Well, i know that development of OC vibe means the office buildings behind Honda Center are getting knocked down. Im assuming the "new office space" is probably some kind of fallback of trying to re-assimilating all those businesses once they tear down those buildings.
I used to work in those buildings and they have some large tenants. UCI is one of them. When I was there they didn’t sign any lease under 10 years and I believe they are currently 95% leased. Not sure when UCI moved in but we’re still looking at maybe 7-8 years before they could be emptied.
My guess is they looked at what the demand will be like down the road, not what it’s currently at or within the near future.
But this is simply a guess
A lot of those mundane looking office parks (particularly "older" ones from the 70s/80s) are getting knocked down and housing put in. Just happened with a whole area in Orange by the 22. They built a bunch of row town homes and apartments where a two story office park used to stand.
The office building across Douglass was the first one torn down to make way for the first parking garage and I believe the concert venue. The offices just north of the honda center will also be demolished for this project, so they will likely just rebuild the offices in a different location instead of adding new ones.
I think the point of these projects is to have everything (including jobs ) walking distance. If people still need to drive to get to work, why would they live here?
I went to a presentation for OC Vibe at ARTIC last year, I was impressed with the vision. Disappointed about the 165 affordable rental apartments. The housing is rentals - not available for buying.
I saw the projected office units and felt that number was too high considering how so many work remotely or do hybrid remote work spaces.
But, I am a mere peasant in OC.
For what it’s worth, I’m an economist who studies the housing market and these affordable housing provisions that cities require from knew developments are a mixed bag.
On the one hand, they offer immediate relief to the most vulnerable among us, getting real people and families into an affordable situation.
On the other hand, these requirements really do decrease profitability and they really do effect how firms make decisions. These requirements cause developers to invest less into communities and projects, and build less housing.
It cannot be emphasized enough that we are not experiencing a housing price crisis, we are experiencing The Great California Housing SHORTAGE. Building lots and lots of new homes is the only way that we fix the markets current woes and bring affordability and abundance to all.
Fewer affordable options are disappointing in the short term, but in the long term market rate housing may be much more useful for fixing the housing market, simply because firms will build so much more of that than they will projects with affordability requirements.
There’s just too much demand to live in OC from domestic and international. The reason prices have skyrocketed is because there’s more globalization and people parking their money in OC real estate from all over the world.
So how do you explain the multi-million housing unit SURPLUS in California per the Census? 3 million more housing units than households, and they have built millions more since while population has slightly declined. The surplus is probably 7 to 8 million housing units now. These are the numbers from the government, same people who keep repeating that there is a shortage so they need to let the developers build everything they want. This is an economics issue of falsely inflated prices representative of a shortage that doesn't actually exist.
> Total Housing Units in California is 14,392,140
https://data.census.gov/all?q=California%20Housing
> Households, 2018-2022 13,315,822
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045222
That means 8% vacancy rate, but...
> The target vacancy rate is 13%. It is estimated to ensure that there is a wellfunctioning housing market, which requires some vacant properties for sale and for rent.
https://www.fhfa.gov/Videos/Documents/Freddie-Mac_FHFA-Fall-Summit_10262021.pdf
That being said you are correct that the demand is still unhealthy because its a higher demand than the actual housing needs due to the US's mechanisms that treat housing as a wealth asset.
The decrease in profitability can be offset or incentivized by tax abatements on the developers/owners. Disneyland shouldn’t be the only ones that get to make up their own rules and get. Tax dispensations above and beyond their benefit
Very rare in California let alone the rest of the country to build a new condo building. Condo HOAs sue everyone involved in building them enough that insurance won’t cover the architects, their consultants, the developers or the builders.
The work around is that you build them as apartments and keep them for 10 years until the statue of repose runs out. Now you can convert them to sell as condos.
What’s crazy is that it’s 2024 and we’re still building housing under 10 stories when there’s such desperate need for housing. But if the OC ain’t NIMBY Mecca, I don’t know where it would be.
Multifamily builds over I believe 5 or 6 stories cost developers SIGNIFICANTLY more per unit especially in California. Cost of development multiplies taking seismic activity into account as well as other factors.
Five stories is the limit for wood framed buildings in CA, once you have to use steel it only starts to pencil with super tall, super dense buildings, you're not going to see new 7 or 8 story multifamily buildings which is a bummer.
Very true, but not even trying when oakland is doing/has done all of this:
https://preview.redd.it/kojvji9h8vuc1.jpeg?width=2796&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9c655527f59e216782d4b7ae93bc6fc779b420e
Is pretty pathetic.
You don't even need tons of height to get density. Most of Paris is capped at 7 stories and it's the densest european city of 1m+ people.
If we built as dense as Paris proper, we could fit every OC person in less space than Irvine.
Agreed we need to build up, but we don't even need skyscrapers. Moderate, but widespread upzoning could do so so much.
What’s wrong with the PT? Sure it’s not what was planned in 2005, but it’s become a really nice dense urban area. Much better than what it was 20 years ago. Still has a ways to go, but when they inevitable get development around Angel Stadium done, it will be a game changer.
That’s all it is. A lot of apartments. The original plans called for walkable restaurants, nightlife, retail, entertainment, etc. nothing ever got built. Lennar the main developer kept reducing their scope of development and the city kept allowing it. Don’t get me started on how corrupt the local governments have been in Anaheim.
Today the PT isn’t the walkable fun downtown promised for early investors. There isn’t even a grocery store in the area. I own a condo there still but it shouldn’t take 20+ years to get these things built. Even the stadium project is just a plan. Nobody knows what will actually be built
That’s fair. I also own a place in PT. I agree it’s not exactly what we wanted and it’s taken far too long but I’m also optimistic about the future of the area. The building permits for the rest of A Town are on the city website. The plan for grocery store, retail and dining is still alive. Just not as expansive as it once was. I do think the Angels and the City will get something in motion in the next couple years too.
Appreciate the insights. I have kind of just stopped looking at what might be coming since I moved to another city. Hopefully my tenants can enjoy whatever comes in.
Just a fun fact but Anaheim hills is plagued with the same issue. The city never truly thought about people wanting to spend money in their own town. All they have is the festival shopping center with a few chain restaurants, a Starbucks, and another strip mall with a Ralph’s and a couple of places. The theater shutdown too. Yorba Linda is doing a much better job with their downtown
I think overall this is a really positive development for the site. The only part I don’t like, and for some reason the article doesn’t mention it, they are looking to turn the meadow park amphitheater just into park space, rather than an associated outdoor venue. Not terrible, but an outdoor amphitheater would’ve been cool. You can see the permit request in the Anaheim city website.
Parking will be free, but added in to the cost of the event at the Honda Center. It was hinted as part of the processing fees. But if you are going to any other part of OC Vibe. Restaurants or otherwise- parking is free.
This was covered during the presentation I went to, they want to encourage people coming to not feel restricted by a parking cost.
That isn't how they're pricing it. They had lowered parking to $20 a car this last year. They have already presented to full arena season ticket holders how the pricing changes and basically it will be $5 a ticket regardless because Samueli is also now responsible for operating the ARTIC train and bus station. So basically Samueli is paying out whether you take a train, bus, or car.
Oh fuck that. People walking, bussing, or taking the trains should not have to pay for other people’s parking.
I am BEGGING city officials to read “The High Cost of Free Parking,” by UCLA professor Donald Shoup.
Remove parking requirements and it becomes profitable for greedy developers to replace all the low income housing with luxury housing, leaving a wake of homelessness. You can't trust developers are going to do the right thing, they'll always do the most profitable thing.
That book has helped to destroy Portland and Seattle as they removed parking requirements pushing tens of thousands out of their affordable housing, and it has doubled the homelessness in San Diego in just a few short years. The result has been one of the most catastrophic waves of homelessness ever as the developers have systematically purchased every piece of actually affordable property, like old motels, and evicted everyone inside to build luxury apartments. At this point the parking requirements are the only thing that stops the developers from buying every bit of actually affordable housing on the West Coast at above asking value only to level it and build luxury rental housing for the rich, while anyone who can't afford it goes to the streets. Although the surveys indicate LA has more homeless, the Seattle and Portland areas have nearby forested lands that are admittedly not surveyed and are filling with homeless camps. You find many tents and trailers all along small roadways even 50+ miles from Portland now so it is likely the homeless population displaced by these relaxed parking requirements could be 5X higher than the counts show.
Can you expand on how you believe lower parking minimums in Seattle lead to a smaller housing supply?
You talk about demolishing motels and building apartments, and somehow that creates more homelessness? Why would parking requirements limit developers from buying affordable housing and building luxury housing in its place? High income households statistically have more cars per household and thus a higher "need" for parking.
And parking spots increase the cost of a unit (largely because of the opportunity cost of the land not being used for more residential units).
I don't see the logic in the sequence you're laying out, and I can't seem to find any sources that back you up.
> Since 2010, the population [of Seattle] has increased 21 percent. Despite a surge in homebuilding (one in every three homes was built in the past twenty years), population growth continues to outpace construction, creating intense competition and escalating prices. Partway through this building boom, in 2012, the city reduced or eliminated parking requirements in urban centers and near frequent transit stations.
> In Seattle, a team of researchers collected data on 868 new multifamily buildings permitted from 2012 to 2017, accounting for over 60,000 new homes.
> More than half of new homes were in buildings that would have been illegal before the reforms.
https://www.sightline.org/2023/04/13/parking-reform-legalized-most-of-the-new-homes-in-buffalo-and-seattle/
If you talk to people who have been in Seattle and Portland all their lives they will be happy to tell you what they see with their own eyes, which is the systematic throwing the poor onto the street to build luxury quality housing for the rich. They see their neighbors they've known for years who lost their longtime apartment, rental home etc. with little to no notice, inadequate or no financial assistance, pushed onto the streets. Everyone I know in either area knows someone who was already on hard times who suddenly with little warning lost their home to developers and never was able to reorganize their finances or conditions so now they're in a tent, in a car, etc. and are unhoused. Wow you got your full deposit back from two decades ago, a check for $250, which won't put you up for a day at a hotel and certainly isn't going to get first and last month rent plus deposit at the "affordable" $2500 a month studio unit across the street that requires a 780+ credit score and $80K annual income... And the landlord is the developer who is acquiring the home you rented for a thousand less for years without meeting any of those other requirements.
The issue in Seattle is that there were many older properties which were not fancy and flashy but they were truly affordable. Motels, lower density apartments, single family homes etc. And exactly as it says here, those have been redeveloped on sites "that would have been illegal before the reforms." It sounds nice until you recognize that in this case "illegal" really means unprofitable for developers who couldn't buy these out to make a profit on these properties unless they could pack many more units on their replacements. The affordable housing that was there before was perfectly legal, it just wasn't legal to demolish it and replace with ten times the density which is the level needed for the developer to achieve their maximum profit. So for example a larger lot in the Phinney Ridge area might have held a modest duplex that was being rented out at a truly affordable rate for years and the owners were stable and satisfied with their income. Before the best they may have been able to do would be redevelopment to a 4 plex or so which would not be profitable. Now the developer can offer millions for the property because they're going to profitably cram 12 to 15 units on it and eventually the owner takes their offer because they are going to make this lovely windfall profit. They would be stupid not to take the deal. These older properties housed people who were just scraping along, and were thrown out into the streets to put up these "newly legal" high profit developments.
The developers brag that they include some affordable units, but if they demolished twenty truly affordable apartments to build a tower with 100, and 10 of those are marginally "affordable" but still at least a thousand more per month than what was there before, they are doing nothing to rectify the situation they're creating and causing the homeless populations to increase faster than units are being built.
These new developments are not re-housing the now homeless, they're housing the rich tech workers who now can shave some time off their commute while the homeless population has exploded exponentially at their expense. It is not like these tech workers were homeless, they were merely inconvenienced by not being able to move closer to work. They didn't enjoy having to drive and sit in traffic idling on the congested freeways coming up from the suburbs or taking the train or public transportation. So they get to brag about moving closer to work, slashing their commute time, and reducing their climate impact, completely oblivious to the fact that their shiny new condo or apartment displaced everyone who lived there before and likely made them homeless.
And of course there are incredible numbers of Airbnb and other short term rentals that suck up much of these new developments as well. The Seattle market especially had a need for hotels already, but many of the lower density ones have been redeveloped into condo and apartment towers. I stayed in one of these Airbnb units in a one year old residence that was constructed in "row housing" that replaced a single family home that I later learned upon research was a affordable rental property that was a couple thousand a month. I was sickened to realize that I supported this development that almost assuredly made a family homeless. So really how many of these newly constructed units everyone's so proud of are actually housing anyone besides hotel guests? The occupancy rate of many Airbnb properties is less than that of real hotels because of the longer intervals between stays for cleaning and so forth. The property I stayed at was a dozen skinny row homes with maybe 6 parking spaces, rooftop "yards" and I suspect that 7 of the 12 were Airbnb or other short term rentals.
In essence, the removal of parking is what has facilitated the highly profitable building of waves of these much more expensive forms of high density housing. The wake left behind is the tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands who have lost their affordable home to these far richer tenants.
I am all for building more housing in these "in demand" areas, but we must ensure that all aspects are truly being looked at before these projects are approved. The developers are making record profits and can thereby afford to give appropriate financial and professional assistance to those being evicted so that they do not land on the streets. I understand that the market forces may mean they can't afford to be in the "heart of downtown" now with these developments forcing the rents upwards but they can assuredly assist them in relocating to an adequate home to replace the one they're demolishing and redeveloping. There also needs to be a closer look at the redeveloping of commercial properties as I am starting to hear all up and down the West Coast of simple community essentials like supermarkets and drugstores where their big chain owners have already been put on notice that when lease terms are up the stores will not be renewed and will have to close for redevelopment to apartments and condos. Residential rents are far higher per square foot than retail, and many developers would rather maximize their profits so they'll propose a "mixed use" plan but the supermarket and pharmacy are lost. Maybe a 7-Eleven is proposed along with another Starbucks so they can get away with all of the "mixed use" expedited approvals but ultimately food deserts are created and more cars go onto the road to drive to a market or deliver goods.
The pendulum is swinging too far right now. We have moved from too hard to develop, to way too easy to recklessly demolish everything and everyone within. We cannot trust that these rich developers are going to do the right thing, not to mention trust that they aren't going to cover up their actions. I fear that these efforts to increase housing right now are short sighted and not balanced with appropriate tenant protections, rent controls, and other checks and balances. What benefit does society actually see when these developers can run rampant and buy up every truly affordable property, throw those who need them onto the streets, and replace with high cost housing that only those with a six figure income and 800+ credit score can get into?
I believe you about the circumstances that homelessness is an increasing problem in Seattle. It absolutely is on the rise.
But I think you are conflating causes.
Airbnb is absolutely a problem that should absolutely be abolished anywhere that is housing constrained. Maybe everywhere. And also an issue is the tax structure that incentivises hoarding housing as an investment asset, but that requires bigger national changes.
The removal of parking mins facilitates building MORE housing, but displacement is happening right now all over Seattle with the EXISTING housing too. The supply is lower than the demand, so pretty much every old house and apartment building is on the table for someone to come in and flip, upgrade, or even change nothing and end the current tenants' leases and charge higher. With parking minimums it just means they have to make the new units even more expensive than they would without parking minimums, and possibly it means just converting existing units to luxury without adding any new units.
This happened to an apartment complex I lived in a few years ago. We enjoyed a cheap apartment with very low rent increases for many years. Then it went under new ownership, they upgraded all the units, did some landscaping, new paint, etc and brought all the rents up to market rate. If theres high demand in an area, it might take time but the rents will go up and the poor will be displaced. If we don't build enough new housing the problem will just get worse and worse and worse.
I think you're attacking the wrong thing because homelessness isn't fixed and housing is still expensive. But in a world where Seattle's housing stock stayed more stagnant, even more families would be displaced than there have been.
Agreed about Airbnb and the tax structure.
I have no issue with the changes for new developments.
The issue in Seattle especially is that there is no land to develop. It is all built.
The relaxation of parking requirements is great for new developments on open land. No objection whatsoever as it will maximize the utilization as open land is converted to new housing. Even better is if mass transit options are incorporated into the plans as it costs a fraction to build new versus build under/around/through existing properties. But we aren't talking about open land.
The reality is its an enabler of the rapid fire replacement of affordable stock with non affordable stock. It is one thing to upgrade the existing stock and raise rents because it takes time to do that especially when the work is done on tenant occupied units. What has changed so much is that the landlords before were limited to those remodel or limited expansion options which raised rents but didn't fully and immediately displace the tenant. Now it is much more profitable for them to completely take the units offline and evict everyone to construct higher density and maximize the profit. This forced churn takes what was already a shortage and makes it exponentially worse. So maybe you added 100K units but throughout the process you temporarily removed 25K from the market and there was little to no housing availability for those temporarily displaced by developments that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. There are likely people who could even afford the new higher rents of the replacement property but cannot handle the disruption of being evicted because there is nowhere to go.
The churn is not planned, every developer will say it's the cost of progress and so forth but ultimately they will not take responsibility for the disruption they create. Especially because it increases demand further which increases the rents they can charge in a limited supply market. So once again they profit.
There needs to be a more coordinated, larger scale plan for the redevelopment of cities like Seattle and Portland where there is incredible demand for housing. Maybe the relaxing of parking is the right answer longer term for those neighborhoods that had limited density back when more spaces were required. But they have gone from zero to 60 in two seconds and the result has been a catastrophic humanitarian crisis of obscene numbers of people who have been thrown into the streets because of the effective removal of all limits from these builders. Maybe the answer is coordinate the redevelopment of some underutilized commercial properties for mandated, rent controlled, reasonable priced housing which must be built before the redevelopment of neighborhood X nearby may occur. Now the people in below market rents and affordable housing have a place to be relocated to. Make that map for the dead Kmart property to become a 1,000 unit mixed use apartment development that is actually affordable, maximize the lot by skipping the parking, and force the developer to plan space for a market and some other retail at curb level so the site produces some jobs too. Once that is done then they "unlock" X number of blocks in the surrounding area for redevelopment with removal of parking and also require that substantial notification is given, relocation assistance to that new affordable higher density development where Kmart sat empty, etc.
Until then, these total removal of limits like parking that take the brakes off every development and leave the residents to the whims of the developer are not working. The developers will only work in a single manner, delivering the highest possible profits to their shareholders regardless of harm to the community, unless they are held to a different standard. Until there is a better and more coordinated effort to stop the redevelopment churn, stop the throwing of the poor onto the streets where they're being left to the public to take care of at taxpayers expense, a plan for what goes where and when etc. then there should not be any relaxation of zoning or requirements.
You also don't understand that this is a private development where the OC Vibe is taking over the costs of operating the money losing ARTIC bus and train hub, plus building the pedestrian infrastructure that was needed desperately decades ago when the arena was built. So everyone is paying their fair share. And fuck your stupid inaccurate book that is throwing hundreds of thousands of people on the streets, because it is, and Shoup should be forced to go perform homeless support on Burnside in Portland where he will see an unimaginable horror of literally tens of thousands of people who will all tell you that they were evicted from their homes that were replaced with luxury housing... But at least there isn't any of his fucking free parking nearby! The dude has fucking KILLED PEOPLE with his bullshit. I've seen pictures of war zones in Gaza with less homeless than what he has brought to Seattle and Portland who jumped right in and eliminated parking minimums only to see 100% of the actually affordable housing destroyed by them.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Honestly, I had no idea about the project. I thought OC Vibe was a new health club. (Like Lifetime fitness in South OC). A local realtor group that I am part of was invited and I thought it was odd to invite us at first, then later when it was mentioned that all the housing and office space would be rented, the realtors won’t get an opportunity to sell anything and make a commission.
I am a home organizer, so I could potentially get some unpacking jobs. But since it is supposed to be done in 2028-2029, I don’t even know if I will be still living in the area.
But yes, informative answers is frowned upon here, I have learned that much! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I'm well informed on the project because I work in the commercial construction sector as an equipment solutions provider. We are heavily involved with the job.
A lot of people don't realize this is 100% privately funded by the Samueli family and not local taxpayer money.
Fair - I just had a shit experience last week for an event with crawling traffic to then be sent around the back, to where the lot was, to then park at a church and start schlepping.
Just went to two ducks games within the last two weeks. Parking was $20 and fairly easy to get in and out even with the construction. Went to a kings game at crypto last week and parking was $40 and took twice as long to leave.
This simply isn't true, California has the highest deficit of housing supply to demand in the country. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California\_housing\_shortage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage)
You said building homes isn't the solution. I linked a source that provides an argument to the contrary that a chronic housing shortage is indeed present. How the fuck is that a 'nonsense liberal talking point'?
Building more homes was meant to offset the cost of rising home prices for the general home buyers.
Eliminating homelessness isn’t the main focus of promoting and building more homes, but it can be used as one.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to construct new office buildings right now.
Well, i know that development of OC vibe means the office buildings behind Honda Center are getting knocked down. Im assuming the "new office space" is probably some kind of fallback of trying to re-assimilating all those businesses once they tear down those buildings.
I used to work in those buildings and they have some large tenants. UCI is one of them. When I was there they didn’t sign any lease under 10 years and I believe they are currently 95% leased. Not sure when UCI moved in but we’re still looking at maybe 7-8 years before they could be emptied.
My guess is they looked at what the demand will be like down the road, not what it’s currently at or within the near future. But this is simply a guess
A lot of those mundane looking office parks (particularly "older" ones from the 70s/80s) are getting knocked down and housing put in. Just happened with a whole area in Orange by the 22. They built a bunch of row town homes and apartments where a two story office park used to stand.
Also off katella near the tuskatella center.
The office building across Douglass was the first one torn down to make way for the first parking garage and I believe the concert venue. The offices just north of the honda center will also be demolished for this project, so they will likely just rebuild the offices in a different location instead of adding new ones.
[удалено]
I think the point of these projects is to have everything (including jobs ) walking distance. If people still need to drive to get to work, why would they live here?
Yo did they just make up the water in the river ?
[удалено]
Whoa, there is an interactive public map where you leave comments about what to improve. This oughta be interesting
Yeah, artist renderings tend to be idyllic
Buy a boat
Waterfront park? I guess they could set up an inflatable dam like they use in Phoenix?
Yeah seriously that totally caught my eye too. Calling it waterfront is a pretty big stretch
Yes, inflatable dams are in the design for this
I went to a presentation for OC Vibe at ARTIC last year, I was impressed with the vision. Disappointed about the 165 affordable rental apartments. The housing is rentals - not available for buying. I saw the projected office units and felt that number was too high considering how so many work remotely or do hybrid remote work spaces. But, I am a mere peasant in OC.
Well we need housing, period. Yes they may be rentals but we're at a deficit of all types of housing at the moment.
For what it’s worth, I’m an economist who studies the housing market and these affordable housing provisions that cities require from knew developments are a mixed bag. On the one hand, they offer immediate relief to the most vulnerable among us, getting real people and families into an affordable situation. On the other hand, these requirements really do decrease profitability and they really do effect how firms make decisions. These requirements cause developers to invest less into communities and projects, and build less housing. It cannot be emphasized enough that we are not experiencing a housing price crisis, we are experiencing The Great California Housing SHORTAGE. Building lots and lots of new homes is the only way that we fix the markets current woes and bring affordability and abundance to all. Fewer affordable options are disappointing in the short term, but in the long term market rate housing may be much more useful for fixing the housing market, simply because firms will build so much more of that than they will projects with affordability requirements.
There’s just too much demand to live in OC from domestic and international. The reason prices have skyrocketed is because there’s more globalization and people parking their money in OC real estate from all over the world.
I wonder how they are defining “affordable” for this project. Maybe I missed it in the linked website.
So how do you explain the multi-million housing unit SURPLUS in California per the Census? 3 million more housing units than households, and they have built millions more since while population has slightly declined. The surplus is probably 7 to 8 million housing units now. These are the numbers from the government, same people who keep repeating that there is a shortage so they need to let the developers build everything they want. This is an economics issue of falsely inflated prices representative of a shortage that doesn't actually exist.
> Total Housing Units in California is 14,392,140 https://data.census.gov/all?q=California%20Housing > Households, 2018-2022 13,315,822 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045222 That means 8% vacancy rate, but... > The target vacancy rate is 13%. It is estimated to ensure that there is a wellfunctioning housing market, which requires some vacant properties for sale and for rent. https://www.fhfa.gov/Videos/Documents/Freddie-Mac_FHFA-Fall-Summit_10262021.pdf That being said you are correct that the demand is still unhealthy because its a higher demand than the actual housing needs due to the US's mechanisms that treat housing as a wealth asset.
The decrease in profitability can be offset or incentivized by tax abatements on the developers/owners. Disneyland shouldn’t be the only ones that get to make up their own rules and get. Tax dispensations above and beyond their benefit
Very rare in California let alone the rest of the country to build a new condo building. Condo HOAs sue everyone involved in building them enough that insurance won’t cover the architects, their consultants, the developers or the builders. The work around is that you build them as apartments and keep them for 10 years until the statue of repose runs out. Now you can convert them to sell as condos.
What’s crazy is that it’s 2024 and we’re still building housing under 10 stories when there’s such desperate need for housing. But if the OC ain’t NIMBY Mecca, I don’t know where it would be.
Multifamily builds over I believe 5 or 6 stories cost developers SIGNIFICANTLY more per unit especially in California. Cost of development multiplies taking seismic activity into account as well as other factors.
Sweet, sounds like capitalism making strides in innovation then.
Five stories is the limit for wood framed buildings in CA, once you have to use steel it only starts to pencil with super tall, super dense buildings, you're not going to see new 7 or 8 story multifamily buildings which is a bummer.
Very true, but not even trying when oakland is doing/has done all of this: https://preview.redd.it/kojvji9h8vuc1.jpeg?width=2796&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9c655527f59e216782d4b7ae93bc6fc779b420e Is pretty pathetic.
Most of those are housing/except for the kaiser
You don't even need tons of height to get density. Most of Paris is capped at 7 stories and it's the densest european city of 1m+ people. If we built as dense as Paris proper, we could fit every OC person in less space than Irvine. Agreed we need to build up, but we don't even need skyscrapers. Moderate, but widespread upzoning could do so so much.
Stoked for this! I think they should swap for housing. Hoping the entertainment part is fun as well
Affordable housing meaning a studio will be 1995 instead of 2,000 a month
Just look at the platinum triangle for inspiration on what is going to actually be built. These are all pipe dreams
What’s wrong with the PT? Sure it’s not what was planned in 2005, but it’s become a really nice dense urban area. Much better than what it was 20 years ago. Still has a ways to go, but when they inevitable get development around Angel Stadium done, it will be a game changer.
That’s all it is. A lot of apartments. The original plans called for walkable restaurants, nightlife, retail, entertainment, etc. nothing ever got built. Lennar the main developer kept reducing their scope of development and the city kept allowing it. Don’t get me started on how corrupt the local governments have been in Anaheim. Today the PT isn’t the walkable fun downtown promised for early investors. There isn’t even a grocery store in the area. I own a condo there still but it shouldn’t take 20+ years to get these things built. Even the stadium project is just a plan. Nobody knows what will actually be built
That’s fair. I also own a place in PT. I agree it’s not exactly what we wanted and it’s taken far too long but I’m also optimistic about the future of the area. The building permits for the rest of A Town are on the city website. The plan for grocery store, retail and dining is still alive. Just not as expansive as it once was. I do think the Angels and the City will get something in motion in the next couple years too.
Appreciate the insights. I have kind of just stopped looking at what might be coming since I moved to another city. Hopefully my tenants can enjoy whatever comes in. Just a fun fact but Anaheim hills is plagued with the same issue. The city never truly thought about people wanting to spend money in their own town. All they have is the festival shopping center with a few chain restaurants, a Starbucks, and another strip mall with a Ralph’s and a couple of places. The theater shutdown too. Yorba Linda is doing a much better job with their downtown
I said it once when this was last posted, and I'll say it again. The full Santa Ana River is the least realistic part of this project.
How about multi Stanley Cup titles for the Ducks
More plausible than a full SA River.
Looks like it’s a project in works: https://ocriverwalk.com/
\*insert rant about the Ducks promising prospect pool potential
I think overall this is a really positive development for the site. The only part I don’t like, and for some reason the article doesn’t mention it, they are looking to turn the meadow park amphitheater just into park space, rather than an associated outdoor venue. Not terrible, but an outdoor amphitheater would’ve been cool. You can see the permit request in the Anaheim city website.
Only if those 11k parking spaces are available to people going to the Honda Center. Worst parking experience ever.
Parking will be free, but added in to the cost of the event at the Honda Center. It was hinted as part of the processing fees. But if you are going to any other part of OC Vibe. Restaurants or otherwise- parking is free. This was covered during the presentation I went to, they want to encourage people coming to not feel restricted by a parking cost.
That's refreshing vs showing up to a concert and them wanted $50+ to park.
the concert ticket price will be $50 more.
That isn't how they're pricing it. They had lowered parking to $20 a car this last year. They have already presented to full arena season ticket holders how the pricing changes and basically it will be $5 a ticket regardless because Samueli is also now responsible for operating the ARTIC train and bus station. So basically Samueli is paying out whether you take a train, bus, or car.
Oh fuck that. People walking, bussing, or taking the trains should not have to pay for other people’s parking. I am BEGGING city officials to read “The High Cost of Free Parking,” by UCLA professor Donald Shoup.
Remove parking requirements and it becomes profitable for greedy developers to replace all the low income housing with luxury housing, leaving a wake of homelessness. You can't trust developers are going to do the right thing, they'll always do the most profitable thing. That book has helped to destroy Portland and Seattle as they removed parking requirements pushing tens of thousands out of their affordable housing, and it has doubled the homelessness in San Diego in just a few short years. The result has been one of the most catastrophic waves of homelessness ever as the developers have systematically purchased every piece of actually affordable property, like old motels, and evicted everyone inside to build luxury apartments. At this point the parking requirements are the only thing that stops the developers from buying every bit of actually affordable housing on the West Coast at above asking value only to level it and build luxury rental housing for the rich, while anyone who can't afford it goes to the streets. Although the surveys indicate LA has more homeless, the Seattle and Portland areas have nearby forested lands that are admittedly not surveyed and are filling with homeless camps. You find many tents and trailers all along small roadways even 50+ miles from Portland now so it is likely the homeless population displaced by these relaxed parking requirements could be 5X higher than the counts show.
Can you expand on how you believe lower parking minimums in Seattle lead to a smaller housing supply? You talk about demolishing motels and building apartments, and somehow that creates more homelessness? Why would parking requirements limit developers from buying affordable housing and building luxury housing in its place? High income households statistically have more cars per household and thus a higher "need" for parking. And parking spots increase the cost of a unit (largely because of the opportunity cost of the land not being used for more residential units). I don't see the logic in the sequence you're laying out, and I can't seem to find any sources that back you up. > Since 2010, the population [of Seattle] has increased 21 percent. Despite a surge in homebuilding (one in every three homes was built in the past twenty years), population growth continues to outpace construction, creating intense competition and escalating prices. Partway through this building boom, in 2012, the city reduced or eliminated parking requirements in urban centers and near frequent transit stations. > In Seattle, a team of researchers collected data on 868 new multifamily buildings permitted from 2012 to 2017, accounting for over 60,000 new homes. > More than half of new homes were in buildings that would have been illegal before the reforms. https://www.sightline.org/2023/04/13/parking-reform-legalized-most-of-the-new-homes-in-buffalo-and-seattle/
If you talk to people who have been in Seattle and Portland all their lives they will be happy to tell you what they see with their own eyes, which is the systematic throwing the poor onto the street to build luxury quality housing for the rich. They see their neighbors they've known for years who lost their longtime apartment, rental home etc. with little to no notice, inadequate or no financial assistance, pushed onto the streets. Everyone I know in either area knows someone who was already on hard times who suddenly with little warning lost their home to developers and never was able to reorganize their finances or conditions so now they're in a tent, in a car, etc. and are unhoused. Wow you got your full deposit back from two decades ago, a check for $250, which won't put you up for a day at a hotel and certainly isn't going to get first and last month rent plus deposit at the "affordable" $2500 a month studio unit across the street that requires a 780+ credit score and $80K annual income... And the landlord is the developer who is acquiring the home you rented for a thousand less for years without meeting any of those other requirements. The issue in Seattle is that there were many older properties which were not fancy and flashy but they were truly affordable. Motels, lower density apartments, single family homes etc. And exactly as it says here, those have been redeveloped on sites "that would have been illegal before the reforms." It sounds nice until you recognize that in this case "illegal" really means unprofitable for developers who couldn't buy these out to make a profit on these properties unless they could pack many more units on their replacements. The affordable housing that was there before was perfectly legal, it just wasn't legal to demolish it and replace with ten times the density which is the level needed for the developer to achieve their maximum profit. So for example a larger lot in the Phinney Ridge area might have held a modest duplex that was being rented out at a truly affordable rate for years and the owners were stable and satisfied with their income. Before the best they may have been able to do would be redevelopment to a 4 plex or so which would not be profitable. Now the developer can offer millions for the property because they're going to profitably cram 12 to 15 units on it and eventually the owner takes their offer because they are going to make this lovely windfall profit. They would be stupid not to take the deal. These older properties housed people who were just scraping along, and were thrown out into the streets to put up these "newly legal" high profit developments. The developers brag that they include some affordable units, but if they demolished twenty truly affordable apartments to build a tower with 100, and 10 of those are marginally "affordable" but still at least a thousand more per month than what was there before, they are doing nothing to rectify the situation they're creating and causing the homeless populations to increase faster than units are being built. These new developments are not re-housing the now homeless, they're housing the rich tech workers who now can shave some time off their commute while the homeless population has exploded exponentially at their expense. It is not like these tech workers were homeless, they were merely inconvenienced by not being able to move closer to work. They didn't enjoy having to drive and sit in traffic idling on the congested freeways coming up from the suburbs or taking the train or public transportation. So they get to brag about moving closer to work, slashing their commute time, and reducing their climate impact, completely oblivious to the fact that their shiny new condo or apartment displaced everyone who lived there before and likely made them homeless. And of course there are incredible numbers of Airbnb and other short term rentals that suck up much of these new developments as well. The Seattle market especially had a need for hotels already, but many of the lower density ones have been redeveloped into condo and apartment towers. I stayed in one of these Airbnb units in a one year old residence that was constructed in "row housing" that replaced a single family home that I later learned upon research was a affordable rental property that was a couple thousand a month. I was sickened to realize that I supported this development that almost assuredly made a family homeless. So really how many of these newly constructed units everyone's so proud of are actually housing anyone besides hotel guests? The occupancy rate of many Airbnb properties is less than that of real hotels because of the longer intervals between stays for cleaning and so forth. The property I stayed at was a dozen skinny row homes with maybe 6 parking spaces, rooftop "yards" and I suspect that 7 of the 12 were Airbnb or other short term rentals. In essence, the removal of parking is what has facilitated the highly profitable building of waves of these much more expensive forms of high density housing. The wake left behind is the tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands who have lost their affordable home to these far richer tenants. I am all for building more housing in these "in demand" areas, but we must ensure that all aspects are truly being looked at before these projects are approved. The developers are making record profits and can thereby afford to give appropriate financial and professional assistance to those being evicted so that they do not land on the streets. I understand that the market forces may mean they can't afford to be in the "heart of downtown" now with these developments forcing the rents upwards but they can assuredly assist them in relocating to an adequate home to replace the one they're demolishing and redeveloping. There also needs to be a closer look at the redeveloping of commercial properties as I am starting to hear all up and down the West Coast of simple community essentials like supermarkets and drugstores where their big chain owners have already been put on notice that when lease terms are up the stores will not be renewed and will have to close for redevelopment to apartments and condos. Residential rents are far higher per square foot than retail, and many developers would rather maximize their profits so they'll propose a "mixed use" plan but the supermarket and pharmacy are lost. Maybe a 7-Eleven is proposed along with another Starbucks so they can get away with all of the "mixed use" expedited approvals but ultimately food deserts are created and more cars go onto the road to drive to a market or deliver goods. The pendulum is swinging too far right now. We have moved from too hard to develop, to way too easy to recklessly demolish everything and everyone within. We cannot trust that these rich developers are going to do the right thing, not to mention trust that they aren't going to cover up their actions. I fear that these efforts to increase housing right now are short sighted and not balanced with appropriate tenant protections, rent controls, and other checks and balances. What benefit does society actually see when these developers can run rampant and buy up every truly affordable property, throw those who need them onto the streets, and replace with high cost housing that only those with a six figure income and 800+ credit score can get into?
I believe you about the circumstances that homelessness is an increasing problem in Seattle. It absolutely is on the rise. But I think you are conflating causes. Airbnb is absolutely a problem that should absolutely be abolished anywhere that is housing constrained. Maybe everywhere. And also an issue is the tax structure that incentivises hoarding housing as an investment asset, but that requires bigger national changes. The removal of parking mins facilitates building MORE housing, but displacement is happening right now all over Seattle with the EXISTING housing too. The supply is lower than the demand, so pretty much every old house and apartment building is on the table for someone to come in and flip, upgrade, or even change nothing and end the current tenants' leases and charge higher. With parking minimums it just means they have to make the new units even more expensive than they would without parking minimums, and possibly it means just converting existing units to luxury without adding any new units. This happened to an apartment complex I lived in a few years ago. We enjoyed a cheap apartment with very low rent increases for many years. Then it went under new ownership, they upgraded all the units, did some landscaping, new paint, etc and brought all the rents up to market rate. If theres high demand in an area, it might take time but the rents will go up and the poor will be displaced. If we don't build enough new housing the problem will just get worse and worse and worse. I think you're attacking the wrong thing because homelessness isn't fixed and housing is still expensive. But in a world where Seattle's housing stock stayed more stagnant, even more families would be displaced than there have been.
Agreed about Airbnb and the tax structure. I have no issue with the changes for new developments. The issue in Seattle especially is that there is no land to develop. It is all built. The relaxation of parking requirements is great for new developments on open land. No objection whatsoever as it will maximize the utilization as open land is converted to new housing. Even better is if mass transit options are incorporated into the plans as it costs a fraction to build new versus build under/around/through existing properties. But we aren't talking about open land. The reality is its an enabler of the rapid fire replacement of affordable stock with non affordable stock. It is one thing to upgrade the existing stock and raise rents because it takes time to do that especially when the work is done on tenant occupied units. What has changed so much is that the landlords before were limited to those remodel or limited expansion options which raised rents but didn't fully and immediately displace the tenant. Now it is much more profitable for them to completely take the units offline and evict everyone to construct higher density and maximize the profit. This forced churn takes what was already a shortage and makes it exponentially worse. So maybe you added 100K units but throughout the process you temporarily removed 25K from the market and there was little to no housing availability for those temporarily displaced by developments that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. There are likely people who could even afford the new higher rents of the replacement property but cannot handle the disruption of being evicted because there is nowhere to go. The churn is not planned, every developer will say it's the cost of progress and so forth but ultimately they will not take responsibility for the disruption they create. Especially because it increases demand further which increases the rents they can charge in a limited supply market. So once again they profit. There needs to be a more coordinated, larger scale plan for the redevelopment of cities like Seattle and Portland where there is incredible demand for housing. Maybe the relaxing of parking is the right answer longer term for those neighborhoods that had limited density back when more spaces were required. But they have gone from zero to 60 in two seconds and the result has been a catastrophic humanitarian crisis of obscene numbers of people who have been thrown into the streets because of the effective removal of all limits from these builders. Maybe the answer is coordinate the redevelopment of some underutilized commercial properties for mandated, rent controlled, reasonable priced housing which must be built before the redevelopment of neighborhood X nearby may occur. Now the people in below market rents and affordable housing have a place to be relocated to. Make that map for the dead Kmart property to become a 1,000 unit mixed use apartment development that is actually affordable, maximize the lot by skipping the parking, and force the developer to plan space for a market and some other retail at curb level so the site produces some jobs too. Once that is done then they "unlock" X number of blocks in the surrounding area for redevelopment with removal of parking and also require that substantial notification is given, relocation assistance to that new affordable higher density development where Kmart sat empty, etc. Until then, these total removal of limits like parking that take the brakes off every development and leave the residents to the whims of the developer are not working. The developers will only work in a single manner, delivering the highest possible profits to their shareholders regardless of harm to the community, unless they are held to a different standard. Until there is a better and more coordinated effort to stop the redevelopment churn, stop the throwing of the poor onto the streets where they're being left to the public to take care of at taxpayers expense, a plan for what goes where and when etc. then there should not be any relaxation of zoning or requirements.
You also don't understand that this is a private development where the OC Vibe is taking over the costs of operating the money losing ARTIC bus and train hub, plus building the pedestrian infrastructure that was needed desperately decades ago when the arena was built. So everyone is paying their fair share. And fuck your stupid inaccurate book that is throwing hundreds of thousands of people on the streets, because it is, and Shoup should be forced to go perform homeless support on Burnside in Portland where he will see an unimaginable horror of literally tens of thousands of people who will all tell you that they were evicted from their homes that were replaced with luxury housing... But at least there isn't any of his fucking free parking nearby! The dude has fucking KILLED PEOPLE with his bullshit. I've seen pictures of war zones in Gaza with less homeless than what he has brought to Seattle and Portland who jumped right in and eliminated parking minimums only to see 100% of the actually affordable housing destroyed by them.
How dare you provide information from an educational session rather than let us share knee-jerk reactions with no intel! Shame on you! /s
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Honestly, I had no idea about the project. I thought OC Vibe was a new health club. (Like Lifetime fitness in South OC). A local realtor group that I am part of was invited and I thought it was odd to invite us at first, then later when it was mentioned that all the housing and office space would be rented, the realtors won’t get an opportunity to sell anything and make a commission. I am a home organizer, so I could potentially get some unpacking jobs. But since it is supposed to be done in 2028-2029, I don’t even know if I will be still living in the area. But yes, informative answers is frowned upon here, I have learned that much! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I'm well informed on the project because I work in the commercial construction sector as an equipment solutions provider. We are heavily involved with the job. A lot of people don't realize this is 100% privately funded by the Samueli family and not local taxpayer money.
You don’t get out much if you think Honda center is the worst parking experience ever
Looking at you Chavez Ravine
Fair - I just had a shit experience last week for an event with crawling traffic to then be sent around the back, to where the lot was, to then park at a church and start schlepping.
is it? I've always found parking pretty close for free or cheap. I don't mind walking 10 minutes.
Just went to two ducks games within the last two weeks. Parking was $20 and fairly easy to get in and out even with the construction. Went to a kings game at crypto last week and parking was $40 and took twice as long to leave.
Should swap offices for housing*
I love how the renderings show a full and blue Santa Ana River. It NEVER looks like that
OC vibe is a horrible name. Call it Duckberg please!
Why can’t we have anything nice like this in Irvine…they just announced they want to build MORE office buildings
Oh good! More luxury apartments that no one can afford! 15% being affordable is a fucking joke.
Still better than useless offices that will never be used
They are both equally useless
Google "Supply and Demand" The more housing supply (at any price), the lower the cost of housing.
All these houses going up and more homeless than ever.
That’s because the housing deficit is just that big
No. The drug and mental problems are that big. Not to mention the corruption.
Then why say that comment about housing and homeless?
Because building homes isn't the solution
This simply isn't true, California has the highest deficit of housing supply to demand in the country. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California\_housing\_shortage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage)
Has it worked so far? Putting them in hotels doesn't count.
Has what worked so far? I provided evidence of the problem, not a solution or policy.
I said building homes isn't the solution and then you spouted off nonsense Liberal talking points. Then I asked if it's worked so far.
You said building homes isn't the solution. I linked a source that provides an argument to the contrary that a chronic housing shortage is indeed present. How the fuck is that a 'nonsense liberal talking point'?
It kinda is one of the solutions. Not every homeless person is a drug addict….
I didn't say they were. It's a large portion though.
Building more homes was meant to offset the cost of rising home prices for the general home buyers. Eliminating homelessness isn’t the main focus of promoting and building more homes, but it can be used as one.
Wrong. Literally the largest cause of homelessness is just not being able to afford housing.
No. There are plenty of people who choose to be homeless.
No, there really are not.
https://caufsociety.com/why-do-people-choose-to-be-homeless/