Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest
Berkeley’s proposal to massively upzone single‑family areas and scrap parking minimums is held up as a potentially major step toward easing the Bay Area’s housing shortage, but many argue that remaining limits on height, setbacks and parking could still block meaningful new construction. Commenters clash over whether higher density actually lowers housing costs or just raises land values and congestion, and how much problems like homelessness and crime are really tied to a lack of housing versus other factors. The thread also highlights structural constraints such as California’s Proposition 13, debates over land value taxes, and concerns about transit, schools, and neighborhood character as cities nationwide revisit exclusionary zoning rules.
Scope of the Berkeley Upzoning Proposal
- Many see it as unusually ambitious: removal of unit caps in key zones, higher lot coverage (~60%), 3 stories allowed, minimal setbacks, and no parking minimums near transit.
- Supporters think this could turn many single‑family parcels into 6–10 units and meaningfully increase housing supply.
- Skeptics expect the city to add offsetting rules (e.g., strict demolition controls) or otherwise neuter it in practice.
Zoning Reform vs. Hidden Constraints
- Multiple comments stress that “upzoning” can be hollow if parking minimums, setbacks, height limits, lot coverage caps, and building codes make added units infeasible.
- Some cities cited as examples: nominal upzoning to 3–4 units per lot but 400–500 sq ft constraints and code requirements rendered them marginal or unlivable.
- Pre‑approved standard plans for small multifamily and ADUs are proposed as a way to cut delay and cost.
Land Value Tax, Prop 13, and Incentives
- Several argue upzoning should be paired with a Land Value Tax to penalize underused land and push owners to build.
- Others note LVT is effectively blocked in California by Prop 13 and that Prop 13 itself freezes people in place, distorts property taxes, and worsens housing scarcity.
- Debate over how large the Prop 13 tax gap really is; some say impacts are overstated, others report 5–10x differences between neighbors.
Upzoning, Density, and Prices
- One camp: more buildable capacity plus actual construction eventually restrains or lowers rents; cites research and Minneapolis‑style reforms.
- Opponents: dense places are always the most expensive; claim more construction coincides with higher prices and that developers stop building once rents soften.
- Nuanced view: we’ve underbuilt for generations; new supply often only slows price growth, not reverses it, until huge deficits are cleared.
Parking, Cars, and Street Space
- Strong support for removing parking minimums; some also support parking maximums near transit to curb car use and congestion.
- Others argue parking caps harm low‑income workers with off‑hours commutes and simply push parking battles onto streets.
- Proposals include priced street parking, land value taxes, and better transit as more efficient ways to ration car space.
Density, Quality of Life, and Homelessness
- Pro‑density commenters emphasize lower per‑capita emissions, shorter commutes, better services, and the need to house people to reduce homelessness.
- Anti‑density voices fear crowding, crime, traffic, and loss of suburban character; some doubt new “luxury” units will help the homeless at all.
- There’s disagreement over whether existing residents’ desire to preserve neighborhood character is legitimate preference or coded exclusion.
Infrastructure, Politics, and Feasibility
- Concerns about whether schools, parks, water, transit, and fire/landslide risks (in the hills) are being addressed alongside upzoning.
- Several note Bay Area transit and political fragmentation make coordinated fixes hard; others see Berkeley’s recent building and falling rents as a hopeful sign.
- Many doubt Berkeley’s political culture (NIMBY activism, rent control, Prop 13 constraints) will let the full benefits of upzoning materialize.