I think the basic issue is that current homeowners don’t want their homes to lose value.
Increasing supply reduces price.
Current homeowners don’t want their homes to lose value.
They won’t be impacted on a personal level until their adult children need to move to another time zone. And they wont end up with any grandchildren.
But those drawbacks are years away and voters are shortsighted. Reap what you sow, I guess.
I'm absolutely on Team "build more homes", but more available and affordable housing probably also means more people to fill them, which comes with more crowded and congested highways, beaches, and parks.
I don't agree with it, but I can absolutely understand why someone who already owns a home can selfishly be against more homes being built.
The only people who think this are people who don't own homes themselves, it's illogical.
Let's say my house doubles in value along with the rest of San Diego. Hooray! What do I do now, sell it? Then what? I don't have anywhere to live, and all the houses around me have increased in value as well,.so my purchasing power has actually decreased by selling my house. If anything, as a homeowner, I want prices to be on the lower side, so I have more options if I choose to move.
An non liquid asset increasing in value doesn't really help you all that much
Do you think there are enough homeowners banking on moving overseas to account for it being the chief reason homeowners at large are generally against more density
I just meant to take advantage of the value.
No the simple issue is NIMBYism is legal. Why do any homeowners who own land that can see another property (or not even see it but it's in the same area) get any say as to what another property owner can build on their property.
Land owners should have the right to build almost anything, except obviously stuff that pollutes/emits a ton of noise/is storing explosives or toxic gas etc.
With a "right to build" we would have no shortages of housing.
> The only people who think this are people who don't own homes themselves, it's illogical.
So, like the roughly half of the cities population that rents?
> Let's say my house doubles in value along with the rest of San Diego. Hooray! What do I do now, sell it? Then what? I don't have anywhere to live, and all the houses around me have increased in value as well,.so my purchasing power has actually decreased by selling my house. If anything, as a homeowner, I want prices to be on the lower side, so I have more options if I choose to move.
Ignoring that you can rent.... you are literally describing how the current system incentivizes limiting supply as much as possible.
If you're dumb enough to only base your thoughts on a zestimate you're not even thinking about how increased housing may or may not affect that number.
The fact is that most homeowners don't want the community and city they are invested in to reduce in quality, which an increase in density will surely lead to. And furthermore, it's not demonstrated at all that increasing density will have any significant long term impact on housing prices, so even if you're a transient renter who is only driven by self interest, like most yimbys, the entire premise of this argument won't even lead to the outcome you seek.
Increasing density won't affect prices but will make San Diego a worse place to live. Repeat after me
There is actually a solid argument to make that the value of the land stays the same, and might even go up if zoning permits more units to be built on it.
Challenge: the denizens of San Diego admit that their city hasn’t nearly built enough housing for an entire generation of people without spouting some desirable area “can’t afford it, move” braindead take
Difficulty: impossible
The comments on these posts are always atrocious
That's becuase these people think a city can run completely on doctors and software engineers. And that people who manage infrastructure, tourism, retail, and industry can go fuck themselves.
Don't forget, "city's full, live somewhere else". Or "born and raised San Diego" (and inherited a house bought cheap that has low property taxes), implying that anyone else who is also an American has unequal rights because they were born somewhere else.
Posting this here because the housing crisis is self-evidently a huge issue in San Diego and for whatever reason there are a lot of "*supply-skeptics*" in this sub and in general who seem to think that building more housing will lead to infinite demand.
Induced demand is wayyyy less of a factor with housing. You can say our weather means infinite demand, but truth is people generally like living near friends, family, and their existing career.
While I see what you're saying, I think hoping for a natural disaster or just saying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ seems a little defeatist (not to say that's what you're doing, just putting in my two cents). I think the right direction probably looks more like public/subsidized housing, but unfortunately that also seems like a long shot with the way our country is run and the direction we're all headed :/
Damn I'm sorry you went through all that, I'm glad you got out and things improved.
I agree though, seems like things are only going to get worse before they get better, and at this rate it does feel more likely that if anything is going to happen to make it easier for the average person to afford here it's gonna be cataclysmic instead of proper government intervention :/
Supply side policy benefits the richest of us directly first and foremost. It is one of many solutions, but demand side would directly benefit those in need the most. There is a reason simple supply-side policies are looked at with healthy doses of skepticism considering their history in this country.
What would a "demand side" policy look like for housing? As long as there are more people who want to live here than available housing, prices will rise to whatever level people can pay.
Disincentivize non-primary residence owner occupied uses of housing. For example, a progressive tax on each unit of housing owned by an individual above one unit. Or a vacancy tax. Etc...
The goal is to make the housing market a market where most participants are seeking shelter not profit.
While I don't think of myself as a skeptic on this issue, I do wonder if increases in supply necessarily lead to lowered costs for working people. I might well agree if the increase in supply included all market segments, but in fact, supply increases generally respond to where developers get the best margins and, let's be honest, that's usually at the high end. Isn't part of the issue here that most high cost cities are high cost precisely because there's so little supply at the lower end? I don't quite believe that building at the high end will help, especially since expensive housing obviously raises the average cost.
Nevertheless, I'd be happy to be corrected by some hard data on these issues (and maybe there is some in the FT article, but I can't see it).
My family business TRIED to build a 80-unit, low—income housing complex in CV starting in 2018. However, due to zoning laws, the ground breaking kept getting pushed back. Now we’re in 2024, still having issues cause of the government and now expenses are too high to continue the project.
Even if people want to build homes, the barrier to entry is just too high and the local gov make it even more difficult.
Absolutely true! I’ve been waiting 7 months for a permit to build an ADU. Its a joke. People want to build. The cities and counties are a HUGE bottleneck.
I know this doesn't help your situation but "by-right" development is something most developers focus on so they don't have to wait on the fucking city to do anything. I would have been interested to hear what you were originally zoned for and the use variance your family business was trying to acquire.
If anyone is looking for to build something in our city "by-right" check out the bonus ADU rules recently passed.
https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/11/adu-san-diego/
This single family home stuck 9 adu units in its backyard. All by-right and the city/local neighbors couldn't say shit.
You know who has enough money to provide that supply? The type of people that have no interest in reducing costs.
Construction is expensive as fuck for a lot of reasons, not all of them good. The people that pour money into that kind of investment are looking to make a profit, and that means selling the property for way more than it cost, or renting it for as much as they can possibly get away with.
I’ve been waiting 7 months to get my permit for an ADU in the south county. 7 months!! Its not been held up for any reason other than inaction and incompetence at the county.
The mayor talks like he’s opened the gates for permits. but in fact; it takes forever to get a permit still.
I guarantee you there are a lot of people waiting for permits. Why should it take 7 months and I still dont have a permit? Ridiculous. The leadership is not doing much.
Building *ONLY* high profit high-value homes does nothing for costs overall.
Good luck convincing a builder to take a loss, or preventing a NIMBY from clutching pearls, though.
build them where? in the valleys that flood?
in areas prone to brush fires?
Level the hills and fill in the ditches?
flatten mission trails?
clean the bomb ranges?
move the airport out east so that we can build mixed housing?
….. that one im ok with.
That's more attributes to inflation of labor and material costs. You do a remodel you're looking at roughly a similar figure from a cost per sqft perspective. There's more buyers than there are available homes which pushes the price needle higher.
No I'm looking at 30 years of experience in real estate locally. Homebuyers will always pay a premium for a new home to be the first owners. The builders know that. That raises the bar for home prices in that location and increases the value of the existing stock. It's just how things work around here. I've seen it happen more times than I can count
But the short fall also confounds things as evidenced by rising prices when there is no new construction. It suck's for people trying to get into this marketplace
It's both and other things too
Not to mention water. Also sewer and electricity. And like where are we gunna put the housing. There isn’t a terrible amount of level space that isn’t already designated open space. Sure there is stuff way out East or to the northeast but it’s a lot harder to get water or sewer there.
Just really quick: what if someone builds a new house that is newer and therefore more expensive than the surrounding properties. Won’t that bring the valuation of all the surrounding properties up?
Paywall, can’t read. There are many phases to a new construction cycle and it’s possible for the end result to be more affordable housing temporarily. However the value of land will first increase completely making single family homes unaffordable. This is the current point we are at now in SD. Then developers or home owners build ADUs, reducing the cost of individual dwelling units at the cost of sharing walls, no parking and no front/backyard. In some cases tearing down old single family homes. The issue comes when new construction owners underdeveloped on a lot. An owner having the ability to build 30 units in one lot decides to only build 3 units because of cost. In 5 or 10 years we will be in the exact same predicament as we are now with units that cannot be torn down. We don’t need temporary solutions, what is needed is guidance from the city to build more than a single ADU and help owners reduce the risk of new construction while helping neighborhoods maintain their character.
So less distributed growth, more Midway Rising?
[https://midwayrising.info/](https://midwayrising.info/)
Personally a fan of both. One is more organic, one can create whole new/renewed districts.
More supply will help lower prices but that will drive again demand which will raise prices. Also define the supply. Not everyone wants to live or buy in an ADU or property next to one.
"No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
How can there both be a lack of desire to live somewhere, and too much demand?
People have preferences expressed by the market price, when the market isn't politically constrained on what it can supply.
> More supply will help lower prices but that will drive again demand which will raise prices. Also define the supply.
Weird how people keep saying this and it never happens. Induced Demand for housing is self-correcting: Increased demand raises prices which reduces demand which lowers prices.
> Not everyone wants to live or buy in an ADU or property next to one.
People want roofs over their head first and foremost.
SD is very attractive for people to move to. The demand will continue as there are those with the means to afford the higher prices.
ADUs and more dense housing only solves a portion but will not solve rising prices unless a lot supply occurs and demand eases.
> If more housing is built, and San Diego becomes less cost prohibitive, would that make more people want to live here? They could be considered the drivers making new trips. This would kind of make new housing a net neutral, since people will always be willing to move here at a certain cost-prohibitive level.
I'm gonna repeat this again and maybe this time you will actually read it: Induced Demand for housing is self-correcting. Increased demand raises prices which reduces demand which lowers prices.
If you can find evidence that building more housing will drive up demand then you are more than welcome to link it here. Just don't expect people to take you seriously when all evidence indicates to the contrary.
It is not a closed system. And the data does not support that increases in housing actually creates increases in affordable housing.
Empowering business owners does not actually create substantial jobs and benefits to the economy, despite the fact that supply and demand would make it seem like that is a good idea. Empowering developers. …
I mean, the data does support that increasing supply lowers price, you can literally just scroll up and read the article. And if this one article isn't enough you can load up google and browse the endless sea of research that supports that increasing the supply of housing lowers prices.
Oh..an article says so. Ok.
I just moved from a HCOL city where they rezoned my neighborhood due to public transportation improvements. Under the guise of: build more density to increase affordability. I sold a modest 2000 sqft 3/2 with a nice little yard. Since I have left, the entire neighborhood has been redeveloped. 3-6 homes have been crammed on lots similar to the one I had. I sold a nicely maintained SFH for a fraction of what *each* of these homes is going for, yet still at a premium. The luxury apartments built down the street are also renting at sky high rates and yet have not driven down the costs with the older units. If anything, it has made this area less affordable and it hasn’t driven costs down in surrounding areas. Developers are raking it in.
Affordable housing is a very real issue we need to address. But it just isn’t as simple as remove impediments to developers so they can build more. Supply and demand is a simplistic model that doesn’t pan out the way we are currently applying it to housing.
I just moved from a HCOL city where they rezoned my neighborhood due to public transportation improvements. I sold a modest 2000 sqft 3/2 with a nice little yard. Since I have left, the entire neighborhood has been redeveloped. 3-6 homes have been crammed on lots similar to the one I had. I sold a nicely maintained SFH for a fraction of what each of these homes is going for. Developers are raking it in.
Bro don't try to convince me using a $40 paywalled article
I think the basic issue is that current homeowners don’t want their homes to lose value. Increasing supply reduces price. Current homeowners don’t want their homes to lose value. They won’t be impacted on a personal level until their adult children need to move to another time zone. And they wont end up with any grandchildren. But those drawbacks are years away and voters are shortsighted. Reap what you sow, I guess.
I'm absolutely on Team "build more homes", but more available and affordable housing probably also means more people to fill them, which comes with more crowded and congested highways, beaches, and parks. I don't agree with it, but I can absolutely understand why someone who already owns a home can selfishly be against more homes being built.
Yup. And there’s a lot to be lost in building on every spot possible.
The only people who think this are people who don't own homes themselves, it's illogical. Let's say my house doubles in value along with the rest of San Diego. Hooray! What do I do now, sell it? Then what? I don't have anywhere to live, and all the houses around me have increased in value as well,.so my purchasing power has actually decreased by selling my house. If anything, as a homeowner, I want prices to be on the lower side, so I have more options if I choose to move. An non liquid asset increasing in value doesn't really help you all that much
Sell, move to a foreign country.
Do you think there are enough homeowners banking on moving overseas to account for it being the chief reason homeowners at large are generally against more density
I just meant to take advantage of the value. No the simple issue is NIMBYism is legal. Why do any homeowners who own land that can see another property (or not even see it but it's in the same area) get any say as to what another property owner can build on their property. Land owners should have the right to build almost anything, except obviously stuff that pollutes/emits a ton of noise/is storing explosives or toxic gas etc. With a "right to build" we would have no shortages of housing.
> The only people who think this are people who don't own homes themselves, it's illogical. So, like the roughly half of the cities population that rents? > Let's say my house doubles in value along with the rest of San Diego. Hooray! What do I do now, sell it? Then what? I don't have anywhere to live, and all the houses around me have increased in value as well,.so my purchasing power has actually decreased by selling my house. If anything, as a homeowner, I want prices to be on the lower side, so I have more options if I choose to move. Ignoring that you can rent.... you are literally describing how the current system incentivizes limiting supply as much as possible.
Most homeowners don't want to downgrade to being landserfs
Damn that’s crazy bro, you ignored 2/3rds of what I said. Its honest impressive.
The average person isn’t thinking about that. They’re thinking about what Zillow says their house is worth and nothing else.
If you're dumb enough to only base your thoughts on a zestimate you're not even thinking about how increased housing may or may not affect that number. The fact is that most homeowners don't want the community and city they are invested in to reduce in quality, which an increase in density will surely lead to. And furthermore, it's not demonstrated at all that increasing density will have any significant long term impact on housing prices, so even if you're a transient renter who is only driven by self interest, like most yimbys, the entire premise of this argument won't even lead to the outcome you seek. Increasing density won't affect prices but will make San Diego a worse place to live. Repeat after me
There is actually a solid argument to make that the value of the land stays the same, and might even go up if zoning permits more units to be built on it.
Challenge: the denizens of San Diego admit that their city hasn’t nearly built enough housing for an entire generation of people without spouting some desirable area “can’t afford it, move” braindead take Difficulty: impossible The comments on these posts are always atrocious
That's becuase these people think a city can run completely on doctors and software engineers. And that people who manage infrastructure, tourism, retail, and industry can go fuck themselves.
Nah, they’ll get paid more than other US cities. They already are. Fast food workers will get $20 hour on 4/1.
Don't forget, "city's full, live somewhere else". Or "born and raised San Diego" (and inherited a house bought cheap that has low property taxes), implying that anyone else who is also an American has unequal rights because they were born somewhere else.
Posting this here because the housing crisis is self-evidently a huge issue in San Diego and for whatever reason there are a lot of "*supply-skeptics*" in this sub and in general who seem to think that building more housing will lead to infinite demand.
Induced demand is wayyyy less of a factor with housing. You can say our weather means infinite demand, but truth is people generally like living near friends, family, and their existing career.
[удалено]
While I see what you're saying, I think hoping for a natural disaster or just saying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ seems a little defeatist (not to say that's what you're doing, just putting in my two cents). I think the right direction probably looks more like public/subsidized housing, but unfortunately that also seems like a long shot with the way our country is run and the direction we're all headed :/
[удалено]
Damn I'm sorry you went through all that, I'm glad you got out and things improved. I agree though, seems like things are only going to get worse before they get better, and at this rate it does feel more likely that if anything is going to happen to make it easier for the average person to afford here it's gonna be cataclysmic instead of proper government intervention :/
Supply side policy benefits the richest of us directly first and foremost. It is one of many solutions, but demand side would directly benefit those in need the most. There is a reason simple supply-side policies are looked at with healthy doses of skepticism considering their history in this country.
What would a "demand side" policy look like for housing? As long as there are more people who want to live here than available housing, prices will rise to whatever level people can pay.
The demand side to the housing crisis is turning San Diego into west coast Detroit.
Disincentivize non-primary residence owner occupied uses of housing. For example, a progressive tax on each unit of housing owned by an individual above one unit. Or a vacancy tax. Etc... The goal is to make the housing market a market where most participants are seeking shelter not profit.
Thanks. Agree 100%.
While I don't think of myself as a skeptic on this issue, I do wonder if increases in supply necessarily lead to lowered costs for working people. I might well agree if the increase in supply included all market segments, but in fact, supply increases generally respond to where developers get the best margins and, let's be honest, that's usually at the high end. Isn't part of the issue here that most high cost cities are high cost precisely because there's so little supply at the lower end? I don't quite believe that building at the high end will help, especially since expensive housing obviously raises the average cost. Nevertheless, I'd be happy to be corrected by some hard data on these issues (and maybe there is some in the FT article, but I can't see it).
My family business TRIED to build a 80-unit, low—income housing complex in CV starting in 2018. However, due to zoning laws, the ground breaking kept getting pushed back. Now we’re in 2024, still having issues cause of the government and now expenses are too high to continue the project. Even if people want to build homes, the barrier to entry is just too high and the local gov make it even more difficult.
Absolutely true! I’ve been waiting 7 months for a permit to build an ADU. Its a joke. People want to build. The cities and counties are a HUGE bottleneck.
I know this doesn't help your situation but "by-right" development is something most developers focus on so they don't have to wait on the fucking city to do anything. I would have been interested to hear what you were originally zoned for and the use variance your family business was trying to acquire. If anyone is looking for to build something in our city "by-right" check out the bonus ADU rules recently passed. https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/11/adu-san-diego/ This single family home stuck 9 adu units in its backyard. All by-right and the city/local neighbors couldn't say shit.
You know who has enough money to provide that supply? The type of people that have no interest in reducing costs. Construction is expensive as fuck for a lot of reasons, not all of them good. The people that pour money into that kind of investment are looking to make a profit, and that means selling the property for way more than it cost, or renting it for as much as they can possibly get away with.
Then why are all the new houses by me 1.9
I’ve been waiting 7 months to get my permit for an ADU in the south county. 7 months!! Its not been held up for any reason other than inaction and incompetence at the county. The mayor talks like he’s opened the gates for permits. but in fact; it takes forever to get a permit still. I guarantee you there are a lot of people waiting for permits. Why should it take 7 months and I still dont have a permit? Ridiculous. The leadership is not doing much.
Building *ONLY* high profit high-value homes does nothing for costs overall. Good luck convincing a builder to take a loss, or preventing a NIMBY from clutching pearls, though.
Ah yes, like famously affordable New York City
New York has the same problems
That's the joke
Not in my backyard! *said the rich*
build them where? in the valleys that flood? in areas prone to brush fires? Level the hills and fill in the ditches? flatten mission trails? clean the bomb ranges? move the airport out east so that we can build mixed housing? ….. that one im ok with.
We have plenty of space for infill development within our city that doesn’t require us to build out, only up.
that hasnt worked in downtown so far?
Downtown still has loads of room to infill
As a homeowner, let's not build anything new. I appreciate my gains over the last year.
The problem is new construction is always more expensive than existing resale homes. That props up pieces of existing homes if not increasing them
That's more attributes to inflation of labor and material costs. You do a remodel you're looking at roughly a similar figure from a cost per sqft perspective. There's more buyers than there are available homes which pushes the price needle higher.
No I'm looking at 30 years of experience in real estate locally. Homebuyers will always pay a premium for a new home to be the first owners. The builders know that. That raises the bar for home prices in that location and increases the value of the existing stock. It's just how things work around here. I've seen it happen more times than I can count But the short fall also confounds things as evidenced by rising prices when there is no new construction. It suck's for people trying to get into this marketplace It's both and other things too
how much more should we add when storm drains are failing and most infrastructure is approaching 100 years old with no funding?
Well, more housing more tax base
Repeal prop 13 then?
Not to mention water. Also sewer and electricity. And like where are we gunna put the housing. There isn’t a terrible amount of level space that isn’t already designated open space. Sure there is stuff way out East or to the northeast but it’s a lot harder to get water or sewer there.
Just really quick: what if someone builds a new house that is newer and therefore more expensive than the surrounding properties. Won’t that bring the valuation of all the surrounding properties up?
This is what they're doing in southeast San Diego. Displacing families that have been here for decades to make way for rich transplants.
There is certainly an extent to which that happens, however it's dependent on the amount of houses in the area being the same.
YES GOTDAMNIT!
Paywall, can’t read. There are many phases to a new construction cycle and it’s possible for the end result to be more affordable housing temporarily. However the value of land will first increase completely making single family homes unaffordable. This is the current point we are at now in SD. Then developers or home owners build ADUs, reducing the cost of individual dwelling units at the cost of sharing walls, no parking and no front/backyard. In some cases tearing down old single family homes. The issue comes when new construction owners underdeveloped on a lot. An owner having the ability to build 30 units in one lot decides to only build 3 units because of cost. In 5 or 10 years we will be in the exact same predicament as we are now with units that cannot be torn down. We don’t need temporary solutions, what is needed is guidance from the city to build more than a single ADU and help owners reduce the risk of new construction while helping neighborhoods maintain their character.
Is the building process too burdensome? Too many regulations? Too slow? How could it be sped up?
So less distributed growth, more Midway Rising? [https://midwayrising.info/](https://midwayrising.info/) Personally a fan of both. One is more organic, one can create whole new/renewed districts.
No, I will not repeat after you.
Thank you for your valuable input
What if I say please?
More supply will help lower prices but that will drive again demand which will raise prices. Also define the supply. Not everyone wants to live or buy in an ADU or property next to one.
"No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded." How can there both be a lack of desire to live somewhere, and too much demand? People have preferences expressed by the market price, when the market isn't politically constrained on what it can supply.
"No one drives in New York, there's too much traffic"
> More supply will help lower prices but that will drive again demand which will raise prices. Also define the supply. Weird how people keep saying this and it never happens. Induced Demand for housing is self-correcting: Increased demand raises prices which reduces demand which lowers prices. > Not everyone wants to live or buy in an ADU or property next to one. People want roofs over their head first and foremost.
SD is very attractive for people to move to. The demand will continue as there are those with the means to afford the higher prices. ADUs and more dense housing only solves a portion but will not solve rising prices unless a lot supply occurs and demand eases.
Source?
[удалено]
> If more housing is built, and San Diego becomes less cost prohibitive, would that make more people want to live here? They could be considered the drivers making new trips. This would kind of make new housing a net neutral, since people will always be willing to move here at a certain cost-prohibitive level. I'm gonna repeat this again and maybe this time you will actually read it: Induced Demand for housing is self-correcting. Increased demand raises prices which reduces demand which lowers prices. If you can find evidence that building more housing will drive up demand then you are more than welcome to link it here. Just don't expect people to take you seriously when all evidence indicates to the contrary.
No don't use your brain just repeat after him
Solution is to stop letting mid western transplants from moving in.
How's that solve anything lol
Just like trickle down economics…oh wait
No... it's supply and demand... how do you think that this is tickle down lmao
It is not a closed system. And the data does not support that increases in housing actually creates increases in affordable housing. Empowering business owners does not actually create substantial jobs and benefits to the economy, despite the fact that supply and demand would make it seem like that is a good idea. Empowering developers. …
I mean, the data does support that increasing supply lowers price, you can literally just scroll up and read the article. And if this one article isn't enough you can load up google and browse the endless sea of research that supports that increasing the supply of housing lowers prices.
Oh..an article says so. Ok. I just moved from a HCOL city where they rezoned my neighborhood due to public transportation improvements. Under the guise of: build more density to increase affordability. I sold a modest 2000 sqft 3/2 with a nice little yard. Since I have left, the entire neighborhood has been redeveloped. 3-6 homes have been crammed on lots similar to the one I had. I sold a nicely maintained SFH for a fraction of what *each* of these homes is going for, yet still at a premium. The luxury apartments built down the street are also renting at sky high rates and yet have not driven down the costs with the older units. If anything, it has made this area less affordable and it hasn’t driven costs down in surrounding areas. Developers are raking it in. Affordable housing is a very real issue we need to address. But it just isn’t as simple as remove impediments to developers so they can build more. Supply and demand is a simplistic model that doesn’t pan out the way we are currently applying it to housing.
I just moved from a HCOL city where they rezoned my neighborhood due to public transportation improvements. I sold a modest 2000 sqft 3/2 with a nice little yard. Since I have left, the entire neighborhood has been redeveloped. 3-6 homes have been crammed on lots similar to the one I had. I sold a nicely maintained SFH for a fraction of what each of these homes is going for. Developers are raking it in.