~* Make America Great Depression Again -- Official Thread of Corona Virus infected markets *~

[Jason]

1 minute ago, Air_Delivery said:

Except the fact that there isn't some magic land you can conjure up to build more houses in areas where AirBnBs are a problem.

 

 

You're not listening. Upzone, so that you can build more housing on the same amount of land. And use empty lots to build housing. Our cities are only "full" under the existing zoning regimes.

 

Santa Monica banned Airbnb on the justification of it fucking our housing market. We have PLENTY of empty land, such as all of the surface parking lots around town.

 

 

 

 

[Jason]

Like with this block, there was going to be a big mixed used development that was going to include housing at the spot marked Ice at Santa Monica and the new city council killed it.

 

 

It was also going to contain more hotel space. Guess what? Other hotels put money into electing the new councilmembers who killed the project. The Fairmont is redeveloping and was not allowed to be as tall as the building literally across the street from it. Hmm I wonder why hotel prices are so high!

[Jason]

"Pacific Beach is full"

 

[Jason]

[Anathema-]

Odd to see the "80k cutoff is catastrophic because of San Diego" crowd so at odds with each other over why there's a problem since they seem so united in demonizing the entire democratic party for whatever pet problem they have. Everything is easy until you have to kick in for the solution. 

[Air_Delivery]

Regardless even if you manage to build more houses it isn't going to solve the problem. As the rich are getting richer any new property is going to go for insane amounts. And there is literally no reason for someone to long term rent in popular vacation cities when they can make far more renting out.

 

[Fizzzzle]

We have the same permitting problems and whatnot in Portland. There's plenty of new housing being built. Parking lots in my neighborhood have been getting systematically destroyed and turned into apartment buildings for years, it's just basically all luxury condos or apartments that are $1200/mo minimum for a glorified closet.

[Air_Delivery]

33 minutes ago, Jason said:

This would not solve the problem. Like not even close.

For one people need businesses so that will only work until it becomes a problem to the people who live there. For another it literally doesn't matter how many businesses you zone out for residential, the demand far out strips any supply that is possible.

Residential should be enforced as such. Turning housing into mini hotels is a commercial business. Those AirBnB people should be forced to buy that commercial property if they want to develop hotels. 

[Jason]

9 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

This would not solve the problem. Like not even close.

For one people people need businesses so that will only work until it becomes a problem to the people who live there. For another it literally doesn't matter how many businesses you zone out for residential, the demand far out strips any supply that is possible.

Residential should be enforced as such. Turning housing into mini hotels is a commercial business. Those AirBnB people should be forced to buy that commercial property if they want to develop hotels. 

 

We're seriously not having the same conversation. I'm talking about the enormous surface parking lots and you think I'm talking about getting rid of the businesses.

[Joe]

 

[Air_Delivery]

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

We're seriously not having the same conversation. I'm talking about the enormous surface parking lots and you think I'm talking about getting rid of the businesses.

And while that might help to a degree as I said demand far outstrips supply. I don't think you fully realize that. You can make every parking lot residential and it wouldn't matter.

 

Also making parking harder will fuck over businesses.  Try parking in Hillcrest for instance.

[Jason]

Just now, Air_Delivery said:

And while that might help to a degree as I said demand outstrips supply. I don't think you fully realize that. You can make every parking lot residential and it wouldn't matter.

 

Demand isn't infinite. You think demand is infinite because our supply of new housing is such an incredibly pathetic trickle that you're mixing up why demand is outstripping supply.

 

As for businesses needing parking, sure, that's why there's no profitable businesses in Manhattan, right?

[Jason]

And of course you would need to upzone the surrounding neighborhoods too, but you can use all that surface parking as a starting point while you wait for the upzoning to result in properties turning over into multi-unit housing.

[Jason]

Rents in San Francisco went down because a lot of people left during the pandemic. The supply vs demand issue on housing is clearly not inelastic.

[Air_Delivery]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Demand isn't infinite. You think demand is infinite because our supply of new housing is such an incredibly pathetic trickle that you're mixing up why demand is outstripping supply.

 

As for businesses needing parking, sure, that's why there's no profitable businesses in Manhattan, right?

AirBnB is essentially making it infinite by creating commercial demand on areas that should be residential. When one person/company buys 20 properties it doesn't matter how much you increase supply.

This isn't a problem in areas that aren't popular with tourists. It is a massive problem in areas that are.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, Air_Delivery said:

AirBnB is essentially making it infinite by creating commercial demand on areas that should be residential. When one person/company buys 20 properties it doesn't matter how much you increase supply.

This isn't a problem in areas that aren't popular with tourists. It is a massive problem in areas that are.

 

The root cause of high housing costs in places like San Diego is still the lack of supply. Airbnb is only exacerbating a problem that exists for different reasons, it's not the root cause. Santa Monica successfully banned Airbnb in most circumstances and it didn't do jack shit to bring down rent.

[Air_Delivery]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

The root cause of high housing costs in places like San Diego is still the lack of supply. Airbnb is only exacerbating a problem that exists for different reasons, it's not the root cause. Santa Monica successfully banned Airbnb in most circumstances and it didn't do jack shit to bring down rent.

I agree however none of what you said will work without banning AirBnb to just houses that are lived in by permanent residents over 6 months of the year.

Then you can look to increase supply where typical supply/demand dynamics can actually work.

[Jason]

Also to be clear I'm not inherently opposed to banning Airbnb, but what you saw in Santa Monica is that instead of using it as a bandaid to take some of the pressure off the housing market while the housing supply was increased, the city acted like that's all they had to do, no need to actually significantly increase the housing supply too, and patted themselves on the back for a job well done. So I really don't like laser-focusing on Airbnb because it's missing the forest for the trees and tends to suck all the political energy out of going after way more important fixes.

[Air_Delivery]

10 minutes ago, Jason said:

Also to be clear I'm not inherently opposed to banning Airbnb, but what you saw in Santa Monica is that instead of using it as a bandaid to take some of the pressure off the housing market while the housing supply was increased, the city acted like that's all they had to do, no need to actually significantly increase the housing supply too, and patted themselves on the back for a job well done. So I really don't like laser-focusing on Airbnb because it's missing the forest for the trees and tends to suck all the political energy out of going after way more important fixes.

Banning AirBnb is like desalinating the soil on ground you are trying to grow on. It won't solve all your problems and you still have to fertilize, water, monitor ph, etc but it is a prerequisite for anything to grow.

Yes it won't be a panacea, but it must be done for anything else to work.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

If rents keep going up you're not building enough housing.

 

10 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

Regardless even if you manage to build more houses it isn't going to solve the problem. As the rich are getting richer any new property is going to go for insane amounts. And there is literally no reason for someone to long term rent in popular vacation cities when they can make far more renting out.

 

Dismissing the value of upzoning and increasing housing supply is how you end up like San Francisco. There's a finite amount of land (and holdings of land by conglomerates or the wealthy can be countered with progressive property and/or wealth taxes) but there's many, many ways to 10x the housing supply using the same land. But this would require abolishing single family home zoning as the highest and best use for most of our cities.

 

For example, it is illegal to build anything other than the one sfh detached home which is what is on my lot right now. But you could easily build 10 30'x30' 2 story homes on my 200'x100' lot with a shared communal outdoor space which would take up more than half of the lot. My lot is about a quarter mile from a couple frequent bus lines to downtown so parking obviously wouldn't be required (not that it should be anyway).

 

Now maybe a few years go by and a few other lots nearby do the same thing and a guy on the corner wants to open a coffee shop or small market for the neighborhood. He can go ahead and do that. Then the lot next to the bus line gets a 5 story apartment built on it with a grocery store on the ground floor. And so on. The community around this transportation node becomes more vibrant and liveable.

 

The natural growth that would happen to sfh->split lot sfh-> multifamily/mixed zoning and up. But the availability of alternative transportation options and sidewalks and the like need to be available otherwise it's a car choked hellhole. But this growth needs to happen in the whiter, wealthier areas of the city or it will just cause more gentrification and displacement.

 

"But this won't help due to airbnb" well build a dozen more hotels in/next to the tourist areas and increase residential supply through apartments or split lot housing or otherwise then see how well the 20 property airbnb investment owner does. They'll exit the market. (Not that there aren't other ways to regulate airbnb like registering all units with the city, taxes, fines, enforcement, etc)

 

There's a lot going on here (and some carve outs and caveats) but the gist is there needs to be much more supply than what we see.

23 minutes ago, Jason said:

And of course you would need to upzone the surrounding neighborhoods too, but you can use all that surface parking as a starting point while you wait for the upzoning to result in properties turning over into multi-unit housing.

Also you need to expand the transportation network to accommodate the increase in population and population dynamics (fewer cars/less need for cars) especially when you start upzoning sfh districts

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Also you need to expand the transportation network to accommodate the increase in population and population dynamics (fewer cars/less need for cars) especially when you start upzoning sfh districts

 

Yes. But you can't fall into the trap of "the transit has to come before you can even upzone" or you'll never upzone. Meanwhile you can't even get people to agree to upzone around existing transit. Los Angeles has plenty of light rail that was built at massive taxpayer expense through SFH areas...with no plan about how to even upzone the walkshed of the stations. 

 

And you kind of hint at it with what you said but the "we're full" thing is also fed by minimum lot sizes and setback requirements. Which is why you can't do stuff like the multiple detached single family homes on a single lot. There's more at play than just the SFH requirement. 

[Fizzzzle]

airbnb properties can also be a nightmare for city planners. When areas are zoned for housing, there are considerations taken with things like how close they are to industrial or job-heavy areas, how many people it loads onto roads, etc. Airbnb essentially turns housing that was not supposed to be used as commercial use be used as such, which can fuck up all kinds of things like traffic.

 

Airbnb should be banned in cities simply for that alone, but I agree, it's not the underlying cause of the problem. My dad's neighborhood, just across the river from downtown, managed to lobby to get the entire neighborhood historically protected after someone put up a 3-story apartment building next to a historical bed-and-breakfast. Now you literally cannot build any new buildings and that area essentially is zoned as detached single family homes forever. If a home burns down, you have to put up another one that looks exactly the same. Granted, the streets in that neighborhood are so narrow that 2 cars can't pass abreast on most of the roads (the roads were built for horses and never expanded), so higher density housing maybe isn't the best idea there without significant upgrades to transit infrastructer.

 

 

[Anathema-]

This conversation is doing wonders for the argument that people who got a reduced check last time will quickly forget getting less this time. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

airbnb properties can also be a nightmare for city planners. When areas are zoned for housing, there are considerations taken with things like how close they are to industrial or job-heavy areas, how many people it loads onto roads, etc. Airbnb essentially turns housing that was not supposed to be used as commercial use be used as such, which can fuck up all kinds of things like traffic.

 

Airbnb should be banned in cities simply for that alone, but I agree, it's not the underlying cause of the problem. My dad's neighborhood, just across the river from downtown, managed to lobby to get the entire neighborhood historically protected after someone put up a 3-story apartment building next to a historical bed-and-breakfast. Now you literally cannot build any new buildings and that area essentially is zoned as detached single family homes forever. If a home burns down, you have to put up another one that looks exactly the same. Granted, the streets in that neighborhood are so narrow that 2 cars can't pass abreast on most of the roads (the roads were built for horses and never expanded), so higher density housing maybe isn't the best idea there without significant upgrades to transit infrastructer.

 

 

Those roads are actually great

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

AirBnB is essentially making it infinite by creating commercial demand on areas that should be residential. When one person/company buys 20 properties it doesn't matter how much you increase supply.

This isn't a problem in areas that aren't popular with tourists. It is a massive problem in areas that are.

There is not infinite demand for vacation rentals either. @Jasonis 100% correct here.

[Air_Delivery]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

There is not infinite demand for vacation rentals either. @Jasonis 100% correct here.

It really depends on the area.   In So Cal beach communities there is a huge demand for short term rentals. Even more so than hotels since people want to be in the community for the full "beach" experience. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

That the southern Californian coast isn't lined with towers is a massive failure of planning

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

It really depends on the area.   In So Cal beach communities there is a huge demand for short term rentals. Even more so than hotels since people want to be in the community for the full "beach" experience. 

No, it really doesn’t depend on the area. Zoning for substantially denser residential housing would decrease housing prices relative to their current supply levels.

[Uaarkson]

Zoning is 100% the culprit when it comes to housing prices.

 

I’d throw transit in there, but that all depends on zoning too.

[Air_Delivery]

 

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

No, it really doesn’t depend on the area. Zoning for substantially denser residential housing would decrease housing prices relative to their current supply levels.

And zoning doesn't mean shit when you are allowing commercial enterprises in residential areas. 

[Uaarkson]

1 minute ago, Air_Delivery said:

 

And zoning doesn't mean shit when you are allowing commercial enterprises in residential areas. 

Mixing commercial and residential has worked perfectly for thousands of years dude. Look at any successful city outside of North America. Why do you think Japan has the lowest unemployment rate in the world?

[Air_Delivery]

1 minute ago, Uaarkson said:

Mixing commercial and residential has worked perfectly for thousands of years dude 

Yeah well they didn't have apps 300 years ago. Lots of things that worked before the information age don't work now.

[Fizzzzle]

2 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

Mixing commercial and residential has worked perfectly for thousands of years dude. Look at any successful city outside of North America. Why do you think Japan has the lowest unemployment rate in the world?

It absolutely does work, but you have to be considerate of things like density on road networks, etc. Paris used to be an absolute transportation nightmare, for example. They basically had to ban parking in a ton of the city to try to get people to stop driving, because their infrastructure was not made for that.

 

Also Japan's unemployment is so low because no one's been born there in 30 years.

[Uaarkson]

4 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

Yeah well they didn't have apps 300 years ago. Lots of things that worked before the information age don't work now.

Lol there is a movement in this country back to traditional development. App tech actually makes urban environments more efficient and synergistic.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Light commercial in otherwise residential neighborhoods is a great thing.