I'm glad there's more density, and it's near transit, for the most part. Of course, it will still increase traffic, but by going with density and near transit, it'll reduce the impact vs building more single family homes.
The quick summary is that the 2000 Building Code allowed inexpensive construction of 5-floor wood buildings over a concrete base. This "5 over 1" construction gives "near-high-rise densities at a wood-frame price", so it has become very popular in the US.
That's about the only perk of these places. Sometimes they have nice things like a pool, but with how cheap the buildings are, you are going to hear your neighbors above, to the sides, and below you all day. Toured a place like this and noped the fuck out when I heard some dog bark in another unit and it sounded like he was yapping from the bedroom.
My understanding is most of the price of housing in West coast cities comes from the value of land, the building permits, and the low supply. How much does construction cost really factor into rent?
You answered your own question. The fund manager of an REIT or developer is looking to maximize ROI, and in the absence of higher quality alternatives, they can afford to build to the lowest specs possible that will still rent.
Via 401k(s) and defined benefit pension fund investments, we all are responsible for maximizing for ROI.
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/11/beautiful-public-housing-red-...
The construction quality of multi-family homes in SV pretty poor.
I moved out after my first lease expired.
Nowadays codes and trends - at least in parts of Europe - caught up, and soundproofing has became important through the process. (For architects/engineers, developers/builders and buyers/renters.)
My point is that properties above entry level apartment grade are scarce in the valley despite the fact that rents can support it better than just about anywhere. It actually kept me from moving up there
And you can hear your neighbors cough.
We can do better, and yes, I'm willing to sacrifice the superficial stuff and pay a bit more for quality construction.
I also run a box fan almost all the time, so quieter sounds from neighbors are below the noise floor and not perceptible.
We desperately need to tighten up some of our regulatory codes and force better soundproofing.
Soundproofing simply was left out of the code because the buildings of old were sturdy and massive enough to implicitly take care of most of the noise problems. Now new materials and standards are lean enough to conduct sound very well. Oops.
Buyers also got wise in the last decade. Now anyone buys or rents the first thing - after location, location, location - is checking how noisy it is.
If all housing would have been built by committee, it's just as likely that it'd have taken a lot of time for the committee to change its ways.
These little steps help, but NIMBYism is still holding back potential housing inventory.
What IS an option is changing mandatory single family home areas to allow for "missing middle" housing, thereby reducing economic segregation currently present on most of the residential land. A lot of people prefer the current level of segregation, though, so it's a hard sell.
> Of course, it will still increase traffic
[adjusts glasses]
Actually, building housing near workplaces decreases traffic. Imagine people who used to drive in from Modesto moving in to these units.