Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Less openspaces could help housing prices in Bay Area
Comments:
I will make some comments on the article
>>>>In Los Angeles, which gets knocked by San Franciscans for its sprawl, housing prices fell 22 percent during the downturn it suffered a decade ago. Real estate there did not recover until recently. Property stayed affordable, so young families who moved in to their first homes had sprawl to thank.<<<<
Los Angeles is two thirds highway, streets and parking lots thus causing the remaining third to be used for home and office construction. Sprawl is not a blessing because home prices are still very high in the remaining good areas in LA. In fact, if we got rid of many of the roads and highways, we could reclaim much more land for home construction.
The "affordable" housing in downtown Los Angeles is the ghetto. This area has always been available and if that's what we have "sprawl" to thank for, you can have it because I would rather live in the back of a van then move into that dangerous slum.
>>>>In the Bay Area, the real impediment is conspicuous on every map. It's called open space.
By my estimation, less than a third of the Peninsula has been developed. The rest is made of hills, parks, marshland and beaches. There's even a wildlife refuge on prime real estate in San Carlos.<<<<<
This is an exaggeration. If you look at MapQuest.com, you'll see that San Francisco is over developed with roads and housing. In fact, I estimate that there's probably only one third left that hasn't been developed.
>>>>>>The Peninsula's parks, like Sam MacDonald County Park and Butano State Park, are barely used. Go to one on a Sunday, as I did recently. The desertedness is not surprising. Better outdoor experiences await hikers in Marin County, Point Reyes and Yosemite<<<<<<
The biggest parks are the Presido Golf course, Golden Gate Park, San Bruno State Park and the Harding Park Golf course. While I agree that there are too many gold courses, what's needed is smart growth because elimination of either park will NOT be enough to supply demand.
The concept of one man - one house has to be thrown out the door. What is needed are high rise multi-unit luxury cooperatives with one or two bedrooms. This will maximize the limited amount of space while providing housing for thousands of owners instead of only a couple of hundreds if single family homes are constructed.
What's happened to San Fran is the result of poor land development and now they are paying dearly for not applying smart growth. Sprawl will not solve the problem but make things worse because there is no place to construct a new highway and that would take away valuable space for new home construction.
>>>>>For each of those affluent families, dozens more sit on the sidelines shaking their heads and, increasingly, shaking their fists. Let's get together. Right now, homeowners in the Bay Area act like a cartel, using NIMBY, zoning boards and environmental excuses to keep out us undesirables.<<<
Lets understand this right now. If some of these parks are eliminated, (I agree they should destroy some) the new condos/homes built will not be inexpensive or affordable. You will still need to be one of those "affluent families" because the price of a brand new home in San Fran today would cost well over half a million dollars. I point out again that had Smart Growth initiatives taken place 25 years ago, SF would not be in the situation it is today.
Steven.
Post a Comment
>>>>In Los Angeles, which gets knocked by San Franciscans for its sprawl, housing prices fell 22 percent during the downturn it suffered a decade ago. Real estate there did not recover until recently. Property stayed affordable, so young families who moved in to their first homes had sprawl to thank.<<<<
Los Angeles is two thirds highway, streets and parking lots thus causing the remaining third to be used for home and office construction. Sprawl is not a blessing because home prices are still very high in the remaining good areas in LA. In fact, if we got rid of many of the roads and highways, we could reclaim much more land for home construction.
The "affordable" housing in downtown Los Angeles is the ghetto. This area has always been available and if that's what we have "sprawl" to thank for, you can have it because I would rather live in the back of a van then move into that dangerous slum.
>>>>In the Bay Area, the real impediment is conspicuous on every map. It's called open space.
By my estimation, less than a third of the Peninsula has been developed. The rest is made of hills, parks, marshland and beaches. There's even a wildlife refuge on prime real estate in San Carlos.<<<<<
This is an exaggeration. If you look at MapQuest.com, you'll see that San Francisco is over developed with roads and housing. In fact, I estimate that there's probably only one third left that hasn't been developed.
>>>>>>The Peninsula's parks, like Sam MacDonald County Park and Butano State Park, are barely used. Go to one on a Sunday, as I did recently. The desertedness is not surprising. Better outdoor experiences await hikers in Marin County, Point Reyes and Yosemite<<<<<<
The biggest parks are the Presido Golf course, Golden Gate Park, San Bruno State Park and the Harding Park Golf course. While I agree that there are too many gold courses, what's needed is smart growth because elimination of either park will NOT be enough to supply demand.
The concept of one man - one house has to be thrown out the door. What is needed are high rise multi-unit luxury cooperatives with one or two bedrooms. This will maximize the limited amount of space while providing housing for thousands of owners instead of only a couple of hundreds if single family homes are constructed.
What's happened to San Fran is the result of poor land development and now they are paying dearly for not applying smart growth. Sprawl will not solve the problem but make things worse because there is no place to construct a new highway and that would take away valuable space for new home construction.
>>>>>For each of those affluent families, dozens more sit on the sidelines shaking their heads and, increasingly, shaking their fists. Let's get together. Right now, homeowners in the Bay Area act like a cartel, using NIMBY, zoning boards and environmental excuses to keep out us undesirables.<<<
Lets understand this right now. If some of these parks are eliminated, (I agree they should destroy some) the new condos/homes built will not be inexpensive or affordable. You will still need to be one of those "affluent families" because the price of a brand new home in San Fran today would cost well over half a million dollars. I point out again that had Smart Growth initiatives taken place 25 years ago, SF would not be in the situation it is today.
Steven.
