But the land goes up in value because it is all single family homes so it becomes a limiting resource.
If you put up high quality high density apartment complexes next to Caltrain stations land cost would go down. Which is why the voters do not want that under any circumstance.
Land cost still goes up as density increases. A 30-unit multifamily building on a half-acre goes for $10M+; the same lot with a SFH would go for about $3-4M. Even subtracting out structure value, dense housing is worth significantly more on a per-acre basis. This is how developers turn a profit, and how they get SFH owners to sell to them in the first place.
Land cost per unit goes down as density goes up, because the amount of land used by each unit goes down. That 30-unit apartment building uses about 700 ft^2/unit, at an amortized cost of about $600K/acre. The SFH uses a 1/2 are (20,000 ft^2), at an amortized cost of about $6M/acre.
My point is that right now there can only live x amount of people close to FAANG headquarters due to traffic and SFH. If significantly more people could live here the value of the remaining SFH would go down, at least I think so.
My theory is that SFH value is high because some people just want to live here, and some people want a SFH, and some want to invest. For the first group other forms of housing would be OK, and when they stop competing for SFH value at some point it stops growing so insane. At that point the third group might quit as well.
I am not talking about land value/unit, but land value on average in the bay area. Or other places with zoning restrictions.
If you put up high quality high density apartment complexes next to Caltrain stations land cost would go down. Which is why the voters do not want that under any circumstance.
reply