New Substack: I respond to @JohnKingSFChron's issues about downtown Berkeley's development with somewhat frank explanations of how NIMBYs got Berkeley where it is today. And why the growing downtown is actually nice.https://t.co/H3bnFcanwH

— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 31, 2023

This probably ends-up in O'T. I don't why a proved developer would want to develop multi-family housing in Berkeley, unless they are heavily subsidized. You would certainly need "creative" financing otherwise, and be a non-profit agency. There is a reason the University has had to go it alone on creating more student living opportunities.

okaydo said:

---

New Substack: I respond to @JohnKingSFChron's issues about downtown Berkeley's development with somewhat frank explanations of how NIMBYs got Berkeley where it is today. And why the growing downtown is actually nice.https://t.co/H3bnFcanwH

— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 31, 2023

---

Yeah, I really enjoyed living in downtown Berkeley and that was ten years ago. High density housing, walking distance to BART lots of great restaurants, bars, theatre, Cal performances, concerts, movies, lectures and of course, Cal football, basketball, baseball, swimming, et al. I highly recommend it.

calumnus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

New Substack: I respond to @JohnKingSFChron's issues about downtown Berkeley's development with somewhat frank explanations of how NIMBYs got Berkeley where it is today. And why the growing downtown is actually nice.https://t.co/H3bnFcanwH

— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 31, 2023

---

Yeah, I really enjoyed living in downtown Berkeley and that was ten years ago. High density housing, walking distance to BART lots of great restaurants, bars, theatre, Cal performances, concerts, movies, lectures and of course, Cal football, basketball, baseball, swimming, et al. I highly recommend it.

---

Exactly why you have a housing crises there: demand is great, and the City and others restrain supply.

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

New Substack: I respond to @JohnKingSFChron's issues about downtown Berkeley's development with somewhat frank explanations of how NIMBYs got Berkeley where it is today. And why the growing downtown is actually nice.https://t.co/H3bnFcanwH

— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 31, 2023

---

Yeah, I really enjoyed living in downtown Berkeley and that was ten years ago. High density housing, walking distance to BART lots of great restaurants, bars, theatre, Cal performances, concerts, movies, lectures and of course, Cal football, basketball, baseball, swimming, et al. I highly recommend it.

---

Exactly why you have a housing crises there: demand is great, and the City and others restrain supply.

---

There is a building boom along Shattuck of high rise apartment buildings. John King of the Chronicle called all the new buildings "ugly." Darrell Owens responded to that criticism on Twitter as posted by Okaydo. I am agreeing with Darrell Owens, the building boom has been a great thing, who cares if the buildings are ugly? They are creating a lot of new housing, including for students, in a great place to live.

High density housing along Shattuck connecting the BART stations (with street level retail especially) just makes sense. It is a great thing that Berkeley has developed and is continuing to develop in that way. The ugliness is a function of building codes and is largely unavoidable in order to produce the most housing at the lowest cost (producing low cost housing for consumers and profits for developers). His argument for a change in codes to allow for a single stairwell and more airflow makes sense (A building in Berkeley should not have to rely on H-VAC), but until that happens, this is pretty optimal.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

New Substack: I respond to @JohnKingSFChron's issues about downtown Berkeley's development with somewhat frank explanations of how NIMBYs got Berkeley where it is today. And why the growing downtown is actually nice.https://t.co/H3bnFcanwH

— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 31, 2023

---

Yeah, I really enjoyed living in downtown Berkeley and that was ten years ago. High density housing, walking distance to BART lots of great restaurants, bars, theatre, Cal performances, concerts, movies, lectures and of course, Cal football, basketball, baseball, swimming, et al. I highly recommend it.

---

Exactly why you have a housing crises there: demand is great, and the City and others restrain supply.

---

There is a building boom along Shattuck of high rise apartment buildings. John King of the Chronicle called all the new buildings "ugly." Darrell Owens responded to that criticism on Twitter as posted by Okaydo. I am agreeing with Darrell Owens, the building boom has been a great thing, who cares if the buildings are ugly? They are creating a lot of new housing, including for students, in a great place to live.

High density housing along Shattuck connecting the BART stations (with street level retail especially) just makes sense. It is a great thing that Berkeley has developed and is continuing to develop in that way. The ugliness is a function of building codes and is largely unavoidable in order to produce the most housing at the lowest cost (producing low cost housing for consumers and profits for developers). His argument for a change in codes to allow for a dingl stairwell makes sense, but until that happens, this is pretty optimal.

---

At one time, architects, contractors, and landlords had pride and desired for their building to be as beautiful as there were functional. The buildings on and around Cal reflected these values through the 19th century and for several decades into the 20th. It's sad that building codes are required to encourage a city beautiful movement (or if not necessarily beautiful, at least not ugly).

Maybe the statistics don't support it, but I feel more comfortable with egress other than a single stairway. Even the ugly high rise unit dorms had fire escapes in addition to a stairway by the elevator shaft.

Interesting articles. Thanks for posting.

For anyone who has traveled in Europe, especially the former eastern bloc, you have an appreciation for NOT building rectangular, oppressive structures to warehouse people! Some of the stuff that went up in the west, too, is horrible. There simply must be a compromise for high-density housing that isn't soul-crushing. It seems that many of today's designs seem to accomplish this (save for certain new buildings on Telegraph!).

And the suburbs may prove to be unsustainable in the long run. But growing up there sure was nice for me!

The fights by current single-family homeowners against huge multi-unit and multi-story building developments are indeed understandable. When your home and main (and often only) asset and nest-egg is threatened by economic devaluation and reduction in quality of life, you will get an outcry.

So we find ourselves in a quandary. However, central urban cores seem to be the most ideal location for large-scale projects like this. Kinda hard to claim you didn't expect a "large building next door" when "large buildings next door" already dominated the local city block. So for this reason, it seems these projects in downtown Berkeley make all sorts of sense.

This is an important discussion that will affect many Californians today and in the future. Thanks again for posting.

Edit: One of many unfortunate casualties of downtown Berkeley's changes? The closing of long-time local favorite The Missing Link bike shop. Shops open and close as commercial rents goes up and down in cycles, but The Link weathered so many of these over the decades. Shame to have lost it.

Really interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

It's very dangerous to listen to people who don't study building science but have a social agenda on issues of building safety and construction. It's tragically ironic that he cites Europe as a model for single-staircase success when London has had a series of devastating residential highrise fires, none more famous than Grenfell Tower where 72 people died and another 70+ were injured in a single stairwell residential highrise. The reason for those not familiar were highly flammable composite aluminum and rigid foam exterior insulation panels which provided a vertical corridor for rapid flame spread that was/is largely impervious to external extinguishment techniques. While London has moved to ban these particular panels, the foam materials are code approved and prevalent in modern buildings.

What's more, there are a host of building science reasons beyond fire safety for mechanical ventilation in modern buildings. More and more, buildings are built to be "passive" or "net zero" but many don't understand how that's achieved. Insulation is a big part of it, but there are virtually non-flammable materials available such as mineral wool (although it's more expensive and not nearly as ubiquitous as flammable "hard" foam products like polyiso). But modern construction best practices now call for a continuous air and water resistive barrier enveloping the entire structure. We learned in the '90s that these membranes need to be vapor permeable, and now they are for the most part, but that's not enough given the moisture loaded into the living space by everyday activities such as bathing, cooking, and even just breathing. During the summer it's possible that there can be enough natural ventilation (although IMO unlikely in a highrise) but even in Berkeley that possibility disappears in the winter. So without mechanical ventilation odds are you will get mold in the winter, and that's a very bad (and expensive) problem.

What should be mandated for these projects IMO are recovery ventilators and, for heating and cooling, ground source heat pumps with vertical boring loops below the structures because these systems are FAR more efficient than typical air source AC units. But the borings are a significant upfront cost so nobody does it.

WalterSobchak said:

---

It's very dangerous to listen to people who don't study building science but have a social agenda on issues of building safety and construction. It's tragically ironic that he cites Europe as a model for single-staircase success when London has had a series of devastating residential highrise fires, none more famous than Grenfell Tower where 72 people died and another 70+ were injured in a single stairwell residential highrise. The reason for those not familiar were highly flammable composite aluminum and rigid foam exterior insulation panels which provided a vertical corridor for rapid flame spread that was/is largely impervious to external extinguishment techniques. While London has moved to ban these particular panels, the foam materials are code approved and prevalent in modern buildings.

What's more, there are a host of building science reasons beyond fire safety for mechanical ventilation in modern buildings. More and more, buildings are built to be "passive" or "net zero" but many don't understand how that's achieved. Insulation is a big part of it, but there are virtually non-flammable materials available such as mineral wool (although it's more expensive and not nearly as ubiquitous as flammable "hard" foam products like polyiso). But modern construction best practices now call for a continuous air and water resistive barrier enveloping the entire structure. We learned in the '90s that these membranes need to be vapor permeable, and now they are for the most part, but that's not enough given the moisture loaded into the living space by everyday activities such as bathing, cooking, and even just breathing. During the summer it's possible that there can be enough natural ventilation (although IMO unlikely in a highrise) but even in Berkeley that possibility disappears in the winter. So without mechanical ventilation odds are you will get mold in the winter, and that's a very bad (and expensive) problem.

What should be mandated for these projects IMO are recovery ventilators and, for heating and cooling, ground source heat pumps with vertical boring loops below the structures because these systems are FAR more efficient than typical air source AC units. But the borings are a significant upfront cost so nobody does it.

---

You make the case for why the buildings are the way they are, which I accept. My point is these buildings are increasing the affordable housing stock, allowing students and others to live near campus and are creating a really great, vibrant, place to live. For all that good, I don't care if the buildings look great, and it is not as if that stretch of Shattuck looked great before.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

New Substack: I respond to @JohnKingSFChron's issues about downtown Berkeley's development with somewhat frank explanations of how NIMBYs got Berkeley where it is today. And why the growing downtown is actually nice.https://t.co/H3bnFcanwH

— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 31, 2023

---

Yeah, I really enjoyed living in downtown Berkeley and that was ten years ago. High density housing, walking distance to BART lots of great restaurants, bars, theatre, Cal performances, concerts, movies, lectures and of course, Cal football, basketball, baseball, swimming, et al. I highly recommend it.

---

Exactly why you have a housing crises there: demand is great, and the City and others restrain supply.

---

There is a building boom along Shattuck of high rise apartment buildings. John King of the Chronicle called all the new buildings "ugly." Darrell Owens responded to that criticism on Twitter as posted by Okaydo. I am agreeing with Darrell Owens, the building boom has been a great thing, who cares if the buildings are ugly? They are creating a lot of new housing, including for students, in a great place to live.

High density housing along Shattuck connecting the BART stations (with street level retail especially) just makes sense. It is a great thing that Berkeley has developed and is continuing to develop in that way. The ugliness is a function of building codes and is largely unavoidable in order to produce the most housing at the lowest cost (producing low cost housing for consumers and profits for developers). His argument for a change in codes to allow for a single stairwell and more airflow makes sense (A building in Berkeley should not have to rely on H-VAC), but until that happens, this is pretty optimal.

---

The second and third parts of the there part article were about the shape of buildings and the lack of student housing.

The first part I'm putting below so you can explain how the building boom you see has somehow resulted in massive increases in density housing, as you claim in your post:

:"In 2010 and 2014, Berkeley voters overwhelmingly approved a zoning plan that allowed for three high-rises for downtown. When the first high-rise apartment was proposed, an arrogant and organized NIMBY opposition who believed voters didn't know what's good for them dragged it through 37 meetings. I was there: nobody ever changed their minds; it was an endless contest of posturing and speeches with no end in sight. It was eventually approved with a whole host of financial concessions far beyond a standard development project that didn't change the NIMBY's opposition but did what it was designed to do: make the project infeasible.
King makes a brief reference to this, but doesn't reflect on it at all in relation to the state law limiting hearings to 5 meetings. Out of the 37 meetings on Harold Way, at what point was the project changed for the better? Instead of potentially 100 low income homes on-site and in our trust-fund Berkeley got zero. The oh-so historic movie theater to be preserved that was long in decline and would've been replaced with a modern IMAX theater, announced closure shortly after the lockdowns. What did all that energy, staff time and salary paid for by Berkeley taxpayers amount to? Not a damn thing.

The battle of Harold Way was the genesis of the modern YIMBY movement in Berkeley and the East Bay, because a generation of people saw up close that the NIMBYs didn't actually want any of these benefits to materialize. The NIMBY's true, ulterior motive was revealed in their joyous celebrations in newsletters, their newspaper and tweets when the housing fell through.

The voters a decade ago explicitly approved 3 high-rises in downtown Berkeley and only one was ever built a hotel. The two housing projects were sued and obstructed endlessly, one into oblivion and the other has yet to break ground years after approval. Both of which were fought over viciously while curiously, the hotel high-rise received tax breaks (in total contrast to the unusually high requirements and community benefits for the residential projects) and no NIMBY cared to even fight it like the downtown housing.

Isn't it odd some people only get mad around here when it's housing?"

Again, I repeat why would any private developer of multifamily want to deal with this?

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

New Substack: I respond to @JohnKingSFChron's issues about downtown Berkeley's development with somewhat frank explanations of how NIMBYs got Berkeley where it is today. And why the growing downtown is actually nice.https://t.co/H3bnFcanwH

— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 31, 2023

---

Yeah, I really enjoyed living in downtown Berkeley and that was ten years ago. High density housing, walking distance to BART lots of great restaurants, bars, theatre, Cal performances, concerts, movies, lectures and of course, Cal football, basketball, baseball, swimming, et al. I highly recommend it.

---

Exactly why you have a housing crises there: demand is great, and the City and others restrain supply.

---

There is a building boom along Shattuck of high rise apartment buildings. John King of the Chronicle called all the new buildings "ugly." Darrell Owens responded to that criticism on Twitter as posted by Okaydo. I am agreeing with Darrell Owens, the building boom has been a great thing, who cares if the buildings are ugly? They are creating a lot of new housing, including for students, in a great place to live.

High density housing along Shattuck connecting the BART stations (with street level retail especially) just makes sense. It is a great thing that Berkeley has developed and is continuing to develop in that way. The ugliness is a function of building codes and is largely unavoidable in order to produce the most housing at the lowest cost (producing low cost housing for consumers and profits for developers). His argument for a change in codes to allow for a single stairwell and more airflow makes sense (A building in Berkeley should not have to rely on H-VAC), but until that happens, this is pretty optimal.

---

The second and third parts of the there part article were about the shape of buildings and the lack of student housing.

The first part I'm putting below so you can explain how the building boom you see has somehow resulted in massive increases in density housing, as you claim in your post:

:"In 2010 and 2014, Berkeley voters overwhelmingly approved a zoning plan that allowed for three high-rises for downtown. When the first high-rise apartment was proposed, an arrogant and organized NIMBY opposition who believed voters didn't know what's good for them dragged it through 37 meetings. I was there: nobody ever changed their minds; it was an endless contest of posturing and speeches with no end in sight. It was eventually approved with a whole host of financial concessions far beyond a standard development project that didn't change the NIMBY's opposition but did what it was designed to do: make the project infeasible.
King makes a brief reference to this, but doesn't reflect on it at all in relation to the state law limiting hearings to 5 meetings. Out of the 37 meetings on Harold Way, at what point was the project changed for the better? Instead of potentially 100 low income homes on-site and in our trust-fund Berkeley got zero. The oh-so historic movie theater to be preserved that was long in decline and would've been replaced with a modern IMAX theater, announced closure shortly after the lockdowns. What did all that energy, staff time and salary paid for by Berkeley taxpayers amount to? Not a damn thing.

The battle of Harold Way was the genesis of the modern YIMBY movement in Berkeley and the East Bay, because a generation of people saw up close that the NIMBYs didn't actually want any of these benefits to materialize. The NIMBY's true, ulterior motive was revealed in their joyous celebrations in newsletters, their newspaper and tweets when the housing fell through.

The voters a decade ago explicitly approved 3 high-rises in downtown Berkeley and only one was ever built a hotel. The two housing projects were sued and obstructed endlessly, one into oblivion and the other has yet to break ground years after approval. Both of which were fought over viciously while curiously, the hotel high-rise received tax breaks (in total contrast to the unusually high requirements and community benefits for the residential projects) and no NIMBY cared to even fight it like the downtown housing.

Isn't it odd some people only get mad around here when it's housing?"

Again, I repeat why would any private developer of multifamily want to deal with this?

---

Those are projects that required height exemptions.
That does not include a lot of buildings built before and being built. There have been a lot of buildings built in the last couple decades. I moved into Library Gardens (now K Street Flats) ten years ago.

Here is another John King article from last year:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/Berkeley-housing-17203799.php

"…. A downtown housing boom that shows no sign of dying down. At least 10 apartment buildings ranging in height from 5 to 14 stories are under construction in downtown Berkeley, most of them within a block of the district's spine, Shattuck Avenue. An equal number are approved or under review, including a proposed 25 story housing tower…"

More than 20 apartment buildings being added to the already impressive number built in the last 20 years.

"There hasn't been much fuss about the downtown boom…"

All these developers have built and are building all these buildings in Berkeley because it is possible and profitable. Shattuck, Ashby, San Pablo, building over the BART parking lots…. It is really a great place to live.

Interesting discussion

I grew up in Berkeley and would testify that it WAS a great place to live. At one time, in Shattuck/University/Bancroft/Telegraph area, you could find clothing stores (Smiths, House of Harris, Hinks, Roos Atkins, George Goode's, Grodins, JC Penny, Vaughn at Sather Gate), shoe stores including one of the first Nike shops, hardware stores (Berkeley Hardware, Shattuck Hardware), camera shop (Palmers), bakeries, the aforementioned Missing Link and before that, Berkeley Cycle, markets, 7-8 theaters, at least one music venue (Keystone), etc. Virtually all of that is long gone.

These new apartment buildings are, I assume, going to have zero parking, so how are people supposed to get groceries? The nearest grocery stores are the Trader Joe's on MLK and University (which took years to build - only Berkeley would protest the arrival of a Trader Joe's), the Berkeley Bowl on Adeline near Ashby, and Andronicos on Shattuck and Cedar. Have you ever tried carrying a weeks worth of food on a bicycle?

My point is, will all these new apartments be as appealing once people (at least non-students) realize that many of commercial resources they need for daily living are so hard to access?

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

New Substack: I respond to @JohnKingSFChron's issues about downtown Berkeley's development with somewhat frank explanations of how NIMBYs got Berkeley where it is today. And why the growing downtown is actually nice.https://t.co/H3bnFcanwH

— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 31, 2023

---

Yeah, I really enjoyed living in downtown Berkeley and that was ten years ago. High density housing, walking distance to BART lots of great restaurants, bars, theatre, Cal performances, concerts, movies, lectures and of course, Cal football, basketball, baseball, swimming, et al. I highly recommend it.

---

Exactly why you have a housing crises there: demand is great, and the City and others restrain supply.

---

There is a building boom along Shattuck of high rise apartment buildings. John King of the Chronicle called all the new buildings "ugly." Darrell Owens responded to that criticism on Twitter as posted by Okaydo. I am agreeing with Darrell Owens, the building boom has been a great thing, who cares if the buildings are ugly? They are creating a lot of new housing, including for students, in a great place to live.

High density housing along Shattuck connecting the BART stations (with street level retail especially) just makes sense. It is a great thing that Berkeley has developed and is continuing to develop in that way. The ugliness is a function of building codes and is largely unavoidable in order to produce the most housing at the lowest cost (producing low cost housing for consumers and profits for developers). His argument for a change in codes to allow for a single stairwell and more airflow makes sense (A building in Berkeley should not have to rely on H-VAC), but until that happens, this is pretty optimal.

---

The second and third parts of the there part article were about the shape of buildings and the lack of student housing.

The first part I'm putting below so you can explain how the building boom you see has somehow resulted in massive increases in density housing, as you claim in your post:

:"In 2010 and 2014, Berkeley voters overwhelmingly approved a zoning plan that allowed for three high-rises for downtown. When the first high-rise apartment was proposed, an arrogant and organized NIMBY opposition who believed voters didn't know what's good for them dragged it through 37 meetings. I was there: nobody ever changed their minds; it was an endless contest of posturing and speeches with no end in sight. It was eventually approved with a whole host of financial concessions far beyond a standard development project that didn't change the NIMBY's opposition but did what it was designed to do: make the project infeasible.
King makes a brief reference to this, but doesn't reflect on it at all in relation to the state law limiting hearings to 5 meetings. Out of the 37 meetings on Harold Way, at what point was the project changed for the better? Instead of potentially 100 low income homes on-site and in our trust-fund Berkeley got zero. The oh-so historic movie theater to be preserved that was long in decline and would've been replaced with a modern IMAX theater, announced closure shortly after the lockdowns. What did all that energy, staff time and salary paid for by Berkeley taxpayers amount to? Not a damn thing.

The battle of Harold Way was the genesis of the modern YIMBY movement in Berkeley and the East Bay, because a generation of people saw up close that the NIMBYs didn't actually want any of these benefits to materialize. The NIMBY's true, ulterior motive was revealed in their joyous celebrations in newsletters, their newspaper and tweets when the housing fell through.

The voters a decade ago explicitly approved 3 high-rises in downtown Berkeley and only one was ever built a hotel. The two housing projects were sued and obstructed endlessly, one into oblivion and the other has yet to break ground years after approval. Both of which were fought over viciously while curiously, the hotel high-rise received tax breaks (in total contrast to the unusually high requirements and community benefits for the residential projects) and no NIMBY cared to even fight it like the downtown housing.

Isn't it odd some people only get mad around here when it's housing?"

Again, I repeat why would any private developer of multifamily want to deal with this?

---

Those are projects that required height exemptions.
That does not include a lot of buildings built before and being built. There have been a lot of buildings built in the last couple decades. I moved into Library Gardens (now K Street Flats) ten years ago.

Here is another John King article from last year:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/Berkeley-housing-17203799.php

"…. A downtown housing boom that shows no sign of dying down. At least 10 apartment buildings ranging in height from 5 to 14 stories are under construction in downtown Berkeley, most of them within a block of the district's spine, Shattuck Avenue. An equal number are approved or under review, including a proposed 25 story housing tower…"

More than 20 apartment buildings being added to the already impressive number built in the last 20 years.

"There hasn't been much fuss about the downtown boom…"

All these developers have built and are building all these buildings in Berkeley because it is possible and profitable. Shattuck, Ashby, San Pablo, building over the BART parking lots…. It is really a great place to live.

---

Thanks for the new article. I think mixed use housing is a great for increasing the housing stock and Berkeley is allowing this. Typically, you need a certain level of housing units to bring in outside capital, so I assume these are small developers doing rehabs. This is sort of incremental housing increases, and not going to put a huge dent in what is big demand to live near campus with students and working people like you wanting to be near campus, which is why Cal is trying to put up new dorms. But it is a move in the right direction. What King considers a boom is what has been happening pretty much everywhere else, other than urban cities are allowing bigger projects, over the objections on NIMBY's by changing building codes. For example, see Los Angeles and most of its surrounding cities.

HearstMining said:

---

I grew up in Berkeley and would testify that it WAS a great place to live. At one time, in Shattuck/University/Bancroft/Telegraph area, you could find clothing stores (Smiths, House of Harris, Hinks, Roos Atkins, George Goode's, Grodins, JC Penny, Vaughn at Sather Gate), shoe stores including one of the first Nike shops, hardware stores (Berkeley Hardware, Shattuck Hardware), camera shop (Palmers), bakeries, the aforementioned Missing Link and before that, Berkeley Cycle, markets, 7-8 theaters, at least one music venue (Keystone), etc. Virtually all of that is long gone.

These new apartment buildings are, I assume, going to have zero parking, so how are people supposed to get groceries? The nearest grocery stores are the Trader Joe's on MLK and University (which took years to build - only Berkeley would protest the arrival of a Trader Joe's), the Berkeley Bowl on Adeline near Ashby, and Andronicos on Shattuck and Cedar. Have you ever tried carrying a weeks worth of food on a bicycle?

My point is, will all these new apartments be as appealing once people (at least non-students) realize that many of commercial resources they need for daily living are so hard to access?

---

When I lived on Telegraph Avenue in Oakland, I was 0.5 miles from the Safeway on College and a few blocks south of Whole Foods (which I rarely shopped at).

Here in Los Angeles, I live, thankfully, 0.6 miles from a big supermarket. (There's also a free bus called the DASH near my home that will carry me to 3 supermarkets within a few miles.)

I say thankfully, because I am often car-free.

When I lived on Telegraph, I would sometimes walk to the Safeway on Shattuck in North Berkeley.

Judging from Google Maps, the Safeway on Shattuck is 0.9 miles from Center and Shattuck.

The Berkeley Bowl is also 0.9 miles from Center and Shattuck. Then you have Trader Joe's, the mini Target (which has a decent grocery selection) and Adronico's, which is a few blocks south of the Safeway. That's 4 (or 5) supermarkets less than 1 mile from Center and Shattuck.

Don't want to carry heavy stuff? There's always the bus. In fact, you can take 1 bus to Whole Foods on Telegraph or Grocery Outlet on Broadway (you have to take the Telegraph bus and walk a few blocks).

I have a bunch of these. These are awesome for carrying groceries. They are less than $20 on Amazon.

okaydo said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I grew up in Berkeley and would testify that it WAS a great place to live. At one time, in Shattuck/University/Bancroft/Telegraph area, you could find clothing stores (Smiths, House of Harris, Hinks, Roos Atkins, George Goode's, Grodins, JC Penny, Vaughn at Sather Gate), shoe stores including one of the first Nike shops, hardware stores (Berkeley Hardware, Shattuck Hardware), camera shop (Palmers), bakeries, the aforementioned Missing Link and before that, Berkeley Cycle, markets, 7-8 theaters, at least one music venue (Keystone), etc. Virtually all of that is long gone.

These new apartment buildings are, I assume, going to have zero parking, so how are people supposed to get groceries? The nearest grocery stores are the Trader Joe's on MLK and University (which took years to build - only Berkeley would protest the arrival of a Trader Joe's), the Berkeley Bowl on Adeline near Ashby, and Andronicos on Shattuck and Cedar. Have you ever tried carrying a weeks worth of food on a bicycle?

My point is, will all these new apartments be as appealing once people (at least non-students) realize that many of commercial resources they need for daily living are so hard to access?

---

When I lived on Telegraph Avenue in Oakland, I was 0.5 miles from the Safeway on College and a few blocks south of Whole Foods (which I rarely shopped at).

Here in Los Angeles, I live, thankfully, 0.6 miles from a big supermarket. (There's also a free bus called the DASH near my home that will carry me to 3 supermarkets within a few miles.)

I say thankfully, because I am often car-free.

When I lived on Telegraph, I would sometimes walk to the Safeway on Shattuck in North Berkeley.

Judging from Google Maps, the Safeway on Shattuck is 0.9 miles from Center and Shattuck.

The Berkeley Bowl is also 0.9 miles from Center and Shattuck. Then you have Trader Joe's, the mini Target (which has a decent grocery selection) and Adronico's, which is a few blocks south of the Safeway. That's 4 (or 5) supermarkets less than 1 mile from Center and Shattuck.

Don't want to carry heavy stuff? There's always the bus. In fact, you can take 1 bus to Whole Foods on Telegraph or Grocery Outlet on Broadway (you have to take the Telegraph bus and walk a few blocks).

I have a bunch of these. These are awesome for carrying groceries. They are less than $20 on Amazon.

---

Plus there is the farmer's market on weekends only one block away.

I think it is great that guys like King are looking at and writing about urban planning. My own view as a guy that used to be do a lot of housing bonds, is that California's housing shortage ultimately will be cured by greater urban density. This was the trend going into C-19, and then the trend in essence reversed itself. But I believe in the long run, most people who don't have kids will think living in a downtown area, with all the amenities, is a good thing. Obviously, with kids, all sorts of issues become relevant to the equation, like schools, safety, back yards, etc.

TandemBear said:

---

For anyone who has traveled in Europe, especially the former eastern bloc, you have an appreciation for NOT building rectangular, oppressive structures to warehouse people! Some of the stuff that went up in the west, too, is horrible. There simply must be a compromise for high-density housing that isn't soul-crushing. It seems that many of today's designs seem to accomplish this (save for certain new buildings on Telegraph!).

---

IMO, the biggest problem with former USSR residential neighborhoods is not the architecture, it's that they got the scale all wrong. Way too much space in between huge, mega dense concrete apartments. "Towers in a park" style planning is a massive failure as the mobility isn't great, and it feels very isolating despite cramming so many people in one building. You end up having to traverse these huge unpleasant dead zones to get anywhere.

Many East Asian cities are built with apartments that look similarly, with their simple rectangle shapes and monochromatic concrete or tile facades, but they are quite desirable and convenient because the street level urban and land-use planning is much better.

Quote:

---

The fights by current single-family homeowners against huge multi-unit and multi-story building developments are indeed understandable. When your home and main (and often only) asset and nest-egg is threatened by economic devaluation and reduction in quality of life, you will get an outcry.

---

I can't agree with either premise. In urban and inner-ring suburban settings, there's no evidence that "economic devaluation" occurs when densification happens. In fact, property values usually go up.

Second, is it a reduction in quality of life, or is it a change to the mode of life? Many would say increased density, with a concurrent increase in accessible businesses, services, and recreational activities within a given area improve quality of life. I think Americans are just too used to living one way, and also have never really experienced a functioning urban environment, but if they did, would probably prefer it. It's always funny when people the most opposed to densification or urbanization often vacation in Europe or Japan, or spend their leisure time in shopping malls and amusement parks which literally mime a vibrant, dense, walkable space.

WalterSobchak said:

---

It's very dangerous to listen to people who don't study building science but have a social agenda on issues of building safety and construction. It's tragically ironic that he cites Europe as a model for single-staircase success when London has had a series of devastating residential highrise fires, none more famous than Grenfell Tower where 72 people died and another 70+ were injured in a single stairwell residential highrise. The reason for those not familiar were highly flammable composite aluminum and rigid foam exterior insulation panels which provided a vertical corridor for rapid flame spread that was/is largely impervious to external extinguishment techniques. While London has moved to ban these particular panels, the foam materials are code approved and prevalent in modern buildings.

What's more, there are a host of building science reasons beyond fire safety for mechanical ventilation in modern buildings. More and more, buildings are built to be "passive" or "net zero" but many don't understand how that's achieved. Insulation is a big part of it, but there are virtually non-flammable materials available such as mineral wool (although it's more expensive and not nearly as ubiquitous as flammable "hard" foam products like polyiso). But modern construction best practices now call for a continuous air and water resistive barrier enveloping the entire structure. We learned in the '90s that these membranes need to be vapor permeable, and now they are for the most part, but that's not enough given the moisture loaded into the living space by everyday activities such as bathing, cooking, and even just breathing. During the summer it's possible that there can be enough natural ventilation (although IMO unlikely in a highrise) but even in Berkeley that possibility disappears in the winter. So without mechanical ventilation odds are you will get mold in the winter, and that's a very bad (and expensive) problem.

What should be mandated for these projects IMO are recovery ventilators and, for heating and cooling, ground source heat pumps with vertical boring loops below the structures because these systems are FAR more efficient than typical air source AC units. But the borings are a significant upfront cost so nobody does it.

---

One of the best parts of this website is that there are almost always knowledgeable people to speak to off topic discussions, like building design and construction techniques. Interesting info - thanks for sharing.

okaydo said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I grew up in Berkeley and would testify that it WAS a great place to live. At one time, in Shattuck/University/Bancroft/Telegraph area, you could find clothing stores (Smiths, House of Harris, Hinks, Roos Atkins, George Goode's, Grodins, JC Penny, Vaughn at Sather Gate), shoe stores including one of the first Nike shops, hardware stores (Berkeley Hardware, Shattuck Hardware), camera shop (Palmers), bakeries, the aforementioned Missing Link and before that, Berkeley Cycle, markets, 7-8 theaters, at least one music venue (Keystone), etc. Virtually all of that is long gone.

These new apartment buildings are, I assume, going to have zero parking, so how are people supposed to get groceries? The nearest grocery stores are the Trader Joe's on MLK and University (which took years to build - only Berkeley would protest the arrival of a Trader Joe's), the Berkeley Bowl on Adeline near Ashby, and Andronicos on Shattuck and Cedar. Have you ever tried carrying a weeks worth of food on a bicycle?

My point is, will all these new apartments be as appealing once people (at least non-students) realize that many of commercial resources they need for daily living are so hard to access?

---

When I lived on Telegraph Avenue in Oakland, I was 0.5 miles from the Safeway on College and a few blocks south of Whole Foods (which I rarely shopped at).

Here in Los Angeles, I live, thankfully, 0.6 miles from a big supermarket. (There's also a free bus called the DASH near my home that will carry me to 3 supermarkets within a few miles.)

I say thankfully, because I am often car-free.

When I lived on Telegraph, I would sometimes walk to the Safeway on Shattuck in North Berkeley.

Judging from Google Maps, the Safeway on Shattuck is 0.9 miles from Center and Shattuck.

The Berkeley Bowl is also 0.9 miles from Center and Shattuck. Then you have Trader Joe's, the mini Target (which has a decent grocery selection) and Adronico's, which is a few blocks south of the Safeway. That's 4 (or 5) supermarkets less than 1 mile from Center and Shattuck.

Don't want to carry heavy stuff? There's always the bus. In fact, you can take 1 bus to Whole Foods on Telegraph or Grocery Outlet on Broadway (you have to take the Telegraph bus and walk a few blocks).

I have a bunch of these. These are awesome for carrying groceries. They are less than $20 on Amazon.

---

I applaud you (seriously). But you live a lifestyle I have zero interest in. The day I'm waiting for and riding buses to the store then waiting for a bus again and hauling all my stuff on public transportation...absolutely no thanks.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I think it is great that guys like King are looking at and writing about urban planning. My own view as a guy that used to be do a lot of housing bonds, is that California's housing shortage ultimately will be cured by greater urban density. This was the trend going into C-19, and then the trend in essence reversed itself. But I believe in the long run, most people who don't have kids will think living in a downtown area, with all the amenities, is a good thing. Obviously, with kids, all sorts of issues become relevant to the equation, like schools, safety, back yards, etc.

---

Agreed, and for Cal alums and sports fans, having the campus and Cal athletics as part of your walkable area and entertainment is just fantastic. It is one of my two retirement fantasies.

tequila4kapp said:

---

okaydo said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I grew up in Berkeley and would testify that it WAS a great place to live. At one time, in Shattuck/University/Bancroft/Telegraph area, you could find clothing stores (Smiths, House of Harris, Hinks, Roos Atkins, George Goode's, Grodins, JC Penny, Vaughn at Sather Gate), shoe stores including one of the first Nike shops, hardware stores (Berkeley Hardware, Shattuck Hardware), camera shop (Palmers), bakeries, the aforementioned Missing Link and before that, Berkeley Cycle, markets, 7-8 theaters, at least one music venue (Keystone), etc. Virtually all of that is long gone.

These new apartment buildings are, I assume, going to have zero parking, so how are people supposed to get groceries? The nearest grocery stores are the Trader Joe's on MLK and University (which took years to build - only Berkeley would protest the arrival of a Trader Joe's), the Berkeley Bowl on Adeline near Ashby, and Andronicos on Shattuck and Cedar. Have you ever tried carrying a weeks worth of food on a bicycle?

My point is, will all these new apartments be as appealing once people (at least non-students) realize that many of commercial resources they need for daily living are so hard to access?

---

When I lived on Telegraph Avenue in Oakland, I was 0.5 miles from the Safeway on College and a few blocks south of Whole Foods (which I rarely shopped at).

Here in Los Angeles, I live, thankfully, 0.6 miles from a big supermarket. (There's also a free bus called the DASH near my home that will carry me to 3 supermarkets within a few miles.)

I say thankfully, because I am often car-free.

When I lived on Telegraph, I would sometimes walk to the Safeway on Shattuck in North Berkeley.

Judging from Google Maps, the Safeway on Shattuck is 0.9 miles from Center and Shattuck.

The Berkeley Bowl is also 0.9 miles from Center and Shattuck. Then you have Trader Joe's, the mini Target (which has a decent grocery selection) and Adronico's, which is a few blocks south of the Safeway. That's 4 (or 5) supermarkets less than 1 mile from Center and Shattuck.

Don't want to carry heavy stuff? There's always the bus. In fact, you can take 1 bus to Whole Foods on Telegraph or Grocery Outlet on Broadway (you have to take the Telegraph bus and walk a few blocks).

I have a bunch of these. These are awesome for carrying groceries. They are less than $20 on Amazon.

---

I applaud you (seriously). But you live a lifestyle I have zero interest in. The day I'm waiting for and riding buses to the store then waiting for a bus again and hauling all my stuff on public transportation...absolutely no thanks.

---

I only do it a few times a month. May 2-3 times. As I said, I live near a big supermarket.* But I also like to try other supermarkets. I live in an area/region that is near a lot of f*ckn stuff. A lot of stuff that is easily walkable and bus-able.

And, I don't know if you know this, but with buses these days, you can use an app to see exactly where your bus is located via GPS. So waiting isn't as much of a hassle.

I assume you live in the suburbs. If I lived in the suburbs, where there isn't that much stuff nearby, well, I'd be more car-dependent.

Oh, I also live in an area where cars are just very vulnerable things. They are constantly broken into.

I also utilize Amazon (and Target and Walmart) a lot. The advantage of working from home is I could have detergent, cat litter, milk and other very heavy things delivered.

> The advantage of working from home is I could have detergent, cat litter, milk and other very heavy things delivered.

congrats okaydo. annd obvious disadvantage of internet distractions like bear insider <cough> <cough>
signed, retired nearly 30 years

In GENERAL, property values go up. I realize this and have personally benefited from it. I don't argue that. But when it's YOUR house that now sits next to a large new high-density building, and suffers significant loss of sunlight you suffer. Additional issues like parking and traffic are also worth taking into consideration. If a high building went in next door to my house, we'd move. And we'd suffer a loss of equity with a house and yard sitting in shadow the majority of the day. That's erosion of real estate equity. Talk about dreary and cold. I'd say a property owner should be compensated for this. But I doubt that's a common outcome.

In fact, I wonder if solar power will create a new form of "rights" and/or litigation when it comes to large building construction? Say you're producing enough power for your home's needs and someone erects a building next door that nullifies your power generation, what's your recourse? Is there any right to sunshine?

If there are "view rights," then it would follow that there should be sunlight rights as well. This would be far more important and beneficial to society than aesthetic views. (However, those translate directly into home values, so they maintain their importance.) I would expect this issue to be an emerging law & legislation subject. And if it isn't, it probably should be.

These are well-settled areas of law, including in California which does not allow accretion of view easements by prescription. A very general summary is that in California there is no absolute right to views or sunlight, with a few exceptions: One is the "spite fence" statute. Another is the Solar Shade Control Act. Some local jurisdictions have ordinances to protect view rights under certain conditions. Berkeley is one of them. These examples are not exhaustive. However, all of these are typically aimed at trees and fences or "structures in the nature of a fence" (commonly rows of tall trees or shrubs).

Where view blocking or shading is the result of an actual building or structure, that is typically a matter of zoning, and the question becomes whether the building adheres to the zoning requirements for the parcel. Where the zoning regime allows for the erection of tall buildings on particular parcels that reflects the priorities of the community. There are rules for establishing these priorities, which typically take rough shape in the jurisdiction's general plan and sometimes also get refined further in one or more area specific plan(s). For example Berkeley has both a General Plan, which sets forth the overarching vision for future development citywide, and a specific Downtown Area Plan (among others), which prescribes both contextual standards and specific requirements for downtown development. The zoning regime typically takes concerns about excessive shade into consideration. For example, Berkeley requires a "shadow study" for tall buildings in or abutting residential districts. This is pretty typical.

The idea that a zoning change to allow a conforming tall building next door would deteriorate property value is suspect. While it might compromise an intended use, or even destroy quiet enjoyment, it almost certainly would increase economic value because the highest and best use would change so that the development potential of the parcel would be enhanced. Of course it is possible that the lot in question would be non-conforming for that higher economic value use, but thems the breaks. There is not really any recourse for that scenario, only total loss of all economic value is compensable.

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

New Substack: I respond to @JohnKingSFChron's issues about downtown Berkeley's development with somewhat frank explanations of how NIMBYs got Berkeley where it is today. And why the growing downtown is actually nice.https://t.co/H3bnFcanwH

— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 31, 2023

---

Yeah, I really enjoyed living in downtown Berkeley and that was ten years ago. High density housing, walking distance to BART lots of great restaurants, bars, theatre, Cal performances, concerts, movies, lectures and of course, Cal football, basketball, baseball, swimming, et al. I highly recommend it.

---

Exactly why you have a housing crises there: demand is great, and the City and others restrain supply.

---

There is a building boom along Shattuck of high rise apartment buildings. John King of the Chronicle called all the new buildings "ugly." Darrell Owens responded to that criticism on Twitter as posted by Okaydo. I am agreeing with Darrell Owens, the building boom has been a great thing, who cares if the buildings are ugly? They are creating a lot of new housing, including for students, in a great place to live.

High density housing along Shattuck connecting the BART stations (with street level retail especially) just makes sense. It is a great thing that Berkeley has developed and is continuing to develop in that way. The ugliness is a function of building codes and is largely unavoidable in order to produce the most housing at the lowest cost (producing low cost housing for consumers and profits for developers). His argument for a change in codes to allow for a dingl stairwell makes sense, but until that happens, this is pretty optimal.

---

At one time, architects, contractors, and landlords had pride and desired for their building to be as beautiful as there were functional. The buildings on and around Cal reflected these values through the 19th century and for several decades into the 20th. It's sad that building codes are required to encourage a city beautiful movement (or if not necessarily beautiful, at least not ugly).

Maybe the statistics don't support it, but I feel more comfortable with egress other than a single stairway. Even the ugly high rise unit dorms had fire escapes in addition to a stairway by the elevator shaft.

---

Totally agree. One exit is plain nuts. And would be used by any plaintiffs' attorneys as evidence of per se negligence following deaths of people who could not timely exit the building during a fire

40 year home loan anyone??? So they want to give you a 8 year car loan on a car that will need engine repairs after 6 years. (Really like 3 yrs if you Uber or Doordash). — Then they want you to sign a 40 year home loan on a DR Horton new build house that will need major repairs… https://t.co/uLC5DRRbhU

— Antonio Moore (@tonetalks) April 6, 2023

Extending the loan period is a band-aid. It may help a few people get into homes.

But the entire "affordable housing" issue is a lark. The advent of "tiny homes" exposes the actual shrinking of the American Dream! Tiny homes, you have GOT to be kidding! Reverse the loss of wages revealed in the Rand Study. Americans simply need to make more money, MUCH more. Lucrative jobs with security, benefits, paid sick leave and paid vacation and good retirement plans are a must. Add to that cost reductions that could be achieved in health care and other sectors of the economy. Restore usury laws to stop the rip off of the poor. Establish a national retirement savings program where fees are low and returns go to the INVESTOR, not the middleman! There are SO MANY ways to restore economic prosperity. Extended financing on home loans would be my LAST go-to remedy.

TandemBear said:

---

Extending the loan period is a band-aid. It may help a few people get into homes.

But the entire "affordable housing" issue is a lark. The advent of "tiny homes" exposes the actual shrinking of the American Dream! Tiny homes, you have GOT to be kidding! Reverse the loss of wages revealed in the Rand Study. Americans simply need to make more money, MUCH more. Lucrative jobs with security, benefits, paid sick leave and paid vacation and good retirement plans are a must. Add to that cost reductions that could be achieved in health care and other sectors of the economy. Restore usury laws to stop the rip off of the poor. Establish a national retirement savings program where fees are low and returns go to the INVESTOR, not the middleman! There are SO MANY ways to restore economic prosperity. Extended financing on home loans would be my LAST go-to remedy.

---

It is not one or the other, it is all of the above. Longer mortgages, higher minimum wage, tiny houses, off grid houses, micro apartments, van life, houseboats, high density housing next to mass transit….