[Pops]

WSJ has an opinion piece on the move by California planners to reduce sprawl by increasing housing density and confine new construction to "transit corridors". Link

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n San Francisco and San Jose, for example, the Association of Bay Area Governments has proposed that only 3% of new housing built by 2035 would be allowed on or beyond the "urban fringe"—where current housing ends and the countryside begins. Over two-thirds of the housing for the projected two million new residents in these metro areas would be multifamily—that is, apartments and condo complexes—and concentrated along major thoroughfares such as Telegraph Avenue in the East Bay and El Camino Real on the Peninsula.

[AgentR11]

One should note that the Bay Area is substantially different from most of the country, both physically and culturally. They have very particular physical impediments to sprawl that make it exceptionally inefficient and difficult. As I noted in the Merriam vs Kansas City thread earlier, the distances involved there present little difficulty to continued useability regardless of whether oil is affordable for commuting or not; this is the typical state of things in most of the US; lay those same distances on to the Bay Area and you create a nightmare that would force even myself to choose an in-town apartment.

It might also provide a bit of "boom" to construction for the sake of construction.

That said, I thank my lucky stars I don't live there.

[Pops]

Not really sure what you are saying AR.

The BA definitely has sprawl. It could have been the origin of "Drive to Qualify". Commuters leap-frogged across the hills and down the Central Valley all the way to Merced county 100+ miles away.

Stockton is only 60-70 miles (?) from San Fran proper and is in a world of hurt. Here is a article talking about everything but the cost of the commute.

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2012/03/ ... -a-thread/

[evilgenius]

I think any hope for the future, as it pertains to this argument, lies in the proper implementation of the structure of transportation. Basically, I think it needs to undergo a revolution along the same lines as the revolution in computer programming: from structured design to object oriented design. Different types of transit logically fall into different types of transit answers, but we demand our one overarching answer, the auto, for everything. Sometimes the Luddites in various places get washed away in waves of sensible thinking brought on by a refusal to suffer anymore under old structured thinking. Sometimes the people groan, but the only answer they ever see is bigger projects which are essentially redos of last period's now failed solutions.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'N')ot really sure what you are saying AR.
The BA definitely has sprawl.
It could have been the origin of "Drive to Qualify". Commuters leap-frogged across the hills and down the Central Valley all the way to Merced county 100+ miles away.

[Lore]

We need to really wipe the slate clean. Just talking out of my ass here, but as I mentioned a few years back, we should have followed the ideas of Paolo Soleri. Who I consider is one of the greatest architectural planners of our time. Mankind living in harmony with nature, think star ship earth communities. Mega-plans of sky high cities while our surrounding country is left virgin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Soleri

[Pops]

I see AR, you're right, the BA is unique because of the ocean/bayhills/Pt Reyes/ etc. and that causes the leap-frog aspect. Although not many people commute 100 miles daily, I knew a couple of 40 on - 4off workers, EMT/Firemen and some guys in construction who drove all the way to SF for short periods. I'd guess most people work 20 miles up the road.

It's like this, the people who work in downtown SF commute 20 miles out. The people who work 20 miles out are out-bid for housing so they move 20 miles farther out – repeat the process on down the valley. One of my clients in the 90's was a builder whose best sale prospects for new homes in the central valley were people who had bought one of the builders houses 2 years before, 30 minutes closer to the city. Some people took the profit and bought a bigger house, farther away, every 2 years.

Until they were stuck with a big white elephant when the tide went out. ...Mixed metaphor there but you get the drift.


The point being, either the current zoning regime needs to be scrapped and rewritten to encourage housing, working and shopping to co-exist in close - walkable - proximity, or, stricter zoning is required to force higher density, making efficient transit between the activities affordable. I don't see another viable plan.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'T')he point being, either the current zoning regime needs to be scrapped and rewritten to encourage housing, working and shopping to co-exist in close - walkable - proximity, or, stricter zoning is required to force higher density, making efficient transit between the activities affordable. I don't see another viable plan.

[furrybill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'W')e need to really wipe the slate clean. Just talking out of my ass here, but as I mentioned a few years back, we should have followed the ideas of Paolo Soleri. Who I consider is one of the greatest architectural planners of our time. Mankind living in harmony with nature, think star ship earth communities. Mega-plans of sky high cities while our surrounding country is left virgin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Soleri

[jedrider]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')SJ Sees Future, Cringes [housing]

[Plantagenet]

These new zoning rules in California just seem like common sense to me.

Its just too bad they didn't have something like this in place 50 years ago.

[Pops]

Like everything else, the foundation reason for sprawl is simply that rural acreage is cheaper than urban. Cost is where blue-sky plans for infill always fall down because infill is always more expensive than sprawl - to the buyer anyway.

Like anything else it's about scale, 500 acres subdivided into 1/4 acre lots and filled, assembly line style, with 2,000 house in 4 floor plans and 4 exterior finishes is super cost effective and so super profitable. Especially compared to finding 2,000 infill lots and shoehorning essentially a custom home onto an odd shaped lot.

This time though it may be that infill is less expensive.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'L')ike everything else, the foundation reason for sprawl is simply that rural acreage is cheaper than urban.....

This time though it may be that infill is less expensive.

[Timo]

Don't get me wrong, here. I offer this argument for the sake of reality, not because i like it. My job is a city planner, and over the years, my idealism in striving to design the perfect city, or at least a better city, has been squashed down by the mantra that land is cheap, and it's everybody's god-given right to build what and where they want. If it fits the regulations, then there is absolutely nothing that the regulators can do about it. Hence, we are where we are today. Land use plans mean squat! This is a quote that i use daily in my work from Ed McMahon, not the $10 million dollar guy for Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. This guy is a Seior Fellow at the Urban Land Institute.

"All development is not created equal. Communities that set low standards or no standards will compete to the bottom. If you are afraid to say no to anything, you will get the worst of everything. On the other hand, communities that set high standards will compete to the top."

Unfortunately, in many respects, we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and people, in general, are very short-sighted and are too immature in their governance intelect to think longer term than their particular stint in the government. What mark can i leave while i'm here? Nevermind the future!

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', ' ')My job is a city planner, and over the years, my idealism in striving to design the perfect city, or at least a better city, has been squashed down by the mantra that land is cheap, and it's everybody's god-given right to build what and where they want. If it fits the regulations, then there is absolutely nothing that the regulators can do about it. Hence, we are where we are today. Land use plans mean squat!.... What mark can i leave while i'm here? Nevermind the future!

[Timo]

I hate to say this, but i'm not overly optimistic in the intellectual capacity of mankind to do the right things in order to ensure our collective survival. Even if we gain some new miracle technology that promises everything we could ever possibly want in life, tptb will insist that it be rationed and controlled as a commodity, just like all the other civil rights we think we have. City planning has been around for thousands of years, and the best laid plans are, quite honestly, from eras long, long gone. Good plans now are dismissed because they systematically encourage the common well-being instead of the individuals rights to do whatever they want. The common well-being is, of course, a communist plot! Individual liberties trump the common good. Every true red-blooded American knows that! Thinking long term toward the survival of mankind is constitutional heresy.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'M')y job is a city planner, and over the years, my idealism in striving to design the perfect city, or at least a better city, ...