are. After all its the supply constraints that have made existing residents rich, why would they want to fix the area's housing problem all by themselves?
Doesn't seem they had a lot of choice in the matter:
"Since the project fully complied with the city’s zoning code and met all the application requirements, City Attorney Jannie Quinn told council members Tuesday that it would be “very difficult” to “come up with a rationale to deny the project.”
Quinn also informed the council that placing a moratorium on the demolition of rent-controlled apartments could put the city in a legal predicament due to the state’s Ellis Act, which protects landlords who want to leave the rental market."
> Doesn't seem they had a lot of choice in the matter:
Nonsense. The restrictively zoned cities in the Bay Area are leaving a lot of value on the table in order to protect their squat neighborhoods. If Mountain View truly preferred tenant protections over protecting neighborhood character, I’m sure they could have made a win-win solution with the developer to provide replacement rent-controlled units in exchange for an upzoning, even late in the process.
It's amazing how the politicians representing the people of the Bay Area don't possess egalitarian values. There's so much unused and undeveloped land available in the mountains yet the property is crazy expensive.
There's no need to develop any more open space. The south bay has plenty of dilapidated strip malls and empty parking lots that could be repurposed into high density housing.
All of that land that is undeveloped is owned by someone or something. Some of it will never be developed unless it is traded for similar land, i.e. Midpeninsula Open Space/National/State/County park land. A huge swath along 280 from Portola Valley to San Mateo is part of the water system for San Francisco - someone is going to have to convince them to give up Hetchy Hetch water before that goes away. Much of the open space near Palo Alto is owned by Stanford, and is why Stanford is one of the largest universities by size in the world. Unincorporated areas in the mountains have to supply their own water from wells and in the drought last year many places on the rainy side of the mountains went dry - building density where there is not enough water or sewage outside of septic tanks is not reasonable.
I think the question of whether a prosperous region can have both urban growth boundaries and affordable housing is an open question. The Bay Area has not set a good example in this manner; we listen to environmentalists when it’s time to put walls around the region but we don’t listen to them when they call for greater infill development (to their credit, the Greenbelt Alliance has a subsidiary called the SF Housing Action Coalition that promotes infill development, but in SF politics they are often written off as developer shills).
Construction is a major contributor to climate change. So, how does tearing down and then replacing with town homes of similar density fit into the city’s climate change plan?
There is only one solution to this problem. MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
These houses would cost less than half this amount in 99% of the country. So long as too many people insist on living in the same zip code, the problem is not solvable.
It's a disastrous policy, and one of the main reasons SF housing is such a mess. Tenant laws also tend to incentivize booting everyone at once and converting to condos instead of renting units.
I imagine that you, posting this story, or even some reading this thread, are doing so with the sentiment that "oh no, these unfortunate long time residents are being displaced", and that some cruel unfeeling capitalist society is allowing this travesty to happen. "How can we let big tech keep on doing this to our region??"
You, who are likely one of the many tech workers in the Bay Area, should be cheering every development project like this. You should be cheering when cities start to free up housing and make it available to people who want to move here, or are already here and can't find anything affordable. Even if those people buying the houses are making "big tech salaries", you should be for it.
Stop being blinded by the symbolic cases of the anti-gentrification sentiment, that the elderly widow is being forced out of her home to make way for ungrateful young tech workers. For every 1 of those stories, there are 50 families trying to make a new life in the area, unable to find a house for less than $1M or $6000/month in rent.
For every 1 of those stories, there are 10 families that have lived here for 40 years, and are sitting on empty houses, maybe even 2nd houses that are underutilized. They're the rich ones.
For every person occupying a rent controlled home, that's one unit of housing unavailable to someone else, and moreover, one additional unit of competition and higher prices imposed on everyone else who needs to find a place to live. Few among us will ever get to have the benefit of a rent controlled apartment.
Everyone reading here has some degree of numeracy and literacy better than average. Think about the numbers, not symbols -- and don't let yourself fall into the trap of thinking that the news is good at reporting the deeper story.
And think about what kind of system you want to incentivize when you vote or support knee-jerk policies. How does a region / city renew itself and make sure that it doesn't stagnate and turn into a place only for those people who got there first, screw everyone who comes afterwards? By ensuring that people with rent-controlled housing never have to leave? By tying up development for decades?
I take the side of the majority who no one feels comfortable speaking up for. The thousands of young people and families who want to live, work, and be productive here. Not those who already got theirs and want to keep the rest out. Time for them to move on, and if they need a nudge, it's well past due.
59 apartments are turning into 55 townhomes. Would you call this change, and if so, change in the direction of more or less housing availability? You will pardon me if your argument comes across as sophistry.
Rent control is not an economically efficient process. If you want my support in ending it, first work with me to address housing.
I'm all for stoping the rent control, but I don't think anyone is happy they are going from 59 apartments to 55 townhouses.
They should be increasing the density, not reducing it.
I'd cheer if the construction netted more units. I recognize that we need more housing. The plans described in the article are not doing that and are in fact, leaving us with fewer units. Calling these plans stupid has nothing to do with anti-gentrification sentiment - this is mathematically making the situation worse.
> Not those who already got theirs and want to keep the rest out
I agree. So maybe let's start by repealing Prop 13 so that everyone pays similar property taxes. Let's also start ending single-family zoning, minimum lot sizes, and minimum parking requirements.
> For every person occupying a rent controlled home, that's one unit of housing unavailable to someone else
For every person occupying a single family home bought 30 years ago, paying low property taxes locked in with Prop 13, that's 2-4 unites of housing unavailable to someone else.
[+] [-] llbowers|7 years ago|reply
I have spent a lot of time in various cities in eastern Asia, namely Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei.
I was always amazed at how much more efficiently space was utilized. Dense, high-rise housing. Smaller apartments for single occupants. Vending machines and convenience stores near ubiquitous so one did not have to go far for basic necessities.
Also, the public transportation was wonderful. Whether subway, taxi, or bus one could get around without any need for a car.
I always wonder why our cities can't be "denser". Perhaps we are too used to our cars and driving everywhere? I'm sure there are a myriad other reasons though.
[+] [-] yason|7 years ago|reply
It's cars. Designing for cars is mutually exclusive to designing for pedestrians. Cars require lots of space, wide roads, parking areas which immediately make it impossible to do quick, effective trips on foot. So, if you design for cars you have to use cars. And if you drive you want more of that space yourself while, if you design for walking, it's quite cumbersome to drive, even in small cars which Europeans like a lot.
There was something similar in the small town era of USA when cars weren't yet everywhere. And that is what people seem to instinctively long for: for example, in movies and TV series you see sets built to depict city squares, narrow streets, and people walking around. Of course, the more realistic picture would be a half-dead city centre while everyone keeps driving to that big box retail park around the nearest highway junction...
[+] [-] marcell|7 years ago|reply
There is a large contingent of people who own single family homes who want to keep things exactly as they are now. They vote in elections. The contingent of people who DO want development largely doesn't live here, so they don't vote. There is no constituency of people who will live here in 10 years when we have higher density!
[+] [-] purplezooey|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stuaxo|7 years ago|reply
Lots of people don't have kitchens you can cook in for instance.
[+] [-] chrisseaton|7 years ago|reply
Yeah that's the last thing people need for a healthy lifestyle.
[+] [-] ghaff|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] usaar333|7 years ago|reply
"Since the project fully complied with the city’s zoning code and met all the application requirements, City Attorney Jannie Quinn told council members Tuesday that it would be “very difficult” to “come up with a rationale to deny the project.”
Quinn also informed the council that placing a moratorium on the demolition of rent-controlled apartments could put the city in a legal predicament due to the state’s Ellis Act, which protects landlords who want to leave the rental market."
[+] [-] yonran|7 years ago|reply
Nonsense. The restrictively zoned cities in the Bay Area are leaving a lot of value on the table in order to protect their squat neighborhoods. If Mountain View truly preferred tenant protections over protecting neighborhood character, I’m sure they could have made a win-win solution with the developer to provide replacement rent-controlled units in exchange for an upzoning, even late in the process.
[+] [-] who_what_why|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slavapestov|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevenwoo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yonran|7 years ago|reply
I think the question of whether a prosperous region can have both urban growth boundaries and affordable housing is an open question. The Bay Area has not set a good example in this manner; we listen to environmentalists when it’s time to put walls around the region but we don’t listen to them when they call for greater infill development (to their credit, the Greenbelt Alliance has a subsidiary called the SF Housing Action Coalition that promotes infill development, but in SF politics they are often written off as developer shills).
[+] [-] everdev|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roflchoppa|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jweir|7 years ago|reply
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/sustain/climate_ch...
[+] [-] geekrax|7 years ago|reply
/s
[+] [-] Bud|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anbop|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumby|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdf333|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powera|7 years ago|reply
These houses would cost less than half this amount in 99% of the country. So long as too many people insist on living in the same zip code, the problem is not solvable.
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YaxelPerez|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gubbrora|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffbax|7 years ago|reply
https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/12/17565192/housing-needs-trend...
It's a disastrous policy, and one of the main reasons SF housing is such a mess. Tenant laws also tend to incentivize booting everyone at once and converting to condos instead of renting units.
[+] [-] Thorrez|7 years ago|reply
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/preservation/rents...
[+] [-] Eyes|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kepler1|7 years ago|reply
I imagine that you, posting this story, or even some reading this thread, are doing so with the sentiment that "oh no, these unfortunate long time residents are being displaced", and that some cruel unfeeling capitalist society is allowing this travesty to happen. "How can we let big tech keep on doing this to our region??"
You, who are likely one of the many tech workers in the Bay Area, should be cheering every development project like this. You should be cheering when cities start to free up housing and make it available to people who want to move here, or are already here and can't find anything affordable. Even if those people buying the houses are making "big tech salaries", you should be for it.
Stop being blinded by the symbolic cases of the anti-gentrification sentiment, that the elderly widow is being forced out of her home to make way for ungrateful young tech workers. For every 1 of those stories, there are 50 families trying to make a new life in the area, unable to find a house for less than $1M or $6000/month in rent.
For every 1 of those stories, there are 10 families that have lived here for 40 years, and are sitting on empty houses, maybe even 2nd houses that are underutilized. They're the rich ones.
For every person occupying a rent controlled home, that's one unit of housing unavailable to someone else, and moreover, one additional unit of competition and higher prices imposed on everyone else who needs to find a place to live. Few among us will ever get to have the benefit of a rent controlled apartment.
Everyone reading here has some degree of numeracy and literacy better than average. Think about the numbers, not symbols -- and don't let yourself fall into the trap of thinking that the news is good at reporting the deeper story.
And think about what kind of system you want to incentivize when you vote or support knee-jerk policies. How does a region / city renew itself and make sure that it doesn't stagnate and turn into a place only for those people who got there first, screw everyone who comes afterwards? By ensuring that people with rent-controlled housing never have to leave? By tying up development for decades?
I take the side of the majority who no one feels comfortable speaking up for. The thousands of young people and families who want to live, work, and be productive here. Not those who already got theirs and want to keep the rest out. Time for them to move on, and if they need a nudge, it's well past due.
[+] [-] xnyan|7 years ago|reply
Rent control is not an economically efficient process. If you want my support in ending it, first work with me to address housing.
[+] [-] Jyaif|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jogjayr|7 years ago|reply
> Not those who already got theirs and want to keep the rest out
I agree. So maybe let's start by repealing Prop 13 so that everyone pays similar property taxes. Let's also start ending single-family zoning, minimum lot sizes, and minimum parking requirements.
> For every person occupying a rent controlled home, that's one unit of housing unavailable to someone else
For every person occupying a single family home bought 30 years ago, paying low property taxes locked in with Prop 13, that's 2-4 unites of housing unavailable to someone else.
[+] [-] herostratus101|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]