Addressing the housing crisis

stick n move

Superstar
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
11,113
Reaction score
15,004
So there is a thread about addressing the housing shortage in Boston, in the design a better Boston forum, but not a general nationwide catch all thread to post this in. I figured there might as well be a thread to post what is happening in other cities, and what is/isnt working. Heres a good one from the sf chronicle:

How the city of Sacramento found a solution to California’s affordable housing crisis​

480x0.webp


“Don’t look now, but Sacramento is solving the affordable housing crisis.

No, I’m not talking about state Sen. Scott Wiener and the important progresshappening at the state Capitol. I mean the city of Sacramento, where a deliberate effort to stoke a dense, infill housing boom is creating affordability before our eyes.

Rents in Sacramento are falling faster than any other large city in California even as it remains the most popular relocation destination in the country. The median rent is approximately half San Francisco’s. Right now you can find an apartment that is affordable for lower-income people, at least according to the government definition of roughly $1,000 to $1,500 for a one-bedroom, at market rates (it’s true, check Zillow). A prime location studio listed for $1,400 last year is just over $1,100 today.

True, $1,100 a month is still unaffordable for many people. But it’s progress. And unlike other cities, that decline has nothing to do with an exodus (again, the Sacramento region is the fastest-growing in California).

Instead, this affordability comes from a deliberate choice by city leaders to pursue a “more of everything” housing strategy. Yes, more subsidized, affordable housing. But also more higher-end housing with the amenities some renters are looking for — swimming pools and dog showers and so on.

To make this happen, the city also took a “more of everything” approach to reform, including upzoning in key corridors, more flexible standards, relatively low development fees, eliminating parking requirements and dozens of other incremental improvements that add up to big changes in how much it costs to build housing.

Above all, Sacramento changed its apartment building approval process from a political one — with approvals by elected officials, as in San Francisco — to what’s called a “ministerial” process, with decisions made impartially by planning staff. If a proposed building complies with the code, it’s approved automatically. This way, project decisions aren’t political or swayed by the loudest voices; they’re made fairly and in accordance with the city’s housing goals.

As a result, Sacramento is now building more housing per capita than any other region in California (to be clear, we’re still way behind national leaders like Austin, Texas, but a lot of that is California-wide limitations like anti-sprawl efforts and building costs). This boom is ongoing even as lower rents make it less profitable for developers to build….”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...to-california-affordable-housing-18663865.php
 
That's because Sacramento is in the middle of nowhere. It'd be like saying Springfield would be a solution to Boston's high housing prices.
 
Without any data to back this up, I'd wager that Hartford, Worcester, Springfield, etc building up and becoming more vibrant would make them more attractive to young professionals and help relax the huge demand on Boston housing.
 
That's because Sacramento is in the middle of nowhere. It'd be like saying Springfield would be a solution to Boston's high housing prices.

I’m not sure what you mean. The article didnt say sacramento is solving san franciscos housing crisis, it said sacramento is lowering rents in sacramento by building more housing. The title is a little click batey but then it immediately says “No, I’m not talking about state Sen. Scott Wiener and the important progress happening at the state Capitol. I mean the city of Sacramento, where a deliberate effort to stoke a dense, infill housing boom is creating affordability before our eyes.

Rents in Sacramento are falling faster than any other large city in California even as it remains the most popular relocation destination in the country. The median rent is approximately half San Francisco’s.”
 
even as it remains the most popular relocation destination in the country.

Dunno about that but I have heard that some Techbros have gone there. Same deal as people here going to NH/ME/RI... they are in search of cheaper SFH as long they remain WFH.

I could see some renting because they didn't expect WFH to last but just wanted to get out of the Bay Area to save some cash for the time being. If rents are falling in Sacramento I'd say it's more likely because of some amount of RTO than anything else. The people who bought would be stuck.
 
Above all, Sacramento changed its apartment building approval process from a political one — with approvals by elected officials, as in San Francisco — to what’s called a “ministerial” process, with decisions made impartially by planning staff. If a proposed building complies with the code, it’s approved automatically. This way, project decisions aren’t political or swayed by the loudest voices; they’re made fairly and in accordance with the city’s housing goals.

As a result, Sacramento is now building more housing per capita than any other region in California (to be clear, we’re still way behind national leaders like Austin, Texas, but a lot of that is California-wide limitations like anti-sprawl efforts and building costs). This boom is ongoing even as lower rents make it less profitable for developers to build….”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...to-california-affordable-housing-18663865.php

There's a broadly similar thing happening in Los Angeles right now: Dec. 2022 executive order from the mayor sets a 60-day "shot clock" for the city planning department to OK or reject a proposed project w/ no neighborhood meetings. Combined with local law that doesn't require union wages for these types of projects and state and local density bonuses for 100% affordable housing, a bunch of private-sector developers have proposed ~16,000 new units in the last 12 months that are fully affordable (for middle-class incomes) and completely unsubsidized.

 
That's because Sacramento is in the middle of nowhere. It'd be like saying Springfield would be a solution to Boston's high housing prices.
That's not a reasonable comparison. Sacramento, as political capital for the 5th largest economy in the world is a pretty significant city compared to Springfield. Yes, it's not in the main population concentrations, but it's fairly large in its own right. The city population is not far from 600,000, and the metro is about 2 million. Apples and oranges.
 
as political capital for the 5th largest economy in the world

That's because of Tech Companies and Wall Street's obsession with them.

Speaking of Wall Street, Albany is a good comparison. Nobody would claim much about Albany.
 
That's because of Tech Companies and Wall Street's obsession with them.

Speaking of Wall Street, Albany is a good comparison. Nobody would claim much about Albany.
Utter nonsense. California's economy is highly diverse, and was one of the largest in the world long before any of several tech bubbles came along. Albany gets a lot less attention because the state of New York is not as big, and Albany itself is less significant of a city.
 
Utter nonsense. California's economy is highly diverse,

OK, so I am exaggerating a little bit.

As it relates to this thread... saying "Go to Sacramento" as some sort of solution to the Bay Area's high housing prices is absurd. Same thing here... going to Springfield, Worcester, Lowell... is not a solution.
 
As it relates to this thread... saying "Go to Sacramento" as some sort of solution to the Bay Area's high housing prices is absurd.
Is somebody saying that? I've seen the suggestion that Sacramento might have favorable policies worth considering in other cities. Not sure anybody here in Boston thinks moving to Sacramento is the solution.
 
Providence's housing situation affects Boston's. So does Portland's, Hartford's, and even Burlington VT's. That because there are plenty of people who live in/near Boston, struggling with housing prices, who would (and do) consider moving to those places because they are cities that don't require moving away from their New England roots. It's not a solution, it's just a factor worth talking about. Same with SF and Sacramento.
 
I'm not entirely sure how this isn't bigger news, but statewide apparently there's ~2200 state subsidized housing units that are sitting vacant because of an inability to manage a wait-list. 2200 units in of itself represents several decently large developments worth of housing stock that isn't being used. and in the midst of a housing and refugee crisis, that's hardly acceptable. Yes, some portion of those are probably offline for good reasons like habitability issues, but they can and should be fixed.
 
What a horrible story. Appropriated grant funding to bring new units online stuck in the lurch, dubious screening methods leaving single moms homeless, vacant units being converted to non housing or just sitting vacant. Hope this gets picked up more broadly and the Healey administration feels some heat.
 
I realize the law is a bit clunky, and some work needs to be done to improve it, I do support the ultimate goal. However, could the MBTA simply say "If you don't follow our new law, you lose your train station?
 
I realize the law is a bit clunky, and some work needs to be done to improve it, I do support the ultimate goal. However, could the MBTA simply say "If you don't follow our new law, you lose your train station?

Not all the towns have train stations, for example Holden. A lot of these towns would probably love to make that trade tho regardless.
 

Back
Top