Sid Kapur

No ziggurats!

this is like, playing all the diatonic triads in sequence?

SB 35 doesn't let you ignore the city's inclusionary rate
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_...

Rise and Fall of American Growth, p. 114 has this chart

Wake up babe new Jeremy Bernstein just dropped

Yep, thanks!!

Can you make these public?

Ahh okay thanks, that makes sense!

These are the only examples I've seen
bsky.app/profile/cohe...
bsky.app/profile/cohe...

Both cases refer to the "aggregate density" or "total capacity for units and floor area" as specified in Section 65912.157, and 65912.157 makes no reference to low-resource areas

My read is that either you meet 50% of SB 79 capacity throughout the city, and then all low-income sites are exempt, or you meet 40% of SB 79 capacity near a majority low-resource stop, and then other sites around that stop are exempt

(the word "low resource" is not used anywhere else in the bill)

I'm not sure. TOC only gives a 35-80% density increase. It does nothing in single-family zones, and in duplex zones (which are a big fraction of South LA near transit) it only allows 3-4 units.
To comply, TOC would have to allow 40-60 du/acre on average across all SB 79 sites

They can, but because low resource is like 75% of the transit stops in LA, they would need to go to 200% of SB 79 density in the non-low-resource stops to reach 50% of SB 79 zoned capacity overall

3 stories in all single family areas near transit statewide (and taller if you use SDBL) is already a huge accomplishment and would have been unthinkable 5 years ago! I think of that as the main accomplishment, and the fact that it'll be 5-7 stories in the 2030s as the cherry on top

IMO the low resource exclusions aren't that big, it just means cities can pass an alternative plan this RHNA cycle with 40% of SB79 density in low resource areas and 50% in other areas (or <40% in low resource if they do >50% in other areas). And they still have to get to 100% in the 2030s

This is awesome

Fair Park?

is that the sequel to Her?

Wait that's awesome!! IIRC Seattle housing production fell when they added neighborhood villages and MHA at the same time, great that 5 years later people agree the latter was a bad idea

Why don't these zones have MHA? So formerly single-family lots don't have MHA but formerly commercial/multifamily lots have it?

This is wild to me, but really good to know! If this pattern continues to hold after this rezoning I'm sure Building Code Twitter will have great case studies to motivate further building code improvements
(and anti-YIMBYs will have great examples to point to about why upzoning doesn't work)

G!

So FAR 1.6 townhouses are more profitable than FAR 2 apartments? Is the fee-simple/detached premium just that big??
(Would 6 or 8 larger units be more profitable than 10 1000 sq ft units?)

whoa that's insane!! what's the typical SFH lot size? and how much MHA is required?

He said "he might not be SAYING that now" not "he might not be saying that NOW"

YouTube video by Fox News Trump: These people are CRAZED LUNATICS

This one doesn't sound like a joke in the delivery

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUc3...

Where is this?

Thanks!!

Is the zoom open to the public? How would I find the link?

You think they'd rather let 65912.157 go into effect in 2026? Even though it requires twice the density, has HAA/SB 423 streamlining, 1-3 extra SDBL concessions etc?
While a 65912.160 ordinance could be a half density incentive program with a super high inclusionary requirement?