Reply
Platinum Regular Contributor
elt1
Posts: 4,802
Registered: ‎01-04-2010
0

3000 buildings in SF targeted for forced seismic upgrades

[ Edited ]

This is the first step for forced seismic upgrades. This has been coming for a long time. Berkeley already has point of sale seismic update plans required. The upshot is there will be a strain on housing supply for the next ten years as all the soft story apartment buildings are required to upgraded in old BA cities..This will mean much higher rents and prices for the buildings not requiring upgrades.  http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/02/04/city-considers-making-building-owners-do-seismic-upgrades

 

Love the comments:smileywink:

 

Personally, I think it is good thing. An economic opportunity for engineers and contractors plus better public safety for at least 60,000 people. But it is unconscionable that cities won't relax zoning rules to allow more new construction to weaken the blow with all the units lost during renovation. Plus rent controlled apartments will see rents rise. Estimated cost/building $150,000. That is $450m of investment...chickfeed compared to The $13b wasted on  the Bay Bridge that has already survived for 50% longer than predicted.

Platinum Super Contributor
buyinghouse
Posts: 5,879
Registered: ‎04-23-2011
0

Re: 3000 buildings in SF targeted for forced seismic upgrades

   Finally, no money out of "our pockets" for that retrofitting.

Silver Contributor
bld999
Posts: 471
Registered: ‎04-15-2011
0

Re: 3000 buildings in SF targeted for forced seismic upgrades

Similar requirement kicks in here in Seattle some time in 2014.

 

People will yell and oppose it until we get another big shaker, then yell again about why it wasn't required  sooner.

Owner: " it's already survived 10 plus 5.5 or bigger quakes, it's fine..."

Citizen whiner : "What ??? you mean these buildings aren't...  UP TO CODE!!!!  ????"  :catfrustrated:

Platinum Regular Contributor
tjh
Posts: 4,741
Registered: ‎01-09-2010
0

Re: 3000 buildings in SF targeted for forced seismic upgrades

"Hey!!!  We're from the government and, we're here to help"

 

"This is for your own good."

 

"I'm just doing my job Luke".

 

Welcome to the nannystate.  Where the guberment knows what's best for everyone.  California collectivism will overcome everything....and everyone who gets in its path.

 

You were right elt1.  The comments are astoundingly hilarious. They feed right back into my quotes above. 

Gold Regular Contributor
sheriff
Posts: 2,264
Registered: ‎06-01-2012
0

Re: 3000 buildings in SF targeted for forced seismic upgrades

You forgot "This is going to hurt me more than it will you".  Baby boomer parents.

Silver Contributor
New2BA
Posts: 414
Registered: ‎05-14-2012
0

Re: 3000 buildings in SF targeted for forced seismic upgrades

I suspect the reason that Berkeley offers an incentive for retrofitting as well as other "improvements" at point-of-sale is because a lot of long-time owners won't do diddly as far as even maintaining their (rental) properties, even if they do pose hazards for the people living in them. .Sorry but this is based partially on my own experience renting crummy housing there and also from reading seller disclosures when I was shopping... Why expect people to bother reinvesting in what remains as their cash cow, regardless? The rebate (1/2% of sale from the transfer fee, with inspection and no reassessment) for new owners is a good idea but it leaves many buildings uncovered. There's also the question of whether or not dinosaurs will survive another 'big' quake, depending on the type of retrofit.

 

Similarly, I don't foresee SF owners taking on the expense/hassle either.. units will decay/topple to an state requiring demolition, like "Guest" commented in the link, or there might be mounting pressure to sell to others (investors or developers) having the wherewithal to find a way to make it profitable for them. Note that only the red areas on the fringes of the city (bayside) are targeted.. the rest of SF will continue its way as a relic for tourists much as before..

Gold Super Contributor
norcalnative
Posts: 3,277
Registered: ‎05-04-2009
0

Re: 3000 buildings in SF targeted for forced seismic upgrades

A very very large number of the SF homes are owned by families who have kept the property in the family for a very long time. As such you will find that most of the current title holders of said property do not have the means to do any sort of major retro fit or even major repairs to the property. Also many of these properties are reaching the point where major renovations are needed or total tear down. Which case you will see more and more tear downs and massive gutting and rebuilds in the next 10yrs than we have seen in the past 15yrs. The home next to us was torn down to the sand in 07 and replaced with a two unit steel frame building by the family member who aquired the property from her sister. They are wealthy people and spent a Pile of money building this building. The house it replaced was 1000 sqft and a tear down due to termite damage ie lack of maint for most likely the entire 50yrs her sister lived in the house. Our 1920 building has had some of the quake work done already by prior owners. Our next large project is doing the sheer wall soft story work in the garage. Probably in the next 5yrs as we save up funds to do this. Every 2yrs we have made large updates - new roofing - major paint and exterior clean up and fixes. Next projects are focused on the bones.

Platinum Regular Contributor
elt1
Posts: 4,802
Registered: ‎01-04-2010
0

Re: 3000 buildings in SF targeted for forced seismic upgrades

[ Edited ]

The buildings in question are 5 units and above. Based on the 60,000 affected, these have an average of 20 people living in each building. The State of California has set up laws regarding seismic upgrades starting with URMs, weak concrete buildings and now Multi family 3 story and above wood frame(pre 1978). These buildings are old and unsafe. Most are at least 50 years old, way past their lifespan, if they haven't been well maintained. The proposed $150k/structure retro fit is not a lot compared to the maintenance on these old buildings. Think about your average 10 unit building it is only $15k/ unit. I have a friend with a 50 unit building in Hayward. He had to spend over $1m, $20k/unit, for dry rot repairs. Old apartment buildings cost a lot to maintain. If the landlords can't afford it, they should be sold, torn down and replaced with newer higher buildings with more units. That would be a win/win for everyone.

 

This will not affect mom and pop buildings under 5 units. This is something that has to be done sooner than later. The Cities should allow for up zoning to make this process fairer and to provide for more housing. 30,000 new living units should be added(3000/year) in SF to allow for the loss of use of these units and for future growth. Height limits will have to be increased to make more room for these units.

Silver Contributor
New2BA
Posts: 414
Registered: ‎05-14-2012
0

Re: 3000 buildings in SF targeted for forced seismic upgrades

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/12/05/seismic-risk-of-soft-story-structures-goes-unheeded/

I guess it surprises me that 5plus-unit housing (and assumed rent control) can be so controversial in building proposals, even in SF, aside from the seismic risks. Something else I don't quite understand is why old title holders supposedly cannot afford to maintain property that was held in the family for generation/s, when they have advantages to doing as much.

Platinum Regular Contributor
elt1
Posts: 4,802
Registered: ‎01-04-2010

Re: 3000 buildings in SF targeted for forced seismic upgrades


New2BA wrote:

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/12/05/seismic-risk-of-soft-story-structures-goes-unheeded/

I guess it surprises me that 5plus-unit housing (and assumed rent control) can be so controversial in building proposals, even in SF, aside from the seismic risks. Something else I don't quite understand is why old title holders supposedly cannot afford to maintain property that was held in the family for generation/s, when they have advantages to doing as much.


Why are you surprised? Blame it on rent control and the law of unintended consequences....the tenants and the City insist that landlords for the last 35 years make not profits and make it impossible to get proper compensation for repairs... Now have thousands of units in disrepair.   Rent controls cause urban decay. In fact government restrictions in general cause decay...Look how Tahoe has fallen apart over the last 40 years of TRPA tyranny.. The fact that people in SF fight all new growth and make it oo expensive to improve existing buildings has caused a major safety hazard. If market forces had been left alone, SF would be full of midrise modern buildings, like Vancouver, instead a rotting collection of rickety old wood frame fire traps.