Bay Area is mimicking developing countries…
I thought the case was made for the bay area to be more first among first-world cities like NYC, SFO ( strange examples can emerge if someone lowers the standards of what gets counted as the first world). And if the Bay area has to emulate the example of Delhi and Mumbai, what can I say?
What is most likely going to happen is that all relatively poor neighborhoods like the east of 101 and east of 680 in Santa Clara County might see a quick conversion of single-family homes to multi-family homes. Generally, less affluent people live their lives between several jobs, and they hardly get time to think about secondary issue like living in spacious quarters. But, those conversions will hardly solve the housing problem because a large number of single-family homes in those areas are already occupied by multiple families, and it is not uncommon to see 5 cars in a drive way and back-to-back cars parked in the street.
1 Like
Meanwhile the bureaucrats are clueless
Tale of 2 Bay Areas.
The less affluent parts, like @erth states, may densify more quickly using the new law, and these areas may become more third world like.
The more affluent parts of the Bay Area will be able to resist change longer, because people who can afford it will want to retain their SFHs - 4/2 1800 sq ft ranchers with trees in the front and back yards. These areas will remain more first world like
is NYC third world like?
1 Like
Agree. What is really going to happen is the following kind of deals (very common in developing countries). Developer will reach out to depressed home owner, offers to build maximum units while giving one back to owner + cash-back + rental during constructions, and rights to sell other units to profits. This will happen in less / medium affluent neighborhoods.
Yes, this is common in developing countries, and yet another way in which Bay Area developers are likely to mimic their counterparts in the dense 3rd world cities. Except, in those cities, developers can build 10-20 condos even on 6000 - 8000 sq ft type lots. I wonder if 4 units per lot will make it sufficiently profitable for the developer to offer the homeowners such deals.
Take an example of Berryessa SFH home for 1.2 to 1.5M, developer tear-down and build 4 homes (each ~1500 sq ft, 3/2). Each can now sell for 1M. Assume home owner gets 1 home + 0.5M, developer can fetch 2.5M, building cost would be 1.25M, netting 1.25M – not bad & better margins than buy / fix / re-sell SFH.
Will there be a demand for 1/4 house at the price of 4/5 house ? Has the destruction/degeneration of bay area, starting with the poorer neighborhoods, begun?
Folks who can afford will always go for the nice big house with a nice big lot – premium neighborhoods will most likely stay premium. In poorer neighborhoods that are already crowded with many families living in a single home, this may happen. Not sure if this will be desirable and target demographics for this.
By NIMBY logic San Francisco is denser than Sunnyvale, therefore San Francisco is 3rd world and Sunnyvale is 1st world.
Wait. South Dakota is even less dense. It must be even more desirable than Sunnyvale. Must be heaven.
2 Likes
How much do NIMBYs think this house in 3rd world San Francisco sold for?
Tiny lot. Not even 2900 ft. Walls touching both neighbors. Just a sad sad house in the 3rd world.
Here’s the answer:
This is not even the most expensive house in Noe Valley. How many houses in 1st world Sunnyvale sell for over 4M?
I don’t think this will significantly densify poor areas, no one wants to live there, including the poor people themselves, so developers aren’t going to waste their time,
I think what it WILL do is densify the areas near Cal train stations near PA, MV, RWC, etc, where there are houses, but devs will pay top dollar for SFH and make them into stylish 4 plexes for the young and well paid techies (ages between 22-35).
So density has made housing affordable @ 4M in Noe Valley, great achievement for affordable housing. 
Higher density didn’t make any region into the 3rd world. Hopefully that message will get through one day.
What housing friendly policies do is allow more affordable types of housing to be built. Things like mid-rise apartment buildings, condos and townhouses. Or even the latest trend tiny homes with shared kitchens and common areas. These are the missing rungs in the housing ladder.
Going back to why dense 3rd world SF is more expensive than 1st world Sunnyvale. It’s because density makes a place more desirable. Yup, that’s right. The opposite of what NIMBYs claim. So desirable that people willingly paid 4M for a house on 2800 ft lot. With that kind of density there are interesting restaurants and shops within walking distance. Economy is vibrant so jobs paying 1M+ are plentiful.
It’s really a win-win. More affordable types of housing for people with less means, and owners of existing SFH’s will see their house value go up as well.
Certain parts of bay area have always been desirable and expensive. Some of them are dense and some are not. You cannot generalize and say density makes a place desirable or affordable. This is probably true around the world – some areas are just desirable and holds value.
1 Like
So Sunnyvale is less affordable than SF. Needs more density.
1 Like
@manch , ain’t no friggin’ NIMBYs on this Forum. We are all a bunch of YIMBYs bro, cheering on for more densification in the Bay Area just like in SF, NYC, London, Mumbai, HKG, etc. We want our ranch-house filled sleepy towns like Sunnyvale and Campbell (what boring names) to become more like these exciting cities, so that our lives become more enriched within walking distance and our property values go up, up, up. What a win-win!!