[quote=The-Shoveler]There is plenty of land especially in North county, they just don’t want YOU living on it!! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303302504577323353434618474.html
Job centers change, once far off bedroom communities become new hi Tech Job centers all the time.
Irvine, Valencia, Carlsbad, ….. Next !!
I could add Simi Valley, Arcadia, even Ausaz & Chino hills these days, all it takes is a few enginerds and some office space.[/quote]
I read Cox’ article, above. He’s been around a long time but has it all wrong, IMO. He seems to think that people will want to forever commute from further and further out of job centers to their employers (assuming any land is even available for development outside of the fringes).
I realize that reducing greenhouse gases (and even water usage) is a priority among CA regional public officials but I don’t think they are actually wanting to build “massive high-rises” or “30 units per AC” in the entirety of CA’s urban cores. In many, many of these coastal urban cities, the people who bought into some of these “enclaves” inside or adjacent to an “urban core” over the last six decades did so for the express reason of its “downzoned” status and that no apts/condos would ever be built there. 92106, 92118 and 92037 are examples in SD County where multifamily units are highly segregated from SFR neighborhoods by wide commercial thoroughfares. There would be much too much opposition from residents in these areas who paid a lot of money and spent a lot of money on their properties to get any hairbrained idea such as this to even make it on a ballot.
In SD, I could see massive upzoning happening along SD’s commercial thoroughfares such as EC Blvd and University Ave but I don’t see it happening along side streets which are not thoroughfares. Scattered mid-rise apts/condos will likely be built in smaller cities in the future. We’ve had one large parcel cordoned off for several years now in the middle of dtn Chula Vista for this purpose and the opposition to it has been monumental. I don’t see it like Cox sees it. If I’m reading his prediction right, I don’t understand what incentive developers have to build highrise apt/condos in Tracy, CA, so these poor fools who live in them can commute 70+ miles one way to work. There are plenty of cheap SFR’s already there and many are currently sitting vacant! When a developer decides to build a project, he/she has to consider if there will even be a market for it.
I just don’t see a looming terrible “housing shortage” in CA, not even 20 years from now. At present, nearly all areas of the state are grossly overbuilt and SFR vacancies are very high.
Cox also talks about homes in CA being “twice the price” of the rest of the country. Wrong again. He needs to compare apples to apples. The best, most convenient, prestigious and and close-in addresses in ALL major US cities are not “cheap” today and never will be. Except for oceanfront property, the prices of SD’s best addresses are in line with the best addresses of Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Tulsa, Denver, MD/VA/Wash DC area and likely a lot of other major cities that I’m unfamiliar with.
Cox is of the opinion that if only infill is built in CA urban areas from here on out that it will cause prices to rise substantially and cause people and biz to flee CA (as in the nineties – btw at least half of those who fled have come back, lol). I don’t agree with this. Lots of choices exist in CA in every price range.
CA doesn’t owe everyone (from lesser expensive areas in the nation’s midsection) who wants to live here “cheap” housing. Just like in Houston, if you came from a suburban area 60 miles out, you will have to buy the same here unless you have a lot of cash put away earmarked for a downpayment. The place you will buy here might be 2000-3000 sf for the same price you paid for your 4500 sf mcmansion outside of Houston’s beltway.
When comparing density and prices of housing markets in the US, I think you need to compare urban with urban, suburban with suburban, exurban with exurban and rural with rural.
I am in hopes that rampant urban sprawl is gone in CA for good. We don’t need any more tract developments built, the cities/counties will not have enough funds and CA will not have enough natural resources (namely water) to service the areas we already have.
I want to add that people who moved coastal CA counties from out of state before about 1990 did NOT expect to buy or rent a mcmansion in exurbia. They were happy with a WWII box in the city, a 50’s rancher or ranchette, or an 1800-2500 sf Mediterranean in the suburbs on a 10K – 20K lot. Why should it be any different now?
