SB50 and high density housing will not solve the housing crisis it will actually make it worse.
California State Senator Scott Wiener believes that high density housing, as proposed in his SB 50 bill, will solve the housing crisis in California.
History has show time and again that wherever there is high density housing housing costs are high and home ownership is extremely low. See irrefutable evidence provided on this website. |
Simply put if California State Senator Scott Wiener, the extreme environmentalists and the high density housing policy makers/advocates have their way they will transform the San Francisco Bay into this:
And housing costs will not be reduced; that is, the percentage of household income spent on housing will not be any less than it is today for the vast majority of bay area and California residents.
|
Open Challeng to Scott Wiener to answer the questions below:
Senator Wiener, San Mateo, San Carlos, Redwood City, Mountain View have added tens of thousands of new housing units in the last 5 years. From what I have seen none of these developments rise higher than 4 to 5 stories. In order to accommodate all of the workers who currently need a place to live along with the 1 million new residents who will arrive in the next 10 years these housing units needed to be at least 40 stories tall, like San Francisco and New York.
There are tens of thousands of acres of land that is not farm land or valuable green belt that should be developed into housing; into environmentally green walk-able towns with satellite offices of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel and hundreds of other new businesses.
A prime location is the 175 to 245 square miles of barren land adjacent to Hwy 5 from Mt. Diablo to Patterson. That is comparable to the developed area from San Francisco to Mountain View.
There is another 190 to 266 square miles from Patterson to Los Banos that could also be developed.
There are tens of thousands of acres of land that is not farm land or valuable green belt that should be developed into housing; into environmentally green walk-able towns with satellite offices of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel and hundreds of other new businesses.
A prime location is the 175 to 245 square miles of barren land adjacent to Hwy 5 from Mt. Diablo to Patterson. That is comparable to the developed area from San Francisco to Mountain View.
There is another 190 to 266 square miles from Patterson to Los Banos that could also be developed.
Senator Wiener, please answer the following questions.
Senator Wiener if you say NO that the two sites above on the left should not be developed into the sites on the right than your saying that Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto should not have been developed into housing and jobs for the two barren areas have been developed into prosperous Silicon Valley. And you therefore contradict yourself in demanding that the cities of the Peninsula and elsewhere develop more housing and jobs.
If you say that they should be developed than you have no excuse for not supporting the development of the east side of the Diablo Range.
If you say that they should be developed than you have no excuse for not supporting the development of the east side of the Diablo Range.
Can you explain why this barren area along the east side of the Diablo Range should not be developed into green towns with thousands of trees and parks like Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and other peninsula towns and cities; towns in which teachers, police officers and bus drivers can afford to buy a home of their own in addition to new terraced farms?
|
|
The population of the bay area is expected to increase by approximately 1 million over the next 10 years and 20 million over the next 20 years.
1 million people need approximately 971 sq.ft. of living space which totals to 971,000,000 sq.ft.
Supposing a typical apartment/condo building is 150 ft. by 150 ft. producing a footprint of 22,500 sq.ft and then multiply that by 5 stories produces 112,500 sq. ft. per building on average.
That would create 8,631 five story buildings for the central bay area by 2030 and `17,262 five story buildings by 2040.
That’s about 1,000 buildings per city from South San Francisco to Mountain View by 2030 and 2,000 buildings by 2040.
If you cut the living space in half back to 1973 levels it would require 4,506 five story buildings by 2030 and 9,013 five story buildings by 2040.
40 X
You could increase the height of these building to 40 stories which would then require only 1,078 buildings by 2030 and 2,156 buildings by 2040.
Now that is manageable. That would require most cities to produce 100 buildings at an average of 40 stories high. Do you think Palo Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City or even San Mateo is going to allow 100 hundred buildings into their city that are 400ft tall? That would be 200 buildings that are 400ft tall by 2014.
If you cut the living space in half back to 1973 levels it would require 4,506 five story buildings by 2030 and 9,013 five story buildings by 2040.
That would still turn the Peninsula into New York City. That would turn the Peninsula from a semi-urban very green environment into a sea of steel and glass that blots out the sun and the view of your precious green belt.
That would destroy the quality of life that the people currently enjoy in the bay area. And your greenbelt will not offset this horrendous quality of life.
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments/Plan Bay Area:
Approximately 350,000 jobs will be added to the central bay area over the next 10 years and 700,000 over the next 20 years.
Approximately 350,000 housing unites will be added to the central bay area over the next 10 years and 700,000 over the next 20 years.
The population will increase by another 1 million over the next 10 years and 2 million over the next 20 years.
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/pdf/files/files10300.pdf
New US homes today are 1,000 square feet larger than in 1973 and living space per person has nearly doubled
Over the last 42 years the average new US home and the average median-size house has increased by 1,000 square feet.
Over the last 42 years the average new US house has increased from an average size of 1,660 square feet in 1973 to 2,687 square feet in 2015.
The median-size house has increased from 1,525 square feet in 1973 to 2,467 in 2015.
Both have increased in size by 62% since 1973.
From 1973 to 2015, over the last 42 years, the average household size declined from 3.01 persons per household to a new record low of 2.54 persons per household.
The living space in 1973 per person was 507 square feet for a median size house.
The living space in 2015 per person is 971 square feet for a median size house.
The living space in 1973 per person was 551 square feet for an average size house.
The living space in 2015 per person is 1,058 square feet.
Living space has increased 92% since 1973 while number of people living in a home has decreased by 15%.
Factor in that since the 1980s California has built less than 50% of the homes required every year for 40 years that meet demand boom you have a housing crisis of unprecedented proportions.
Texas has an area of 7.3 trillion, (7,304,140,800,000) sq.ft.
If you divide that by 7.7 billion people you get 948.5 sq.ft per person.
4 people to a household you get 3,794 sq.ft. which is enough space for a two story home that takes up 1,000 sq. ft. of land leaving 2,794 sq. ft. for a yard.
http://www.aei.org/publication/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-living-space-per-person-has-nearly-doubled/
https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/pdf/c25ann2015.pdf