25 Responses to “Opportunity to build 13 townhouses in Sunnyvale”

1. nomadic Says:
   November 30th, 2009 at 8:39 am

   Sweet – they’d let a developer put 13 townhomes on a lot smaller than the one my SFH is on?! What a great place to live… no lawn to mow, and your kids could develop quick reflexes dodging the neighbors’ cars.

2. Herve Estater Says:
   November 30th, 2009 at 8:45 am

   There is room for 13 townhouses if one buys both properties (the featured one and the adjacent one).

3. nomadic Says:
   November 30th, 2009 at 8:49 am

   Herve Estater, you just lack vision.

4. ehem Says:
   November 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

   nomadic-

   When the orchard that that house was built on was torn down the land went from having 1 farm house to 20 ranchless ranch houses. I would expect that change to be decried on a hypothetical 1960′s Burbed — “Dastardly destruction of prime Orchard estate-sized Mansion lots leads to construction of plebian dwellings.” So there is some precedent for replacing 1 with 15 — indeed, that is how your house was built, that is how all houses here were built.

   There is this deeply demented consensus in the Bay Area that demand to live here is infinite — that supply and demand break down in our unique circumstances of ideal weather and enlightened inhabitants. (Despite the nearest usable beach being in Hawaii.) Since this demand is infinite it is unthinkable that more supply could ever quench it — if there was an ocean of apartment towers from Santa Clara to Sausalito they would continue to cost 700k for a 1 bd., such is our above-averageness here on the Bay of Wobegon. Likewise any concession to the people who would live in those 13 townhouses is beside the point — of course you want to live here, get in line with the other 6 billion people like you. And since of course 6 billion people won’t fit, it is a little arbitrary to allow just these 13, isn’t it?

   Alas, the demented fantasy is not real — prices have fallen fast everywhere there has been significant building, from SOMA (RBA?) to downtown Oakland to places in Contra Costa whither some lesser RBA people moved from their RBA places of origin. You can’t complain about high prices and development at the same time, you have to pick. You can either be for high prices or for lots of infill development, the kind that led to the construction of your and your parents’ house. I don’t see why this process should have stopped in the 70′s and 80′s, when the boomers had their real-estate consciousness raised and started wishing the world would stop changing. (“Hey hey, ho ho, developers are done with my house so they’ve got to go!”)

   And having no lawn to mow, or to water, is possibly a plus on its own, and definitely preferable to commuting in from Tracy.

5. nomadic Says:
   November 30th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

   Was I complaining about high prices? They benefit me…

   And having no lawn to mow, or to water, is possibly a plus on its own, and definitely preferable to commuting in from Tracy.

   A hearty “amen” to that!

   My point was mostly about the sacrifices people will make to own a little postage stamp of property. I think I’d rather rent to be crammed into an area the size of an apartment.

   Speaking from experience, it isn’t a huge deal to move from 2 acres to a 20k sf lot. The transition down to 8k sf was an adjustment and I was happy to get a bit more space where I am now. To have six (or more) neighbors on the same lot, well, not so good. At some point there has to be a limit, until one decides high-rise living is okay for them.

6. ehem Says:
   November 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

   “They benefit me…”

   I agree, who wants those pesky grandkids banging into your knees all the time? Better they live at a safe distance in Reno or Phoenix like the rest of the people born after 1980.

   Not that you are remotely unusual, or that you should be singled out for criticism, but it should be emphasized that the “They benefit me” concept is an unproven theory. First, because either you will have kids who will leave, or you won’t be able to afford to have kids, both scenarios that would have implied famine or war in previous generations (ie, leaving a nice place you like under duress for a desert or scorching central valley floodplain.) Second, you are still paying 2 or 3 times as much for the same thing as everyone else on Earth. I know it is ennobling to spend all your money on a cramped POS in the RBA that will be worth millions in a few years but you could also be going on vacations, building a cabin on a lake, saving the rainforest, and living in a nicer place, almost anywhere in the world, for the same amount. The fact that you are so sure some greater fool is going to come along and bail you out of this situation brings me to the final point, namely: no they won’t. My Cal and high school friends, more humanities types, are mostly in other states or countries. My brother’s Stanford friends, several who have been IPO’d, all in a minute percentile of successful people generally, are completely at a loss to buy anything anywhere near where they work, certainly nothing appropriate for the families they are starting to have. These are the hardest core of the RBA and they are balking, and don’t have the money anyway, and can’t get loans because neither do the banks.

   The sickest irony is that if old-timers wanted to make really nutso money they would be banging down the doors of city hall demanding to be upzoned for townhouses, not banned from them. My parents live on a lot that could fit 30 townhouses. At $150k land and $200k building you could have actual affordable housing that would bring them a 40% premium over current value. I am hoping this penny drops on the NIMBYs eventually, after the SFH prices do.

7. bob Says:
   November 30th, 2009 at 2:52 pm

   ehem,
   You bring up a point I’ve mentioned to some of the people who live around me, whom in an attempt to “preserve their quality of life” constantly battle any kind of new development in their neighborhood. Of course the outcome is that since nothing new is built, they limit the supply of homes which means their houses become more pricey.

   But on the other hand, these same people seem enjoying also bragging about what a great child-rearing place Alameda is- of what a great place it is to send them to school, to walk to town, and so forth. The irony is that these kids will grow up and be unable to buy anywhere near mom and dad, who fought for right to stop anyone new from moving in.

   I’m one of those people born “too late” to reasonably buy anything remotely close to work. I’ll be like most people you mention and be moving out of state- not like that’s bad as I’m actually looking forward to living a better life anyway.

8. nomadic Says:
   November 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

   ehem – clearly you can’t read the sarcasm of my posts. As for the kid argument – don’t have ‘em, don’t want ‘em. Not relevant to me; however, I’m not quite selfish enough to say there isn’t a problem here.

9. Pralay Says:
   November 30th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

   Well, I found old/new development discussion always interesting. Coincidentally there is a similar article in SJMN today.

   Proposal for new homes pits wealthy neighbors against influential developer

   “We do not mind them developing that land,” said Sateesh Lele, a retired former chief information officer for such companies as General Motors, PepsiCo and Avon who has lived in the neighboring Tuscany Hills development since 2001.”But if they cram in houses, it affects our lifestyle.”

   Affecting lifestyle? That’s definitely a valid concern. Let’s checkout Mr Sateesh Lele’s home:

   4,230 sqft, Lot 20,000 sqft. Build year 1999.

   Looks like an oversized mansion. As Mr Lele is too adamant to preserve his own “lifestyle”, let’s verify how his mansion helped to preserve the lifestyle of other people in nearby neighborhood who are living here longer than Mr Lele. There are some properties in Cadwallader Ave – all built in last 1970s.
   4090 Cadwallader Ave: 2,804 sqft, Lot 12,650 sqft
   4070 Cadwallader Ave: 2,036 sqft, Lot 8,050 sqft
   4050 Cadwallader Ave: 2,542 sqft, Lot 8,276 sqft
   4030 Cadwallader Ave: 2,116 sqft, Lot 9,085 sqft

   So it is perfectly OK to build (or buy) an oversize mansion in area where most of the existing properties were old ranch style on 8,000+ lot. But it is not OK to have a few of more properties with 8,000-10,000 lotsize on same street.

   Ok, I got it Mr Lele. You want another mansion in your backyard – just to preserve your “lifestyle”.

10. nomadic Says:
    November 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    I’ve always wondered how other people choose to live would affect my lifestyle. Nice post, Pralay.

    Reminds me of the idiots who buy a house that backs up to a school playing field and then campaign for it to not be used in the evenings and weekends… Or down in Almaden, there was a bar that dated back 100 years or so. Within the last 10 years some new houses were built. The new neighbors got the place shut down because it was too noisy. What a shame, and what gall those people had.

11. Pralay Says:
    November 30th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    The funny thing is Mr Lele’s usage of the phrase “cram in houses”. It definitely sounds like the new development is going to be high-density 3 story condo development.

    It seems anything less than Mr Lele’s mansion and lot size is just “cram in house”.

12. Pralay Says:
    November 30th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Another one in same article:

    Homeowner Karen Greenwell disagrees with Lazzarini’s assessment, citing a city map she says shows that 83 percent of the properties surrounding the 9.76 acres are designated at 1.5 units or less per acre. “So it is not in accordance with the general plan,” Greenwell said.

    I wonder what this 83% constitutes. Probably all the new developments on Sycamore Grove Pl, Sequoia Creek Dr and Terra Nova Dr.

13. bob Says:
    November 30th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    The big debacle in Alameda is the redevelopment of the long-abandoned naval base which closed in 1997. The site is on the northern end of the island. It offers uninhibited views of San Francisco. The weather in Alameda is generally clear and warm so on most days you’d have a clear view of the ocean. In other words- its probably some of the most desirable real estate in the East Bay.

    But… developers have been trying to come up with ways in which to buy and build on it for years. Every single time a new plan is brought forward, its shot down by a contingency of well-organized homeowners whom swarm the local town hall. There’s actually anti-developer signs now out all over the island. At local events in town, people with little clipboards beg people to sign against the development.

    Each time one plan is turned down, a new one even more outlandish and unreal is brought forth. The latest I think involved green spaces, green public transportation, a mix of mixed use housing,(affordable to upscale) walkable neighborhoods, and so on. All in what I guess is an effort to appease everyone. As of now, the papers are filled with stories every other day about various changes made here and there but it all boils down to stalling the plans to build at any cost.

    This goes on year after year. Nothing gets done. But the overarching theme is that nobody that’s already here wants anything new to be built because heaven forbid- it would RUIN their quality of life… even though things were fine with thousands of Navy personnel on the island years ago. I find it all to be rather stupid and a sad statement about general humanity. Its this kind of NIMBYism that makes me really get kind of disgusted with the bay area since it seems so rampant here. That’s right- its all about YOU and nobody else.

14. ehem Says:
    November 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    nomadic-

    I am notoriously easy to wind up on this subject — I shouldn’t go near it — my apologies if I mistakenly took you for a typical bay arean, and shame on me for missing the humor. It generally is the case that telling someone you could put 20 houses on an acre of land in the RBA is like saying you talk to Napoleon every night in your basement, it is cause for pity and psychiatry rather than consideration.

    This proposal that Pralay mentions is classic, I particularly like the planner who wants to make sure the area is “sustainable” by not threatening the 1.8 million dollar homes. BTW I live in SF and the typical lots are 25′ by 75′ to 100′, there is no nicer arrangement, I have worked on buildings with 6 units on .05 of an acre, and 3 units on that size is luxurious if you can walk to a bar and a supermarket and tennis courts, which you could all over the peninsula near the caltrans stations.

    Maybe in hope of something more edifying than ehem’s hyperventilation I’ll leave this, from Joaquin Miller following the 1906 fire (we are a lonely and unsuccessful bunch, and its been this way forever):

    “Were I to rebuild San Francisco, I would put all that and San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Jose, Milpitas, Alameda, Oakland, and Berkeley, all in one broad city of one and two-story houses as in the City of Mexico, and I’d call the whole bunch San Francisco.

    I despise these small towns, their multitudinous mayors, their egotisms, their vanities, their big houses and their small ideas. Like the old Spaniards we must suit ourselves to the climate and the conditions. Let New York go her way, but we must go ours if we expect to rival New York, and there is no half reason why we may not pass New York in the next ten years if we only use common sense and get over our vanities and our village notions and names that mean nothing. There’s room for just one city, and that is San Francisco, because it has the most glorious bay on the globe. Of course the heart of it may be Oakland, but by name and nature, San Francisco, the Garden City, the University City [San Jose and Palo Alto] – all should be freezed into one.”

15. nomadic Says:
    November 30th, 2009 at 10:44 pm

    It generally is the case that telling someone you could put 20 houses on an acre of land in the RBA is like saying you talk to Napoleon every night in your basement, it is cause for pity and psychiatry rather than consideration.

    LOL

    For some reason that brings to mind various areas in the province of Ontario, Canada. You’ll be in some little town, like Guelph, and there will be 4-5 story apartments or condos (relatively) in the middle of nowhere. It looks very odd. I never quite understood that; they have tons of space.

16. ehem Says:
    December 1st, 2009 at 1:13 am

    nomadic-

    I had the same experience recently in Lake Almanor, near Lassen park — imagine driving 5 hours through deserted landscape to arrive at your vacation condo in a big empty forest.

    Bob-

    Someone could write a book about what happens to old bases in the Bay Area. Ex-military wastelands are the primal scene of NIMBYism, they are where the first NIMBY swung down from the trees and held the first committee to save the cave paintings from last year’s mammoth hunt. Google Marincello – a dense and significant town of 30,000 that was planned for part of the former Marin Headlands base, before it was turned into bike trails for people who already had houses nearby. That was the first battle of its kind and the template for the statewide development shutdown that began in the 70′s. The Presidio, Alameda NAS, Treasure Island, Hunter’s Point — anything, everything is considered except simply parceling up the land and letting it develop naturally, like every attractive city in the world evolved. It took 2 years to build Treasure Island, and we have been dithering on it for close to 2 decades; so far the dominant idea seems to be a big strawberry patch and some houses, at some indeterminate time far in the future, I wish I were kidding. And, little known fact, but part of the Alameda NAS is technically San Francisco County, a fact that will surely merit a few hundred extra pages of environmental impact reports, and years or decades of planning wankathons.

17. bob Says:
    December 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am

    ehem,
    The same things have been suggested for the Naval base in Alameda: “Why not turn it into a park?” Its all the same BS though. Anyway to stop building houses is suggested.

    Alameda also have a law called Measure A. The summary is as follows:

    “The maximum density for any residential development within the City of Alameda shall be one housing unit per 2,000 square feet of land.”

    In other words- nothing but single family developments can be built in the city and additionally, those houses have to be on 2,000 sq. foot plots minimum. Proposals for the base have been for single family residencies. But people who already live here are doing everything to stop it.

    Here’s some of the typical language you hear from those who vehemently support measure A and don’t want new homes to be built per a local web site:

    Powerful forces are continually at work to undo the will of the people and usurp Measure A protections. These forces intend to turn our island into a replica of Manhattan – a swath of concrete canyons and towering high-rise structures. They view each land development project as an opportunity to turn back the time of Alameda to pre-Measure A days when development ran rampant and without concern for the quality of life of Alameda citizens.

    ooooohhh! scary! “powerful forces” are out there to turn Alameda into a hell-hole. Personally, I find such attitudes to be hypocritical. At one time or another, all cities got their start. Had this same attitude existed back then, no city would have ever grown to become what they are today. Its true that a lot of the NIMBYism we see today started in the 70′s, which is when you can trace back to when the Bay Area began its rampant inflation and bust real estate cycles.

    In the end its this sort of selfish protectionism that could potentially derail the Bay Area as a city young professionals tend to stay. Sure- they might come and stay until they get married or have kids, but as soon as it comes to home buying time, they’re out of here. Its already happening now. I took a trip to Austin last year. I’d say the city is a good 10-15 years younger in terms of the age of people living there. Austin also has a fairly loose development standard meaning zoning is almost non-existent. This means that there’s an awful lot of cookie-cutter ugly developments and strip malls.

    In fact, you’ll see this in cities like Atlanta, Raleigh, and a lot of other up and coming cities. These cities are like what the Bay Area was probably 50-60 years ago- back when they were building what was then also cookie-cutter suburban homes out in the burbs in Palo Alto and other Silicon Valley towns which back then were little more than cowpoke towns. The same is true for Alameda. A lot of those beautiful homes here were actually knockdown kit houses. But when they were new, they weren’t any different than the myriads of putty colored Mcmansions you see in Austin.

    The bottom line is that all people need a decent place to live that they can afford with a decent job. Build houses people can afford and you’ll grow a city. At this point the Bay Area has no more room to grow in any meaningful way other than to become more and more expensive which ultimately means the slow errosion of its younger and middle class workforce. First it was manufacturing, next it was semiconductors. Last it will be software development and intellectual property creation. These have and will eventually leave to follow where the young workers go, be it Austin, Atlanta, or some other city that allows these workers to live and work in a decent manner. This is why I predict that eventually California will more likely have a Florida economy, where rich retirees move in from somewhere else with a sea of poor workers to wait on them hand and foot.

18. Herve Estater Says:
    December 1st, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    > imagine driving 5 hours through deserted landscape to arrive at your vacation condo in a big empty forest.

    At least a condo requires less maintenance than a SFH. It’s one thing to consider for a vacation residence.

19. Herve Estater Says:
    December 1st, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    Hey bob, check that out: http://www.mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=2213

20. Lionel Says:
    December 1st, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    Geez, I click on burbed hoping for some of the normative Realestater imbecilic drivel to cheer me up, and what do I get? Thoughtful, articulate posts! Stop it! Or, ehem, if you insist on post, at least sprinkle in some choice inanities. Thanks.

21. steve Says:
    December 1st, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    ahem, thanks for the pointer to marincello — fascinating. gulf did a nice job with reston, but I am happy the project was never built.

22. Real Estater Says:
    December 1st, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    Bob,

    When will you ever learn that the exact same house is worth different value depending on its location? Even in Austin this is true, and there’s nothing wrong or surprising about it.

23. nomadic Says:
    December 1st, 2009 at 11:28 pm

    Lionel – see today’s thread if you must have a dose of stupidity.

24. bob Says:
    December 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 am

    RE,
    Sure- There are desirable areas everywhere. The problem in the Bay Area is that its not just the ‘nice’ areas that are expensive, its everywhere with maybe the exception of the worst part of the ghetto. There’s a reason why California and the Bay Area has experienced a reverse migration cycle since the early 2000′s.

25. Herve Estater Says:
    December 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    Hey bob, it looks like San Jose heard you.

Leave a Reply