4 ms·

It is truly baffling that there is any debate or delay. The obvious answer is to build high density housing and offices there. Low density suburban anything wo

It is truly baffling that there is any debate or delay. The obvious answer is to build high density housing and offices there. Low density suburban anything would be a tragedy.

Spooky23 10y ago
Not really. Rail yards are usually a real shitshow in terms of toxic contamination and nasty stuff. One site near my home just had a casino built on it, which will require active ventilation of wells sunk in the ground for years to prevent toxic gas buildup.
- Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
  Quite a few neighborhoods are built on or being built on them. The two that come to mind in recent years are the new Hudson Yards neighborhood in NYC (being built on the West Side Yard) and Potomac Yards (built where those rail yards were) in Alexandria, VA right outside DC. A number of Manhattan neighborhoods are built on former rail yards. On mobile but I believe there is even a wikipedia page on it. If the demand is high enough developers would love to clean it up. SF prices are at that level.
  - inferiorhuman 10y ago
    The developers do want to clean it up and build housing. The city (and residents) of Brisbane are the objectors. In this case I think the planned development would roughly double the population of Brisbane. It's understandable that they would object, but less sympathetic given how absurdly low density Brisbane is.
pascalxus 10y ago
And for christ sake, get rid of the darn height limitations. Why on earth would you have height limitations in the first place??? the only height limitations there should be are economic and those should be determined by developers and demand, nothing else. Around every station in the bay area, I see nothing more than 3 to 5 stories at the most, or even less.
scharfstevenm 10y ago
It's actually not baffling. Cities want more offices and less housing because housing requires costly services that aren't covered by property taxes, especially if it's high-density rental housing which rarely changes owners. Remember, parcel taxes are assessed per parcel, not per unit. A 1000 unit for-sale condo complex generates 1000 parcel taxes. A 1000 unit rental complex on the same parcel generates 1 parcel tax. And the apartment owner lobby (CAA) fights successfully to keep this system in place. Cities like retail because of the sales tax revenue, but developers don't like it because retail is less profitable than commercial office or rental housing. Anytime something seems obvious, there is probably a good reason why there's more to it than meets the eye. Solving these issues is so hard because the developers have the money to lobby legislators to avoid any solution that would impact them financially.

It is truly baffling that there is any debate or delay. The obvious answer is to build high density housing and offices there. Low density suburban anything would be a tragedy.

Spooky23 10y ago

Not really. Rail yards are usually a real shitshow in terms of toxic contamination and nasty stuff. One site near my home just had a casino built on it, which will require active ventilation of wells sunk in the ground for years to prevent toxic gas buildup.

Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
Quite a few neighborhoods are built on or being built on them. The two that come to mind in recent years are the new Hudson Yards neighborhood in NYC (being built on the West Side Yard) and Potomac Yards (built where those rail yards were) in Alexandria, VA right outside DC. A number of Manhattan neighborhoods are built on former rail yards. On mobile but I believe there is even a wikipedia page on it. If the demand is high enough developers would love to clean it up. SF prices are at that level.
- inferiorhuman 10y ago
  The developers do want to clean it up and build housing. The city (and residents) of Brisbane are the objectors. In this case I think the planned development would roughly double the population of Brisbane. It's understandable that they would object, but less sympathetic given how absurdly low density Brisbane is.

pascalxus 10y ago

And for christ sake, get rid of the darn height limitations. Why on earth would you have height limitations in the first place??? the only height limitations there should be are economic and those should be determined by developers and demand, nothing else. Around every station in the bay area, I see nothing more than 3 to 5 stories at the most, or even less.

scharfstevenm 10y ago

It's actually not baffling. Cities want more offices and less housing because housing requires costly services that aren't covered by property taxes, especially if it's high-density rental housing which rarely changes owners. Remember, parcel taxes are assessed per parcel, not per unit. A 1000 unit for-sale condo complex generates 1000 parcel taxes. A 1000 unit rental complex on the same parcel generates 1 parcel tax. And the apartment owner lobby (CAA) fights successfully to keep this system in place. Cities like retail because of the sales tax revenue, but developers don't like it because retail is less profitable than commercial office or rental housing. Anytime something seems obvious, there is probably a good reason why there's more to it than meets the eye. Solving these issues is so hard because the developers have the money to lobby legislators to avoid any solution that would impact them financially.