Mountain View moves forward with 9,100-unit housing option next to Google

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/techflash/2015/11/9100-housing-units-google-lnkd-intu-msft-goog.html

by apsec112 • 11 years ago

113 112 11 years ago

kiba• 11 years ago

Finally! Somebody did the sensible move of adding more housings in urban areas.

ojbyrne• 11 years ago

The article isn't quite as positive as the headline makes it sound - it includes the statement that "it's not all going to be built."

But it's still good.

bobsky• 11 years ago

Local elections matter. You can make real impact.

'A quick backstory: More than a year ago, a previous city council approved a plan for the North Bayshore that allowed up to 3.4 million square feet of net-new office space, but no housing. That stirred passions from housing advocates who said approving such massive job growth without adding nearby housing aggravated the Bay Area's commute patterns and encouraged suburban sprawl... Voters agreed, and a pro-housing council majority was voted into office last November' http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/11/06/mountain-...

mc322• 11 years ago

It's a start but bay area cities and towns need to realize that as industry and jobs and income grow they will have to grow too (or face increasing housing shortages). This is not the 50s and 60's leafy suburbs anymore. It's an agglomeration and needs to build up --at least along the Camino Real. Allow high density housing and build rapid transit. Allow mixed use development.

Johnny5554• 11 years ago

True, they need to more than just build housing -- if they want people to get out of their cars and on transit and bikes, they need to build first-class Bike and Pedestrian facilities.

Too often think that all they need to do is build housing and collect property taxes and their job is done, and they ignore the fact that most of the residents are continuing to drive everywhere.

runamok• 11 years ago

Yup. I'm a mountain view resident and the city council election was essentially a proxy vote on housing. It is true that you will not be able to please everyone but allowing only office space to be built is clearly a mistake.

http://mv-voice.com/news/2014/11/04/showalter-rosenberg-and-...

capkutay• 11 years ago

This.

We need the same level of public support for housing in San Francisco too. You would be surprised by how bad they are zoning transportation rich areas like SoMa and the mission. Heights are for the most part restricted to 40ft around Caltrain and BART stops.

kevan• 11 years ago

One of the biggest reasons I'm hesitant to move to the valley is the housing situation, things like this are great to hear.

j_h_s• 11 years ago

This is not going to make a dent in prices. It would take developments of similar scale in every municipality in the region to begin to address the problem.

forrestthewoods5• 11 years ago

Once upon a tech TechCrunch did an amazing write-up on San Fran housing issues. One of my favorite points was the following cascaded issue caused my rent control.

1) Rent control keeps rent prices down 2) This leads to matching controlled property tax 3) This incentivizes small cities to prefer uncontrolled commercial zoning over controlled residential. 4) Which means smaller cities have way too much commercial space and not nearly enough residental.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to artificially constrain rents. Wait. I think I did that wrong. Ah well. Close enough!

w1ntermute• 11 years ago

I think this is the piece you're referring to: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

simoncion16• 11 years ago

You have #1 and #2 inverted.

Prop 13 happened first. After rents failed to stabilize [0], Rent Stabilization ordinances were enacted.

[0] One of the several arguments for Prop 13 was "Prop 13's enactment would keep rents in check, because increases in property valuations (and -thus- property taxes) are a significant contributor to spiralling rents.". Turns out that that argument was fabricated. :P

forrestthewoods5• 11 years ago

Oh wow. You're totally right. I feel quite silly now!

ghshephard2• 11 years ago

The fascinating thing about Prop 13 [1] is that the Property Taxes can only increase by 2%/year unless the property is sold, or there is a change of ownership of the entity that owns the property. But, if the property is purchased by a group, and no member of that group owns more than 50%, then members of the group can change, and the property tax is never reset to market rates.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...

kspaans4• 11 years ago

Devil's advocate: you think your landlord should be allowed to double your rent at the end of your lease? (If they can choose to not continue the lease and evict you, I guess it's the same thing.) In Ontario, for example, there is essentially an inflation-adjusted rate that landlords are allowed to increase their rent by every year (http://www.landlordselfhelp.com/RentIncreaseGuideline.htm) without prior approval. I'm sure there are many flavours of rent control, tilting either towards landlords or tenants.

forrestthewoods5• 11 years ago

Of course I do. You had a lease for a negotiated price for a year. That year ended. Now you can negotiate a new price based on current market conditions.

A co-worker got tired of moving every year due several years in a row of homeowners wanted to sell their house when his lease ended. So he asked to sign a two year lease. The homeowner said no. Then he offered an extra $200 a month and two years. And the homeowner said yes. Voila!

I work at a small company (<20) and we're looking for new office space. For some locations we can lock-in a pretty good price if we're willing to sign a 5-year lease.

hueving• 11 years ago

you think your landlord should be allowed to double your rent at the end of your lease?

Of course! It's not your house/apartment and that's the entire point of the lease having a predetermined length.

mcpherrinm• 11 years ago

If the market rate for your apartment is double what you're paying (the landlord wouldn't double your rent if they couldn't get anyone to take it), you're trapped in that apartment: You presumably can't get any other place, because they're all double the price you pay.

  Thus the landlord has no motivation to keep you there, and your landlord can screw you over in any number of ways without worrying about losing tenants -- because that's good for them!

  I used to think rent control was good, but the more I think about it, I worry about trapped tenants who can't get out of their situation financially.

Thus I believe we need to worry about controlling the other factors in housing pricing, so that people can afford market rate, which surely includes making enough supply available at all rates: Luxury condos through to places minimum wage workers can afford.

simoncion16• 11 years ago

Something that I've learned: HN reacts really poorly to Devil's Advocate positions.

It's almost as if it doesn't understand the point of the practice. ;)

raldi3• 11 years ago

Yes; their right to do so might be the very thing that holds the rent down in the first place. If you're a landlord considering making a deal for a good tenant in a slump year, or making a deal to keep a good tenant despite a chance to capitalize on rising market rates, wouldn't you be more likely go for it if you know you have the option of changing your mind a year later? If you're instead making a possibly decades-long commitment, are you not much more likely to squeeze out every penny on that crucial day of initial lease-signing?

skybrian• 11 years ago

I guess Ontario's policy is okay if you think taking 30 years to double the rent is reasonable. I don't. There should be plenty of time to move out, but rents should reach market rate.

Maybe 7% a year (double in ten years) would be reasonable.

Ankaios• 11 years ago

Mountain View doesn't have rent control.

forrestthewoods5• 11 years ago

Mountain View is part of a ecosystem that does. And they're covered by prop 13 which is what directly incentivizes commercial over residential.

khuey2• 11 years ago

The preference for commercial zoning is a quirk of California law. California cities are allowed to tax people based on where they work, but not where they sleep. Payroll taxes are fine but income taxes are forbidden by state law.

Johnny5554• 11 years ago

Few small cities in the Bay Area have rent control ordnances, including Mountain View, which is the city that originally wanted Google to build all new offices and no residences. So no,it's not Rent Control that is driving commercial-only zoning restrictions. Perhaps it's the fact that commercial office tenants pay property taxes, but require few city services in return -- no schools, limited police and/or fire services, little demand for parks or recreational activities, etc.

Even in SF, only buildings built prior to 1979 are covered under rent control rent restrictions, so rent control wouldn't affect new zoning decisions.

raldi3• 11 years ago

Mountain View currently has 75,000 residents. It will be interesting to see if all these new voters kick off a pro-housing virtuous cycle.

Something similar happened in Loudoun County, VA circa 2000-2007.

nostrademons• 11 years ago

I've thought for a while that the most likely long-term solution to the "Millenials want to live in the city but work for all these South Bay tech companies" reverse-commute problem is that Mountain View will densify until its residents live in the city.

chipsy• 11 years ago

I'm a bit concerned about building up SV since it has a largely unresolved legacy of buried toxic waste...an irony standing in direct contradiction to the extreme desirability and real estate prices of today.

I mean, it's not that we aren't facing that problem already, but adding population may make it harder to resolve.

md_exile3• 11 years ago

... and it's in many ways been an unmitigated disaster.

I'm pro-housing but this is a poor comparison. The difference is that apart from a few large employers most people in Loudoun, VA commute to the larger employment centers of Fairfax and DC.

raldi3• 11 years ago

Why do you say it was a disaster? I used to live there, and I've been back a few times since, and the place has always seemed to be thriving to me.

Yes, people there drive too much, but that's true across 99% of the United States.

Edited to add some Wikipedia quotes:

Since 2008 the county has been ranked first in the United States in median household income among jurisdictions with a population of 65,000 or more ... Having undergone heavy suburbanization since 1990, Loudoun has a full-fledged service economy. It is home to world headquarters for several Internet-related and high tech companies, including Verizon Business, Telos Corporation, Orbital Sciences Corporation, and Paxfire. Like Fairfax County's Dulles Corridor, Loudoun County has economically benefited from the existence of Washington Dulles International Airport, the majority of which is located in the county along its border with Fairfax ... [MCI] announced that it would move its headquarters to Ashburn in 2003.

sliverstorm• 11 years ago

That certainly would be nice- but another possibility is pull-the-ladder-up-behind-you NIMBY-ism.

rahimnathwani4• 11 years ago

If the new units are primarily owner-occupied, NIMBY-ism is a risk. If the new units' residents are renters on 1-year leases, they would probably vote for ever increasing supply.

chipotle_coyote• 11 years ago

I confess I've wondered how many of the San Francisco residents loudly blaming the influx of tech workers/startups for the spiraling housing costs there, and (2) moved to the SF Bay Area during the first dotcom rush.

TulliusCicero• 11 years ago

This is great news, but they really need more than 9k units up there, especially as they'll continue to add more office space. Now that there's a pro-housing city council, I wonder if some of the existing low-density office buildings could be redeveloped to be taller and mixed-use.

zavi• 11 years ago

How are they going to build on Google's land? Will Google own the housing?

umeshunni• 11 years ago

I don't think this is a Google's land. This (better) article has a map which shows it being along Shoreline blvd: http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2015/11/11/city-opts-to-max-out...

dgacmu• 11 years ago

Most of that main pink area is existing Google buildings. Regardless - housing in that area will be awesome. (There are quite a few other companies with buildings in the same area, dotted in with the google buildings.) Add some nearby grocery and shopping capabilities, and the planned improvements for biking in the area, ... huge improvement to the traffic and automotive pollution situation.

tobico• 11 years ago

Good. Building up is the way to go. Here in Melbourne, >30-story apartment towers have become the norm, and it's succeeded in slowing the rise of housing prices in the inner city quite a bit. I also think it's helping to delay our transportation crisis.

matt4711• 11 years ago

Too bad there are no minimum size restrictions and all apartments in those 30-story towers are essentially shoe boxes.

prawn• 11 years ago

If people are buying them, then they're obviously OK with that trade-off.

zik• 11 years ago

Melbourne's possibly a bad example. Instead of keeping housing prices down Melbourne has some of the highest housing costs in the world. The new apartments are poorly made and often don't even meet building regulations. The lack of social infrastructure such as shops etc. is so bad that it's cited worldwide as an example of how to do it wrong. And half of the apartments are empty, sold to overseas investors who bought them for capital increase and who have left them unoccupied.

Basically it's a complete planning disaster. Let's hope the Mountain View development is better planned than that.

FullyFunctional2• 11 years ago

As a Mnt View resident myself, I strongly applaud this, but am disappointed that families got the short end. I get that the media age at Google is low, but I bet that a short commute is disproportionately important to parents.

jfim• 11 years ago

How have families received the short end?

Having more units for singles/couples will lower the pressure on 3BR+ apartments; I know a few people staying in large apartments in SF as it's the most rational decision to minimize rent on a per-tenant basis.

FullyFunctional2• 11 years ago

That is certainly true, but it's not clear to me if that effect is better than just creating [some] 3BR+ apartments as part of this. Regardless, there's no debate that this development is a good thing overall.

Animats• 11 years ago

Dorms next to the trailer park. Figures.

Maybe they could also take over the Microsoft buildings next to the bus yard. Microsoft cut staff at that location a few years ago.

intrasight2• 11 years ago

What does "pro-housing" mean? Isn't everyone who lives in a house pro-housing?

jdminhbg• 11 years ago

It means "pro-new-housing" generally. So someone who lives in a house they own in a desirable neighborhood that other people would like to build in would not be "pro-housing" by that colloquial definition.

SCAQTony• 11 years ago

That is incomprehensibly dense. 500-acres is .78-square-miles and to drop 9,000 people in there would be like living in Tokyo.

The largest cities in the world by land area, population and density:

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-...

psyklic• 11 years ago

Not necessarily. For individuals who want to live close to work and rent condos/apartments it could work out well (e.g. young professionals just out of college). For example, West Hollywood is ranked as the most walkable city in California (by Walkscore), has a population density of ~19000 people/sqmi, is ~60% individual households, and ~80% of the housing is rented.

khuey2• 11 years ago

Brooklyn's population density is ~37k ppl/sq mi. This is not incomprehensibly dense.

et2o• 11 years ago

Manhattan's population density is around 70,000/square mile. This is pretty low, comparably.

beambot• 11 years ago

Given Google's audacious projects, I expect housing designs similar to classic SimCity arcologies: http://imgur.com/4k7csZg

rajacombinator• 11 years ago

Sounds like a huge win for the Bay Area. Now just rinse and repeat about 100 times ...

kushti• 11 years ago

"Access To Website Blocked"

Maybe because I'm using an ads blocker?

Mountain View moves forward with 9,100-unit housing option next to Google

Related Stories