New data shows that Bay Area housing increased by only 14,900 new units in 2017, less than 30 percent of the number of new jobs in the region during the same period, according to data released by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments.
The number of new housing units, mostly apartments and condominiums, was much less than the 52,700 new jobs estimated by the California Employment Development Department to have been added in the nine-county Bay Area last year.
The imbalance highlights the region’s “housing crunch” and reinforces its position as one of the nation’s most expensive places to live, MTC officials said.
Other findings show that permits for single family homes have stagnated since 2008, while multifamily units like apartment buildings have nearly doubled to 15,000 in 2016 from 8,000 units in 2009. Multifamily housing accounted for 70 percent of the 21,000 units permitted by Bay Area municipalities in 2016.
The data is part of the Vital Signs initiative by the MTC and ABAG that monitors the region’s progress toward reaching key environmental, transportation, land use, and economic policy goals. More information on housing production data and other findings can be found at vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov.
Three times as many new jobs in town as new homes? Even I can do that math. Local families in big trouble.
Does anyone think it’s ironic that the title of this article is “slow housing production” instead of “overheated office development”?
The city is built out – where do you expect any “new Housing”? What we are seeing is single level homes being bought and converted into two story homes. The real estate sales info shows a lot of sales in homes so that should count for something – an update to the tax base for the property to current market value. Maybe that should be part of the calculation. But what ABAG really wants is the conversion of the single family home owned by an individual to a multi-story condo that is owned by a corporation.
According to this report, there is a massive amount of available office space available for lease in San Jose and Santa Clara:
https://www.avisonyoung.us/documents/8163360/18907323/Q1+2018+Silicon+Valley+Office+Market+Report.pdf/8c5abe72-5c75-4c14-9512-4868a6b3c2df?t=-636218302
Yet, for some reason, we keep building new space in Palo Alto. We don’t want it. We don’t need it. We don’t have the transportation capability to support it. Companies that need massive space should just locate in San Jose or Santa Clara.
Back to the topic of home ownership. There is no space for the building of additional living spaces. So add to the calculation the turn over in home ownership which is producing the same or better cash flow to the city, county, and state. ABAG’s agenda needs to be broadened to encompass all of the real estate transactions that are available all of the time in the papers and your mail box for local realtors. Someone needs to look into their agenda and funding. Are they worth it? Don’t think so – houses are turning over all of the time and new residences are being built on available land.
We bought 4BR/2.5B house in Palo Alto and rent out rooms. 4 bunk beds in each room sleeps 4 people sometimes 6 if they share. Everyone uses the kitchen to prepare their own food. 5 people sleep in garage.
4 people X 4 bedrooms = 16 tenants who pay $800.00 per month + utilities and secured internet. Garage people pay $600.00 each.
Make over $15,000.00 per month in rent. Workers glad to have room. Just like in China.
QUOTE: 4 bunk beds in each room sleeps 4 people sometimes 6 if they share…5 people sleep in garage…Just like in China.
*Counting my blessings*
@Husuing — I’m not sure if you are real or if you are trolling. The name indicates trolling (pun anyone?). But if you are real…
I applaud you on your entrepreneurialism. You see a need, and you are meeting it.
It’s not clear to me that what you are doing is legal. Fire codes come to mind. You might want to check on that. I am sure you want to provide a safe environment for your 20+ tenants.
I am curious if your tenants bike (where do they put their bikes?) or drive (where do they put their cars?)
Which gets me to the main point, which is that Palo Alto was not designed for housing like this. Palo Alto was designed with codes that provide for off-street parking, plenty of park space and school space, a limited number of cars per street, etc. That is why people living here used to enjoy such a nice quality of life. It was a well planned community, with plenty of resources.
But over the last 20 years, we have over-developed office space, and cannot house the workers, and cannot house anyone affordably. We need to choose a direction. One direction is the one you are pursuing, which is to move in the direction of China or Hong Kong, namely to densify, adding many more people without adding much in terms of resources. Some of us think that would alter Palo Alto irretrievably for the worse, so we are looking at other options for correcting the jobs/housing imbalance, and to ensure that where housing is added, the requisite resources are added as well. When we moved and invested our lives and work in Palo Alto, we did not anticipate a “hostile takeover” of high-density lovers.
We’ll see how it pans out.
I know the solution! Let’s pass rent control!
Because builders who can’t make a profit will stop building.
I sometimes wonder if the rent-control crowd joins up with the “we have no housing “ crowd and figures out the dumbest path to gridlock…
QUOTE: It’s not clear to me that what you are doing is legal. Fire codes come to mind. You might want to check on that. I am sure you want to provide a safe environment for your 20+ tenants.
I was thinking the same thing…in terms of maximum occupancy ordinances.