- This topic has 110 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
joec.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 11, 2014 at 2:13 PM #776434July 11, 2014 at 2:31 PM #776435
UCGal
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
UCGal you must admit that one hour for a 6.5-mile daily commute in rush hour (on a regular basis?) is absolutely ridiculous. I’m sure you didn’t have this problem when you first took your most recent job. [/quote]
It was only an hour about 1-2x/month. But it was regularly over 1 30 minutes. (Compared to 10 minutes to get to work in the morning.)Much of this is due to the construction on 805 between Mira Mesa and 52 (which encompasses about half of my mileage home). When that construction is done- traffic will be improved… but it’s not due to be completed for several more years.
When I first transferred back to San Diego in 2001, my commute home was 15-20 minutes.
[quote=bearishgurl]
Your problem stems from residential overbuilding in adjacent zip codes to yours (not unlike the problem we have here in Chula Vista). Even though you were absent from CA for a number of years, the before and after images of UC and surrounds that you have in your mind tell the tale. I still think South UC is a very nice place to live. The lot sizes there are adequate (esp the corner lots) as are most of the setbacks. You are not mixed in with multifamily units. Be glad that Lightner has some sense and is doing what a bureaucrat who thoroughly understands “the system” does best … stalling until their hands are tied and they simply can’t do anything. Beautiful! I’m not sure you realize it but Lightner is your friend, UCGal!
[/quote]
South UC has had some multi-family since it was developed in the 60’s. The old “Leisure Life” senior living off of Governor between Gullstrand and Erlanger was low rise multifamily rentals, now it’s being torn down and replaced as mid-rise senior apartments. Pennant Village – which is the commuty on the south part of Erlanger was also built in the early 60’s – single story row houses, as well as town houses at the bottom of the hill (above 52). In the late 60’s they built the condos behind Vons, between Agee and Genessee. And soon after that built several apartment and condo building on the Genesee corridor in South UC. My point is that multifamily has ALWAYS existed since UC was developed in the early 60’s.Neighboring zips. Clairemont has the same density as always. Mira Mesa was developed a bit after UC – but the housing density there doesn’t effect my commute. UTC or North UC (my zip code) also didn’t effect my commute because the folks in UTC would take Camino Santa Fe to Miramar rd. So adding homes in my zip and the immediately adjacent zips didn’t impact me. The overall growth if business and population impacted me… but that’s part of living in a growing/thriving economy.
We will have to agree to disagree on Sherri Lightner. I think that the Regents Rd bridge was a key part of the master plan that was paid for by the original developers. She thinks that escrowed money is her personal slush fund to buy votes to be re-elected. Not building the bridge literally puts lives at risk because the paramedics can’t get to south UC for 911 calls if it’s between about 4pm and 6:30pm – Genesee southbound is jammed, 805 is jammed, 5 and 52 are jammed. A friends wife almost died waiting for the ambulance after a heart attack. It’s a REAL problem. You can be her fan-girl. I’m decidedly not.
July 11, 2014 at 2:34 PM #776437Happs
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Happs][quote=bearishgurl][quote=The-Shoveler]Others want schools for kids etc…
I believe AN
1) had a home
2) had a job.If you have none of the above you move to where you can find one, usually things work out.[/quote]
Absolutely, the newcomer adapts to wherever they are living. If that is a 1150 sf bungalow circa 1947 in SV (as I mentioned before), then so be it.
Newcomers must adapt to any new locale which they have chosen to move to. That “new locale” is not obligated in any way, shape or form to adapt to newcomers’ housing wishes and wants.[/quote]
I would surmise that the state, county and cities are losing out on income and property tax revenue from the lack of housing in Silicon Valley for eager and willing workers who want to move there for high paying jobs. If I was mayor or a county supervisor and there were high tech companies wanting to relocate to my city or county with a bevy of qualified workers in tow, I’d do everything I could to make it easy for them to set up shop. There is no obligation or mandate for government officials to raise or protect property values. If a retired high school teacher’s house suddenly loses value due to the construction of a large tract across the street, so be it.[/quote]
Well Happs, according to a link on this thread which you provided:
[quote=Happs]Lots of office, retail, hotel and residential projects underway in the city of Santa Clara. Every little bit of new inventory helps if you’re looking to rent/buy.
http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=2495
[/quote]. . . the City of Santa Clara has permitted a dozen or more infill projects currently in progress (both commercial and multifamily). The problem with putting new tracts in SV is that they likely will be infill because there isn’t any more land available for new subdivisions. As such, there is nothing to prevent the existing housing there commanding a premium in both rents and resale prices. I really believe there IS enough housing in SV for ALL of its workers. Many of them are just making the choice to live elsewhere (SF proper, SJ and beyond and East Bay). An employer can’t dictate where their new hires choose to move to or how far away from work they choose to live.[/quote]
The infill development in the city of Santa Clara is a good start to addressing the housing shortage, but it’s a drop in the bucket. Restrictive development regulations need to be eased, open space preserves need to be built on, growth boundaries eliminated etc to address the housing shortage. Silicon Valley will always be a desirable place to live due to jobs, weather and proximity to premier universities. There’s a plethora of open space in the Silicon Valley that could be built upon if politicians and voters didn’t have such a pro-environmental bent.
July 11, 2014 at 3:11 PM #776439an
Participant[quote=Happs]The infill development in the city of Santa Clara is a good start to addressing the housing shortage, but it’s a drop in the bucket. Restrictive development regulations need to be eased, open space preserves need to be built on, growth boundaries eliminated etc to address the housing shortage. Silicon Valley will always be a desirable place to live due to jobs, weather and proximity to premier universities. There’s a plethora of open space in the Silicon Valley that could be built upon if politicians and voters didn’t have such a pro-environmental bent.[/quote]I agree with some of this. I agree that restrictive development regulations need to be eased, but I think open space preserves needs to stay. You can always build up. Silicon Valley have plenty of room left to build up. If they eliminate height restriction and start to zone for very dense condo high rises in certain area, that would greatly alleviate some of the problem. If cities with Silicon valley drastically renovate its downtown and build up. Maybe people would find less of an urge to live in SF and commute to Silicon Valley. If they have a vibrant downtown of their own that’s near their work.
Although Bay area might be more built out than SD, it’s far from the density that other major international cities experience, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. If you don’t help alleviate cost of living, traffic will only gets worse and living standard will decline and smog will increase, since people will commute longer and further. Then, you would also get family who live in a condo a size of a bedroom because they can’t afford more. Whether one like it or not, the city will continue to grow if your economy grow.
July 12, 2014 at 8:01 PM #776512ParticipantThis article is from yesterdays San Jose Mercury News. Developers are struggling to keep up with new home demand in the Bay Area. Not everyone wants an old house, and there are plenty of them in the Silicon Valley. I say ease restrictions to lessen the new housing shortage.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26133490/bay-area-home-builders-struggle-keep-up-demand
July 13, 2014 at 12:46 PM #776534joec
Participant[quote=Happs]This article is from yesterdays San Jose Mercury News. Developers are struggling to keep up with new home demand in the Bay Area. Not everyone wants an old house, and there are plenty of them in the Silicon Valley. I say ease restrictions to lessen the new housing shortage.
As someone who likes new houses as well with their better insulation, cat5e/cable jacks and wiring everywhere, higher ceilings, double pane windows, etc etc etc…I think this is true for a lot of dual income professionals who don’t want to and don’t have or want to use their time to “fix up” a starter home…
Even with income in the 300k range, I think very nice/comfortable/big Bay Area housing is going to be out of reach for many. Especially compared with most anywhere else in the country.
They just aren’t building anymore land in the bay area and looking at these articles and having looked for homes in the past there, there’s practically NOTHING new really…Other than the old racetrack they mention in San Mateo, I don’t think any location mentioned would be considered bay area to most snobby bay area folks.
Paying insane amounts for small plots of land also sound very risky if there will ever be a downturn.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.