3 ms·

Have you really been looking outside of SF? Redwood city, about 30-40 min south of SF, has been booming with building growth. Developers are building, but can

by bduerst 10y ago

Have you really been looking outside of SF? Redwood city, about 30-40 min south of SF, has been booming with building growth. Developers are building, but can't get approvals with local governments fast enough.

honkhonkpants 10y ago
There are currently 18 residential projects in Redwood City, 7 of which are already entitled but not under construction, 1 which withdrew the application after being entitled, and three in planning, leaving 7 under construction. Given that half of the entitled projects are not proceeding, I don't see the evidence that the government is the one holding things back.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Source? Because there are many projects that have been stopped recently or moved to other locations.
shostack 10y ago
Don't get me started on that. RWC resident here, and there have been major issues with the city rubber stamping development without enforcing minimum parking requirements, or giving any major thinking to how to solve the cities insane traffic/parking problems (particularly compared to neighboring cities). Oh, except the thought they had to make Farmhill suddenly go from two lanes to one lane. Yeah, that's a great solution on a main connector to 280 in a city that already has major rush hour congestion issues.
- mikelward 10y ago
  Wouldn't requiring more parking just worsen the traffic problem you mention? Planners are finally realizing the requiring parking spaces subsidizes car use, making transit less viable, worsening traffic. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view...
  - shostack 10y ago
    I actually don't think it would in this case. Part of the issue is that people keep circling at really low speeds endlessly (seriously, try parking there on a weekend), which worsens congestion. Beyond that, the issue is that it is required in these cases, but the buildings just don't build enough and then pay the slap on the wrist fine for it.

by bduerst 10y ago

honkhonkpants 10y ago

There are currently 18 residential projects in Redwood City, 7 of which are already entitled but not under construction, 1 which withdrew the application after being entitled, and three in planning, leaving 7 under construction. Given that half of the entitled projects are not proceeding, I don't see the evidence that the government is the one holding things back.

bduerst 10y ago
Source? Because there are many projects that have been stopped recently or moved to other locations.

shostack 10y ago

Don't get me started on that. RWC resident here, and there have been major issues with the city rubber stamping development without enforcing minimum parking requirements, or giving any major thinking to how to solve the cities insane traffic/parking problems (particularly compared to neighboring cities). Oh, except the thought they had to make Farmhill suddenly go from two lanes to one lane. Yeah, that's a great solution on a main connector to 280 in a city that already has major rush hour congestion issues.

mikelward 10y ago
Wouldn't requiring more parking just worsen the traffic problem you mention? Planners are finally realizing the requiring parking spaces subsidizes car use, making transit less viable, worsening traffic. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view...
- shostack 10y ago
  I actually don't think it would in this case. Part of the issue is that people keep circling at really low speeds endlessly (seriously, try parking there on a weekend), which worsens congestion. Beyond that, the issue is that it is required in these cases, but the buildings just don't build enough and then pay the slap on the wrist fine for it.