Outcomes of No-Fault Divorce

[Ken]

That photo Josh posted of San Francisco above is the central business district and those are all offices not homes.

Here is 1,013 acre Golden Gate park, one of the premier urban parks in the country. Surrounded on all sides by multi-million dollar single family homes and where anything more than about 3 stories is strictly prohibited by zoning. There are a few older apartments scattered about on the parks edges that are grandfathered in from the pre-zoning days but anything new is prohibited. I challenge you to find any large apartment building within 6 blocks of Golden Gate park that is not at least 50 years old. You might manage to find a few but they are extremely rare. Which means that only the most wealthy residents and vanishingly few families are allowed by law to live within walking distance of this park that they all pay for with their tax dollars with its zoo, gardens, and open spaces.




By contrast, here is 843 acre Central Park in NYC. 150 years ago it looked exactly the same as Golden Gate Park with nothing but fancy single family residences. But today....? Now lots of those apartments and condos along Central Park West and 5th Avenue are ultra-wealthy addresses to be sure. In part because they are adjacent to the park. But 100,000 people live in Harlem up there at the far end of the park who also live within walking distance. There are probably 100-times more people living within easy walking access of Central Park than Golden Gate Park. Because New York didn't decide to freeze the city in amber ca. 1880 like San Francisco did. And prohibit anyone new from moving in.



Is New York a worse city than San Francisco because it allows more density? What all that density means is that compared to San Francisco, a million more people live on the Island of Manhattan than the whole city of San Francisco despite Manhattan occupying only 1/2 the area of San Francisco.

What does that mean? It means a million less people commuting in LONG LONG distances from NJ, CT, Long Island, and so forth. There are people with families who are forced to commute to San Francisco from as far away as Stockton because they can't afford anything closer. I don't consider it family friendly when your dad has an 80 mile commute to work. We are a growing nation of 330 million. We can't all live in rural Ohio. And if we did it would no longer be rural Ohio. We actually need our cities to grow unless we want the entire nation covered in endless suburban sprawl.

This is the Sunset District directly south of Golden Gate Park. That is the park in the distance. Every last block zoned for single family housing exclusively. Yes under recent changes to CA law they can now put up ADUs in their back yards but most don't have big enough back yards to do that. What they can't do is put up an actual apartment building or condo building anywhere in this photo, even under the recent changes.



And you don't need to be Manhattan to have higher density. This is a similar location to the Sunset District in Barcelona which is considered one of the most livable cities in the world and has no high rises but is about 8x more dense than San Francisco and 60% cheaper to live in. There are probably 10x more families and children living within this picture of Barcelona than that picture above of the Sunset District in San Francisco which covers approximately the same area. That doesn't make it a third world slum. It makes it one of the most desirable cities in Europe.

[ohio jones]

That photo Josh posted of San Francisco above is the central business district and those are all offices not homes.

The 3-5 story buildings in the foreground are mostly residential. 3 of the 10 tallest buildings, and 17 of the tallest 60, are primarily residential. In addition, with office vacancies remaining high, there's a push to convert office space to residential. So it's not "all offices" now, and it's becoming even less so.

We are a growing nation of 330 million. We can't all live in rural Ohio. And if we did it would no longer be rural Ohio. We actually need our cities to grow unless we want the entire nation covered in endless suburban sprawl.

This is a candidate for moving to the border crisis thread, since that's the main reason "we" are a growing nation.

This is a similar location to the Sunset District in Barcelona which is considered one of the most livable cities in the world and has no high rises but is about 8x more dense than San Francisco and 60% cheaper to live in.

Barcelona has no high rises?? Either you've never been there or you have an elevated concept of what a high rise is. The building code definition is 75 feet above the level of fire department access. Barcelona has 40 buildings over 75 meters high, and 15 over 100 meters (which puts it in 7th place in the EU). They're just not all in one clump like SF.

[Ken]

That photo Josh posted of San Francisco above is the central business district and those are all offices not homes.

The 3-5 story buildings in the foreground are mostly residential. 3 of the 10 tallest buildings, and 17 of the tallest 60, are primarily residential. In addition, with office vacancies remaining high, there's a push to convert office space to residential. So it's not "all offices" now, and it's becoming even less so.

We are a growing nation of 330 million. We can't all live in rural Ohio. And if we did it would no longer be rural Ohio. We actually need our cities to grow unless we want the entire nation covered in endless suburban sprawl.

This is a candidate for moving to the border crisis thread, since that's the main reason "we" are a growing nation.

This is a similar location to the Sunset District in Barcelona which is considered one of the most livable cities in the world and has no high rises but is about 8x more dense than San Francisco and 60% cheaper to live in.

Barcelona has no high rises?? Either you've never been there or you have an elevated concept of what a high rise is. The building code definition is 75 feet above the level of fire department access. Barcelona has 40 buildings over 75 meters high, and 15 over 100 meters (which puts it in 7th place in the EU). They're just not all in one clump like SF.

Well, OK, that was perhaps hyperbole. Barcelona has achieved very high residential density without tall residential towers just like Paris. Without the sort of tall residential towers one sees in New York or Miami. Mostly they are just 5-10 stories. Although they are building tall office buildings in the business districts just like around the outskirts of Paris.

And downtown office conversions to residential in San Francisco or anywhere is a difficult and expensive thing and not very many office towers are really suited for it. Most have too big of a footprint. It really only works well in very old skinny buildings that have windows you can actually open rather than exterior walls of glass.

In any event, none of that negates my main point that restrictive zoning is primarily responsible for the enormous deficit of housing in San Francisco and other big cities along the west coast like Los Angeles and Seattle. And it is one of the biggest reasons why housing has been priced out of reach for young families in those cities causing an exodus to places like Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. There are of course other reasons such as prop 13 in CA which has a synergistic effect when combined with restrictive zoning to push housing out of reach for young families.

For example, here is a map of single family zoning in Los Angeles.



From 1960 to 1990 Los Angeles underwent so much downzoning that the capacity of the city was reduced by 60%. Great if you already own your home in Los Angeles. You got to ride a tremendous equity gravy train as a result of the curtailed supply. Not so much if you are a young family looking to make a start in the city.



And despite Josh's assertions to the contrary. Recent state laws have not outlawed single family zoning in California. They didn't change any actual zoning. What they did is provide for a series of exemptions for things like ADUs and duplexes that cities have regulated to make difficult. And none of those law changes opened up any of these areas to actual higher density housing of the sort that one would see in other world cities like Paris or Barcelona. Putting an ADU in your backyard that you will rent on AirB&B is not the same thing as building a modern city and nothing more than a tiny band aid on a gaping wound. You still can't put up an actual apartment building or condo tower in any of those restrictively zoned areas in the centers of big cities.

It is the equivalent of thinking that building a few bespoke little tiny house colonies of a dozen here and there is going to address homelessness which is what they are doing here in the Portland metro. Sure it will help a handful of people but it is just a feel good band aid that allows people to push off real solutions.

Here on the west coast, a lot of this is the spillover effect of the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s. It other words, it is liberal do-gooders in these cities causing the problem. It isn't Republicans or conservatives. I'm an environmentalist as much as anyone as people might have figured out from the climate threads. But I also try to look at the big picture. Restricting development in one place simply shifts it elsewhere. A lot of environmental laws of the 60s and 70s were really designed just to stop development in its tracks and freeze places in place as they were around say 1970. Great if you are an aging hippy and don't want to ever see your tiny piece of heaven ever change. Not so great for future generations. I try to think about the world we are building for our children and grandchildren. And the resulting sprawl from those environmental laws that halt urban development in big cities has far worse environmental consequences than would come with increased density. In fact, dense cities are far more carbon efficient and energy efficient than car-centric suburbs.

In any event, allowing big cities to naturally increase in density like has always been the case throughout history before the 20th Century in the US isn't going to eliminate car centric suburbia or rural Ohio. It will actually preserve it as people will have more choices. Better to allow our big cities to grow and mature rather than forcing all the growth out to exurban and rural areas where it will just chop up farmland and natural lands into endless cookie cutter subdivisions. Drive north of Dallas and you will see what I mean. Suburbia now extends nearly to the Oklahoma border.

I want to see my children and future grandchildren and great grandchildren have the same opportunities that we had. Part of that means reversing the increasing race towards inequality that is happening in the US with a super rich upper class and increasingly struggling middle and working class. A big part of that is the built environment and housing. It shouldn't just be for the rich.

[Josh]

Considering the entire state of California has banned single family zoning, I’m not sure what your point is. It’s been the law now for several years.

[Ken]

Considering the entire state of California has banned single family zoning, I’m not sure what your point is. It’s been the law now for several years.

No, they haven't. Pay attention.

All the single family zoning overlays are still there. What the state law did is provide for certain exemptions to existing single family zoning laws to allow minor changes like ADUs and duplexes sometimes 4-plex subdivisions under certain conditions that are often not practical or obstructed by municipalities like San Francisco is doing where they require that a property have been in the hands of the homeowner for over a year before they are even allowed to file for an exemption.

Ordinary modest apartment buildings or condominiums are still banned in most of the residential areas in most California cities even under this change. And opponents are still able to use other laws and procedural roadblocks to obstruct most of the minimal development that is allowed under the new law. So very little has actually changed.

It is a start to be sure. But they still have a very long way to go until California cities start accommodating young families in any meaningful way.

[ken_sylvania]

In any event, allowing big cities to naturally increase in density like has always been the case throughout history before the 20th Century in the US isn't going to eliminate car centric suburbia or rural Ohio. It will actually preserve it as people will have more choices. Better to allow our big cities to grow and mature rather than forcing all the growth out to exurban and rural areas where it will just chop up farmland and natural lands into endless cookie cutter subdivisions. Drive north of Dallas and you will see what I mean. Suburbia now extends nearly to the Oklahoma border.

Does Dallas have restrictive zoning that prevents the city from naturally increasing in density? Or in what way is it an example of your statement that minimal zoning regulation will preserve rural areas?

[ohio jones]

Well, OK, that was perhaps hyperbole.

Between your hyperbolic claims on one hand and Josh's on the other, no wonder so many threads can be graphed hyperbolically.

[Josh]

Considering the entire state of California has banned single family zoning, I’m not sure what your point is. It’s been the law now for several years.

No, they haven't. Pay attention.

Yes, they have.

ADU applications must be approved within 60 days, without a hearing or discretionary review
For ADUs permitted by 2025, cities/counties cannot require the owner to live at the property
No impact fees are required for ADUs under 750 sqft; proportional fees apply to larger ADUs
An ADU can be developed at the same time as a primary dwelling, with no additional hearing
A city/county must delay code enforcement on an unpermitted ADU to allow it to be legalized
Single-family HOAs must allow development of ADUs, subject to reasonable standards
Single-family homeowners can also develop JADUs—units under 500 sqft within a residence

All the single family zoning overlays are still there. What the state law did is provide for certain exemptions to existing single family zoning laws to allow minor changes like ADUs and duplexes sometimes 4-plex subdivisions under certain conditions that are often not practical or obstructed by municipalities like San Francisco is doing where they require that a property have been in the hands of the homeowner for over a year before they are even allowed to file for an exemption.

What the state law did is completely eliminate single family zoning. There is no place in California anymore where development is limited to a single family home. The ADU law mandates that you can build at least 4 units, and the requirements for setbacks, height and so on are quite minimal.

It is a start to be sure. But they still have a very long way to go until California cities start accommodating young families in any meaningful way.

I fail to understand why you think young families need to be stuffed into tiny apartments in high rises.

[ken_sylvania]

I fail to understand why you think young families need to be stuffed into tiny apartments in high rises.

Perhaps the reason is, because Ken doesn't think that. He certainly hasn't said anything to indicate that he thinks any such thing.

[Josh]

I fail to understand why you think young families need to be stuffed into tiny apartments in high rises.

Perhaps the reason is, because Ken doesn't think that. He certainly hasn't said anything to indicate that he thinks any such thing.

Well, California has a MANDATORY law that says absolutely any single family house (or other residential property) can be developed into at least 4 dwelling units, plus additional JADUs (a JADU basically means you take a single family house and just divide it into a duplex, or carve off a bedroom and now sell it as a separate unit). The ADU law also mandates at least 2 stories (the ADUs can have as many stories as the existing single family home), and can go higher if they are ½ mile from a public transportation stop.

I think converting single family homes into 4 units (or more) is quite a big change, so what comes after that? The next step is more than 2 stories. Is that enough? Perhaps I should ask Ken to clarify exactly what he thinks the single family homes in San Francisco should be redeveloped into, beyond just redeveloping them into 4-unit multifamily properties.