Architecture Ransom Notes

Specifically, I will be writing about the funding of affordable housing via the taxation of market rate housing and how that affects housing prices. It's true that in some instances, affordable housing funds come from the general fund which is funded via other taxes, but that kind of goes beyond the scope of this blog. For the purposes of this post, when I say "affordable housing", I specifically mean a price controlled unit sold lower than market value, and not innovative market rate housing like tiny homes or creative uses of space in a condo. There are generally two ways developers may provide affordable housing: Provide below market rate units within the development. Occasionally, this will come with perks like density bonuses, but many times, it's just mandated by the city that the developer must provide a certain percentage.  Pay an in-lieu fee to the city, which varies by city. For an example of the first method, we go to a sprawling city in the East Bay...

Several years ago, we went to my wife's friend's wedding at Vallco Mall in Cupertino. To our surprise, the parking lot was empty and many of the doors were barred. We finally found an open entrance and walked in. The lights were half on and there were only several people wandering around during a time where nearby Valley Fair Mall was absolutely teeming with people. The sound of a heavy door closing shut somewhere in the mall echoed through the otherwise quiet halls. Only four businesses were open in this giant mall: A large Chinese restaurant where the wedding was held at, a movie theater, a Cold Stone, and a random eyeglasses store. It was downright eerie, like if you walk around Times Square in the late afternoon and you only see five or six people walking around. Did the zombie apocalypse just begin? No, it turns out Vallco was a victim of several anchor stores closing up, turning it into what's known as a ghost mall. Developers had purchased the nearly vacant mall in...

We've all heard it. We've probably all bought into it at least several times as well. Natural is good. Buy the all natural product. Naturally grown food is better. Don't clean with that, there are chemicals in it! Of course, some of those ideas may be right sometimes, but using that reason in itself is fallacious. The mentality is so pervasive there is a logical fallacy specifically termed appeal to nature . This fallacy also occasionally bleeds into building construction, primarily choosing planning commissions and design review boards as its preferred medium. I have, myself, fallen prey to this mentality when I was younger, just out of architecture school. I was really into architecture conveying the truth. I still believe in this as far as ideas like spatial transparency where using hierarchical methodologies, one can, from the exterior, tell what spaces within a building are served for which purposes. But where nature is concerned, I was aghast to learn that, at least...

The East Bay Times published an article concerning the difficulty of building, using the North 40 project in Los Gatos as a prime example. It goes into some length about how the project has been held up for twenty years in a stalemate fight between the developer and the neighbors. It ultimately ended up in a lawsuit which the developer won, clearly having rights to build on their land. Although I disagree with state directed housing supply mandates (enforcing property rights is a much better approach), it is interesting to see some of the other statistics the article revealed concerning the woeful lack of housing cities have permitted: 97 percent of cities and counties failed to keep pace with housing needs The article also cites research that found it takes on average 17 months to attain approval for projects and that these delays can add 30% to the price of new homes. It's a rarity for me to see California projects go from initial architectural contract to construction d...