Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Is the “Vision” unrealistic for Bay Park & Bay Ho?
- This topic has 69 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 11 months ago by scaredyclassic.
June 4, 2014 at 10:36 AM #21111June 4, 2014 at 11:41 AM #774732
Sounds like it was written by a PR hack.
This being said, if there’s nowhere convenient to build out, building up (densifying) makes sense. I grew up in a condo (after I was 12, at least). It was actually nice living in a denser town where I could walk or bike to school, play sports after school without having to get a ride home. Nice for parents to be able to catch the express bus or train to NYC within walking distance vs having to sit in traffic, and to be able to travel in summer w/o having to worry about maintaining the house.
Most Americans are conditioned to prefer single-family, but condos in the right area and with a fairly normal HOA are actually an awesome thing. The HOAs of both condos that I own are pretty live-and-let-live.
Lastly, consider this: average floor space per household in 1970 was a bit under 1000 square feet. Were we really unhappier for that (and with bigger households/more kids than today)?June 4, 2014 at 11:54 AM #774733livinincaliParticipant
Condos are useful for a certain segment of the population although I’ll agree that this idea that people will buy a condo above a trolley stop and forgo owning a car is a bit of a stretch. There are a bunch of condos/apartments off of Morena in Bay Park and Bay Ho area so it’s not like a big condo complex is coming to a quite residential area. The opposition to 60 ft building height is pretty strong so I don’t expect that to happen. I personally prefer the trolley stop without the mixed use condo complexes at the stops, but I’d take that over no stops.June 4, 2014 at 12:12 PM #774734jameslamatteryParticipant
Thanks for your response! I’m not a PR hack, but I agree with you that building up can make sense- what it depends upon is location. We were sold on the ‘City of villages’ from SANDAG and got the Morena Vista Station. Who profited most? I encourage anyone interested in TOD (Transit Oriented Development) to go to that trolley station for the day and observe. Out of 185 units built around the station, only 18 are low-income units. I asked the rental agent if I could rent one, and after a small chuckle, he informed that there is a waiting list, and that the units don’t come available very often. On the published price list I found the least expensive one bedroom unit: 678 sqft for $1650/month. If I upgrade to a one bedroom that is 801 sqft, rent would be $1750/month. In Bay Park and Bay Ho, we are being asked to carry 3 more trolley stations in addition to Morena Vista. We are being asked to let developers build condos to six-story heights. Who profits most?June 4, 2014 at 2:18 PM #774737afx114Participant
If the NIMBYs want to avoid pricing their children out of the city they grew up in, they should prepare for density. Simply look at the current state of San Francisco real estate for how this game plays out. If you don’t build density (as SF has avoided to do for decades), prices rise, and pretty soon nobody can afford to live there. Just look at Rich’s famous price/inverted inventory graph. SD NIMBYs should ask themselves if they want to follow in the SF NIMBYs’ footsteps.June 4, 2014 at 5:27 PM #774741joecParticipant
I believe anywhere most people want to live in prime areas of CA (SF, SD, LA) are already priced out for most kids that are graduating and growing up…
Heck, most of these areas are out of priced for working professionals
Sure, you have less desirable areas and maybe people should reset their expectations, but I’d recommend kids just move to cheaper areas and start their lives instead.
Sorta like if you grew up in Hawaii, you LEAVE since there’s no way really many jobs will allow you to make a great living compared to most places on the mainland…to save for buying a house, raise a family, save for retirement, travel, etc…unless you factor in family wealth/help again.
Personally, if I owned a lot of real estate in prime areas, I’d rather the prices just keep going up to insane levels and kids be damned, they can just live in a rental I own or they can move and learn what it’s like to not get everything handed to them (I have family who lives in one of their parent’s home)…
As bad as it is, I think a lot of people just rather do financially better and have more options than see low cost high density real estate…
I expect to eventually leave SD honestly…(immigrant anyways to US/SF/SD…) Not tied to this area or most areas really.June 4, 2014 at 5:40 PM #774742
I’ve seen 2 and even 3 bedroom condos going in the $200-300k range in SD, in not necessarily hopping, but not awful areas. I don’t see why a couple who’s starting a family couldn’t afford something like that, at least at present until rates go up.June 4, 2014 at 11:26 PM #774749AnonymousGuest
The vision makes me wonder where our Mayor and City Planning Director live today. Do they reside in condominiums at the trolley stations that they’ve prescribed for the rest of us? I encourage every resident in our community to understand the plan.[/quote]
While Bill Fulton does live in a condo without a car (http://www.cp-dr.com/node/3499) but no one is prescribing condo’s for anyone! All the single family homes in bay park will remain but people will have options. Morena blvd will no longer be a freeway type of road that destroys the neighborhood.
You appear to be confusing subsidized affordable housing with additional supply resulting in affordable housing .
A great read on these issues: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/June 5, 2014 at 5:54 AM #774751HobieParticipant
The trolly, Coaster, north county Breeze system has been in place for years now. Still can’t go to the Fair or the Airport with them. And I don’t see condos springing up around these existing stations.
These urban planners live in a different reality. They spend time envisioning high density housing and mass transit yet neglect the basic infrastructure like water supply and wider freeways.
They seem to skip the question of what they can do to attract more employers to SD. First get business, them worry about condos.June 5, 2014 at 9:18 AM #774758
[quote=kj]You appear to be confusing subsidized affordable housing with additional supply resulting in affordable housing . [/quote]I totally agree. I feel like the OP is confused between subsidized affordable housing and additional supply which will drive down housing price. It’s economic 101. If you increase supply, prices will go down. Obviously, this condo complex won’t produce enough to make a dent in housing price, but can you imagine if all the current 1-2 stories apartment complex convert to high rise condos? I’m pretty sure that would be enough to drive down prices.June 5, 2014 at 9:25 AM #774761
Knocking down thousands of buildings to “convert” them to high-rises is easier said than done, I’d imagine.June 5, 2014 at 9:32 AM #774763
[quote=spdrun]Knocking down thousands of buildings to “convert” them to high-rises is easier said than done, I’d imagine.[/quote]I’m not saying that it would happen. I”m just saying if we really want affordable housing for all, all we need to do is drastically increase supply to the scale that I just described. If you increase supply by 100-500%, I’m pretty sure price will crash and most can buy a place for themselves.June 5, 2014 at 11:10 AM #774771afx114Participant
No one is talking about high-rises. This is simply about raising the height limit to 60 feet (instead of 30 where it is now). And it’s only for a single vacant lot right next to the station.
Mountain, meet molehill.June 5, 2014 at 11:19 AM #774772
[quote=afx114]No one is talking about high-rises. This is simply about raising the height limit to 60 feet (instead of 30 where it is now). And it’s only for a single vacant lot right next to the station.
Mountain, meet molehill.[/quote]Understood. I was just making about about the OP’s desire for more affordable housing. If he/she really want affordable housing, then he/she should be pushing for a lot more density and a lot more supply. What we have here will not make a dent on price/supply. I actually support more density housing around these trolly stops. Mira Mesa is planning for exactly that when the trolly extend from UTC through Mira Mesa on Carroll Canyon. That area will be mix use and dense.
60′ will mean about 4-5 story condos. That doesn’t sound sound too crazy.June 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM #774773
The problem with trolleys in SD is that they’re great for getting to downtown or to the border, but jobs are sufficiently spread out that they sort of suck for commuting.
Will the trolley system ever be extended to:
(a) the airport
(b) the beach cities?
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.