Gregory's Server
@mizblueprint @pamleo65 @Daojoan I went poking around Napa on street view - it looks like it really shouldn't be that hard to build lots more housing there, if people really wanted to. Wide roads, huge parking lots, vast swathes of single family homes, etc, etc. Same as much of the rest of America. Building can be expensive, sure - but that itself is amenable to change, if people really want to change it.
|
3 comments
 @Angle In the City of Napa, the last two General Plans have increased zoning densities. There are over the counter plan reviews now for most residential construction. Back to my point about short term rentals & housing supply, it is still very expensive to build new housing units, and much more cost effective to preserve existing dwellings. @Angle @mizblueprint @pamleo65 @Daojoan I’ve been through Napa a few times, when I lived in Sonoma County (to the west). Your impression from Street View is correct. But it is surrounded by vineyards, many of which are run by “lifestyle vintners,” who want their chalets and their labels and everything except good wine. And they have money, lots and lots and lots of money. |
@mizblueprint @pamleo65 @Daojoan Like most things, building gets cheaper if you do it in bulk. A small initial change in how expensive and difficult it is to build things can have outsized impact, as it ripples outwards and changes how much people build, which itself changes how easy it is to build things. Has your city ever considered dropping parking requirements, for example? Loosening zoning laws? Any of the dozens of simple and straightforwards reforms to just let people build?