Build better transportation to support density, then add density. But to add density first on the promise of improved transportation has led to the traffic mess of today.
That certainly is an ideal, however, consider it in an economics point of view:
There's no need to spend more money on transportation if there's not the amount of people to pay and ride on it. The unknown here is if the population density will ever go up to support a new system being paid for, now.
Adding density first proves demand, and although messy, transportation would NEED to improve somehow.
Yeah, you need transport. Historically speaking, this has been a chicken-and-egg problem; to get density high enough for reasonable public transit, it needs to be practical to get by without a car. To get by without a car, you need reasonable public transit. Usually people build transit nobody will use in hopes that people will then build housing.
We've got an opportunity right now in silicon valley to do it the other way around, because ridsharing in silicon valley is so good that it's totally practical for an upper middle class person to live without a car (I got rid of mine about a year ago) - this means that you can talk me into renting a place that doesn't have parking.
Now, hear me out. Yes, I know uber being cheap is temporary, but this presents a unique, i think, opportunity to build housing without parking first, and then generate demand for public transit, rather than the other way around as you suggest. Now, remember that in Silicon Valley, at least, the people who get into new housing are usually well off. If you can afford the rent on a newly built unit, uber is cheap for you, and you have the political power of an upper middle class person.
Build the housing on a rail line; which I think is standard practice, but right now we build housing and a giant parking structure. The opportunity right now is that the rail line is not an alternative to a car, but uber + the rail line is - you can use that to start with the egg rather than the chicken. Build the housing next to transit without car parking spaces, and then let the residents agitate for better public transit once uber starts charging profitable prices.
I wouldn't know, but either way, not all your housing needs to be built for parents with small children. You set it up so that those of us without kids don't have to drive, and especially in the bay area, you've solved a lot of the traffic problem.
Anecdotal, but everyone I know with kids already lives some distance out and commutes in. New, expensive apartment buildings in this area seem to be mostly the domain of people without kids.
to add to my other comment, I in no way want to say that ride sharing is for everyone; just like driving, there's a lot of reasons why a lot of people don't want to do it. I'm just saying that ride sharing is cheap and convenient enough for a lot of people, probably even the majority of people who inhabit the newly built apartments around here, which can't be said, really, for public transit.
Mobile homes (and all the 'tiny homes' I've seen are smaller and cooler "mobile homes") are great for quickly putting up housing in undeveloped places.
I think they are less good for higher density options. Personally? I really like the idea of condo or apartment towers that are built to modern luxury condo standards... but have smaller units, and are priced accordingly. I'm in Silicon Valley, and all the new construction is luxury grade, which is fine; I like my insulation, climate control and especially my sound insulation, and I'm willing to pay for these things, but... the problem is that all the units are also really big; I'd be really happy to pay 60% of what they are charging for half the space.
What I'm saying here is that I think that the 'tiny home' movement needs to move up. build us 'tiny condos' and I'll buy one!
The standard “luxury” high-rise studio is 500 square feet. A one bedroom is maybe 700-900. Is that really unreasonable?
Most “luxury” multi family buildings use that word because the historical norm is that apartments only exist to cheaply house the poor. It just means they’re comparable in quality to suburban middle class houses (or are pretending to be).
> The standard “luxury” high-rise studio is 500 square feet. A one bedroom is maybe 700-900. Is that really unreasonable?
first, just finding high rise studios built in the last two decades is really rough. Like I can't find any in silicon valley that aren't giant "lofts" that approach 1000sqft. Hell, the smallest studio I can find looking around now is the place I lived in redwood city; it was shit, built in the '60s, with a giant single pane window facing a major street near an intersection, so you could listen to all the people who have managed to disable the noise dampening capabilities of their vehicles. 600sqft. And it felt huge. I mean, not that I mind the extra space, but I totally would have given up a couple hundred square feet just for some decent noise insulation.
But... as to the actual question? if you made it proportionally cheaper? I'd totally buy or rent a 300sqft space with a shower and bathroom, if it were priced proportionally. Ideally, you setup the shower and commode in the same enclosure, japanese style, and then have the sink in the apartment.
The problem right now is that usually if you want to pay for less than 600sqft of space, you end up sharing some wreak of a single family home with five other people. or you live in a smaller studio built before double pane windows, with no thought given to isolating you from your neighbors.
I kinda like having public places; I'm a member of a few clubs, including 'the hacker dojo' in mountain view, and I do move some of my life there. I enjoy interacting with other people, but I need some private space, even if it's a small private space. I've lived in shared houses, and with the right people, it's okay, but it's really nice to have your own adytum to withdraw into, where you don't have to see or hear anyone.
>Most “luxury” multi family buildings use that word because the historical norm is that apartments only exist to cheaply house the poor. It just means they’re comparable in quality to suburban middle class houses (or are pretending to be).
I don't think that's true in silicon valley; most single family homes around here were built to working class standards in the '60s and '70s and are all around pretty terrible. For someone as soft as I am, they'd be intolerable if the climate was not such that you could sleep in a tent, and they are intolerable if you live in the flight path of the local airport or otherwise have significant noise outside. (I'm in a somewhat more modern place right now, on the approach to SJC, with triple pane windows. It's super loud if you open the windows, but if you button up, it's nice and quiet.)
You might be interested in 77 Bluxome which does micro-studios in a mid-rise in SF [0]. Popped up in my apartment search a few times. Too small for me, might be closer to what you're looking for.
But no apartment is going to be as cheap as splitting a house 6 ways: demand for an apartment of any kind vastly exceeds demand for marginal square feet, and the kitchen and bathroom imply certain fixed costs to split.
Silicon Valley communities are deeply attached to their lack of high-rise construction and fight to keep it that way. Call your representatives to support SB 827 if you want to see ~8 stories along the Caltrain corridor.
That looks like about what I'm talking about, though I'd prefer it to be a condo, and to be in silicon valley proper; I'm not really cool enough to work in San Francisco and am intolerant of commutes.
If we built more apartments, assuming people really do prefer to live in single family homes, I'd assume that apartments would get cheaper compared to single family homes, just because land is such a large portion of the cost of anything around here, and single family homes are usually single story around here.
I've been following Scott Wiener on twitter, and yeah, I should do something.
Ear plugs aren’t magic. They are appropriate to make dangerous noise levels tolerable, but don’t do much to remove the distracting information encoded in already-moderate sounds. They also reflect the sounds of my own body back into me, which practically guarantees insomnia. A white noise source is much more effective. (I use a box fan). Still not great against bass-heavy music next door but makes me pretty much impervious to street noise.
well, for me over-ear hearing protection is much more comfortable for long-term use. putting things in my ear, plugs or earbuds tends to get kinda nasty due to how i sweat.
Like most people around here, I work in an open plan office, so most of my actual work is done with my '3m worktunes' hearing protector earphones on.
That said, I'll pay a considerable premium to not have to sleep with them on. (for that matter, I'd pay a reasonable premium to not have to use them at the office, but as far as I can tell, that deal isn't available to me.)
curtains do help, in my experience, but not nearly as much as modern construction does.
There are a ton of strip malls that can be redeveloped as mixed use. The one issue would be parking, but if you can forgo a car or uber/rent one as needed then it might work.
huh. My impression was that strip malls are almost entirely parking. they are usually single story and relatively small, compared to their parking lots. Silicon valley also lacks food places (which is what most new things in those strip malls are) - I mean, going from one story to three or five, with the ground floor remaining food service sounds great to me, but there's not much of the existing structure you would want to keep.
I live in LA too, I am a sox figure a year salary tech worker and cant imagine myself buying a property here its too expensive. Wish real estate was more ubregulated like in Houston and Miami
I live in LA too, I have a six figure salary and I don't see myself long term here buying a property here would be a huge commitment. We are talking 700k - 800k for an old 1960's single story house. I always think what I would be getting in other state,say Texas or Florida.
I wish LA/SF had more relaxed regulations so that developers could build lots of housing like it currently happens in Miami or Houston. or Tokyo
Sure, if people in Hollywood would be developers instead of actors, the world would be a better place, LA certainly so.
All kidding aside, I think the solution to this sort of problem, and specially LA, would be to have an open market for public transportation.
The city council could hand out coupons for transportation to the poor, so they can commute to work. (The transportation companies would take those coupons and get the cash for it from the city.)
Such a system would be a much better investments of tax dollars then the currently offering of public transportation.
Public transit and density is a chicken and egg problem. Without adequate transit, density is impossible (everyone can't fit their cars in a dense neighborhood), and without adequate density, public transit is unprofitable.
The only solution is decades of highly subsidized public transit and pro-density policies, until it fills the profit gap.
Another possible alternative is to promote privatized public transit and allow the transit companies to invest in dense developments and real estate at stations.
An example is in Japan where private train lines take people in from the outskirts of Tokyo into downtown where the line terminates at a transfer point with malls built by the transit company at the station.
Ha, I live right in that highlighted area. Used to live on Miracle Mile where these new apartments have popped up. It really does change the vibe of the neighborhood. They’re modern and shiney and don’t fit in at all. If they made the apts look like spanish revival places I think they would get more buy in from the neighborhood.
26 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 75.4 ms ] threadWith the population doubling by 2050, something needs to be done. A few ideas could help:
- Self driving cars (live in Palmdale) - Tiny Homes/ADU's - Rezone parking lots (significant portion of LA)
There's no need to spend more money on transportation if there's not the amount of people to pay and ride on it. The unknown here is if the population density will ever go up to support a new system being paid for, now.
Adding density first proves demand, and although messy, transportation would NEED to improve somehow.
We've got an opportunity right now in silicon valley to do it the other way around, because ridsharing in silicon valley is so good that it's totally practical for an upper middle class person to live without a car (I got rid of mine about a year ago) - this means that you can talk me into renting a place that doesn't have parking.
Now, hear me out. Yes, I know uber being cheap is temporary, but this presents a unique, i think, opportunity to build housing without parking first, and then generate demand for public transit, rather than the other way around as you suggest. Now, remember that in Silicon Valley, at least, the people who get into new housing are usually well off. If you can afford the rent on a newly built unit, uber is cheap for you, and you have the political power of an upper middle class person.
Build the housing on a rail line; which I think is standard practice, but right now we build housing and a giant parking structure. The opportunity right now is that the rail line is not an alternative to a car, but uber + the rail line is - you can use that to start with the egg rather than the chicken. Build the housing next to transit without car parking spaces, and then let the residents agitate for better public transit once uber starts charging profitable prices.
Anecdotal, but everyone I know with kids already lives some distance out and commutes in. New, expensive apartment buildings in this area seem to be mostly the domain of people without kids.
Mobile homes (and all the 'tiny homes' I've seen are smaller and cooler "mobile homes") are great for quickly putting up housing in undeveloped places.
I think they are less good for higher density options. Personally? I really like the idea of condo or apartment towers that are built to modern luxury condo standards... but have smaller units, and are priced accordingly. I'm in Silicon Valley, and all the new construction is luxury grade, which is fine; I like my insulation, climate control and especially my sound insulation, and I'm willing to pay for these things, but... the problem is that all the units are also really big; I'd be really happy to pay 60% of what they are charging for half the space.
What I'm saying here is that I think that the 'tiny home' movement needs to move up. build us 'tiny condos' and I'll buy one!
Most “luxury” multi family buildings use that word because the historical norm is that apartments only exist to cheaply house the poor. It just means they’re comparable in quality to suburban middle class houses (or are pretending to be).
first, just finding high rise studios built in the last two decades is really rough. Like I can't find any in silicon valley that aren't giant "lofts" that approach 1000sqft. Hell, the smallest studio I can find looking around now is the place I lived in redwood city; it was shit, built in the '60s, with a giant single pane window facing a major street near an intersection, so you could listen to all the people who have managed to disable the noise dampening capabilities of their vehicles. 600sqft. And it felt huge. I mean, not that I mind the extra space, but I totally would have given up a couple hundred square feet just for some decent noise insulation.
But... as to the actual question? if you made it proportionally cheaper? I'd totally buy or rent a 300sqft space with a shower and bathroom, if it were priced proportionally. Ideally, you setup the shower and commode in the same enclosure, japanese style, and then have the sink in the apartment.
The problem right now is that usually if you want to pay for less than 600sqft of space, you end up sharing some wreak of a single family home with five other people. or you live in a smaller studio built before double pane windows, with no thought given to isolating you from your neighbors.
I kinda like having public places; I'm a member of a few clubs, including 'the hacker dojo' in mountain view, and I do move some of my life there. I enjoy interacting with other people, but I need some private space, even if it's a small private space. I've lived in shared houses, and with the right people, it's okay, but it's really nice to have your own adytum to withdraw into, where you don't have to see or hear anyone.
>Most “luxury” multi family buildings use that word because the historical norm is that apartments only exist to cheaply house the poor. It just means they’re comparable in quality to suburban middle class houses (or are pretending to be).
I don't think that's true in silicon valley; most single family homes around here were built to working class standards in the '60s and '70s and are all around pretty terrible. For someone as soft as I am, they'd be intolerable if the climate was not such that you could sleep in a tent, and they are intolerable if you live in the flight path of the local airport or otherwise have significant noise outside. (I'm in a somewhat more modern place right now, on the approach to SJC, with triple pane windows. It's super loud if you open the windows, but if you button up, it's nice and quiet.)
But no apartment is going to be as cheap as splitting a house 6 ways: demand for an apartment of any kind vastly exceeds demand for marginal square feet, and the kitchen and bathroom imply certain fixed costs to split.
Silicon Valley communities are deeply attached to their lack of high-rise construction and fight to keep it that way. Call your representatives to support SB 827 if you want to see ~8 stories along the Caltrain corridor.
[0] http://www.equityapartments.com/san-francisco-bay/soma/77-bl...
If we built more apartments, assuming people really do prefer to live in single family homes, I'd assume that apartments would get cheaper compared to single family homes, just because land is such a large portion of the cost of anything around here, and single family homes are usually single story around here.
I've been following Scott Wiener on twitter, and yeah, I should do something.
Like most people around here, I work in an open plan office, so most of my actual work is done with my '3m worktunes' hearing protector earphones on.
That said, I'll pay a considerable premium to not have to sleep with them on. (for that matter, I'd pay a reasonable premium to not have to use them at the office, but as far as I can tell, that deal isn't available to me.)
curtains do help, in my experience, but not nearly as much as modern construction does.
I wish LA/SF had more relaxed regulations so that developers could build lots of housing like it currently happens in Miami or Houston. or Tokyo
Build MORE houses.
All kidding aside, I think the solution to this sort of problem, and specially LA, would be to have an open market for public transportation.
The city council could hand out coupons for transportation to the poor, so they can commute to work. (The transportation companies would take those coupons and get the cash for it from the city.)
Such a system would be a much better investments of tax dollars then the currently offering of public transportation.
The only solution is decades of highly subsidized public transit and pro-density policies, until it fills the profit gap.
An example is in Japan where private train lines take people in from the outskirts of Tokyo into downtown where the line terminates at a transfer point with malls built by the transit company at the station.