7 ms·

The problem is zoning. If zoning didn't outlaw the type of cities they are describing, then perhaps it would happen. This is why people are now becoming skepti

The problem is zoning. If zoning didn't outlaw the type of cities they are describing, then perhaps it would happen. This is why people are now becoming skeptical of new construction, new neighborhoods in the Bay Area. For a San Francisco example, check out the new mission bay developments. The area still feels dangerous and empty. Not enough realistic businesses - there is no legitimate reason to be on the street, other than wanting to 'hang out' in public spaces. Once Mission Bay becomes a nightlife draw, with a mix of uses - like the Castro or Polk for example - then it will be an example of something done well. Until then, nope.

sbov 10y ago
We had friends who moved to mission bay because they wanted to live in a place that wasn't built in the 20s. They moved out after a year for the reason you mentioned.
- ryanobjc 10y ago
  Also the T is the least well served line. Shadows of racism because of where it ends up, but still. The neighborhood ends up being filled with people rushing home after work, and since it isnt a mixed area, ie: not many families, the after-dark streets seem dangerous. I used to live right near Laguna and Market, and the amount of how much traffic meant I always felt safe no matter the day or night. Lots of businesses open late too.
  - cbhl 10y ago
    I find nighttime traffic inversely correlated with how safe I feel at night -- in the Transbay district, it's completely quiet at night except for that one homeless person. Whereas at Mission and 9th, there are cars and bottles and people running around everywhere.
wtvanhest 10y ago
The key to making cities awesome for residents is to shrink the max footage any business gets on the block. Small store fronts increase variety in a given distance and allow for much shorter walking distances to far more stuff. It also benefits the city because there are more people in general.
gorkemyurt 10y ago
Yea that's why building the warriors stadium there was a great idea, it will bring the much needed foot traffic during games or concerts for more business to open up.
- chrismealy 10y ago
  Is this sarcastic? Stadiums are dead zones. During the game everybody is in the stadium. When there's no game you have a completely empty block. Before and after games you have huge crowds coming and going.
  - gorkemyurt 10y ago
    No I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I really think its a good idea. San Francisco is not like any other typical American city, any big singer/artist on tour will come to San Francisco and this will be the only big event arena in the City. Owners are expecting 200 events/year.. That's a lot days when the streets of mission bay will be filled with 20k people.
    - chrismealy 10y ago
      I lived by a stadium (where the Sonics used to play), and let me tell you, it sucked. Either the neighborhood was dead or it was crammed with cars and people just passing through. It was never fun.
      - sedachv 10y ago
        +1. Someone mentioned the Los Angeles Staples Center elsewhere in this thread as a positive example. I live in South Park (the neighborhood that Staples Center is part of) and it is either empty or gridlocked. Same thing with the Coliseum, Forum, and Dodger Stadium.
      - sbov 10y ago
        To echo your thoughts, I lived in Cow Hollow and on the days of big events (blue angels, union street festival) I stayed inside. I don't mind tourists, and I love busy streets, but I'll pass on the traffic and asshats, that generally don't care about the neighborhood, that large events like these invite.
jessriedel 10y ago
Does anyone know why we never see new apartment and office building with shops on the street level? This seems like the most natural configuration for dense city, and SF has quite a bit of land specifically zoned in this way. See the orange regions here: https://williamhe4planning.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sf_citywide_zoning_map_jan2013.jpg https://williamhe4planning.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sf_ci... But almost all modern buildings I've seen, both residential and commercial, have huge lobbies. This means the shops are very thinly distributed at street-level, even in downtown areas with tall skyscrapers.
- chrismealy 10y ago
  New buildings tend to have boring street-levle commercial spaces (banks, tanning salons, etc) because the underground parking requires ramps at street level, and that makes the shops shallow. Interesting businesses generally need a fair amount of space back (like old buildings all have). Basically if you build for cars you're going to lose pedestrian amenities.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    This may be a contributing factor, especially in places where they are building small apartment building and each has a garage, but I don't think it's a dominant factor. First, a couple of ramps that go underground is really not that much space in the footing of a big tower. I see old neighborhoods with lots of shops that nevertheless have underground garages. Second, I don't think shops are that deep. New city blocks, especially hosting skyscrapers, are much deeper than the typical blocks in (say) the West Village. Those shops seem to do fine with very little floorspace.
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  That's literally the only type of building I see being built in Seattle. For both towers and 4 to 8 story compounds.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Like, a 30-story tower where more than 50% of the street-level exposure is shops? I believe you, but it's not been my experience in a bunch of cities.
capkutay 10y ago
I agree with most of your statement but only partially agree with your view on Mission Bay. As a Mission Bay resident, I think it feels sleepy and a bit sterile, it does NOT feel dangerous at all. I've been in neighborhoods that feel sketchy in SF, but Mission Bay is not one of them. Its actually the only dense, urban area of SF I can think of that's both clean and quiet. Its still too early to tell if Mission Bay is a success or not. Most of the housing here is either still in the development pipeline[0,1,2] or just finished within the last 1-2 years. Mission Rock [1] is probably the most ambitious and likely to draw crowds. Also, the 4th street retail area is just starting to sprout up with shops. It just takes time for neighborhoods to develop. 0: http://www.onemissionbay.com/ http://www.onemissionbay.com/ 1: http://www.missionrock.com/ http://www.missionrock.com/ 2: http://www.dbarchitect.com/project_detail/161/FIVE88%20Workforce%20Housing.html http://www.dbarchitect.com/project_detail/161/FIVE88%20Workf...
- ryanobjc 10y ago
  Good points, but we are still running against the age old problem of a designed environment vs a natural environment. Perhaps an argument could be made that, this time, architects have finally gotten smart about the failures of designed spaces. The classic critique being "Notes on a Synthesis of Form": https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674627512/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674627512/ref=oh_aui_deta... I confess to not having fully read my copy of this book yet, so I cannot offer a rousing rebuttal to a 'better designed space'.
sedachv 10y ago
> Not enough realistic businesses - there is no legitimate reason to be on the street, other than wanting to 'hang out' in public spaces. What's wrong with that? "Hanging out" is what public places are for.
stfp 10y ago
Very much agree. Would be great to let neighborhoods or cities experiment with alternative zoning and planning policies, but sadly it seems every place is following the same templates. Some random pointers for those interested: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://narrowstreetssf.com/ http://narrowstreetssf.com/

sbov 10y ago

We had friends who moved to mission bay because they wanted to live in a place that wasn't built in the 20s. They moved out after a year for the reason you mentioned.

ryanobjc 10y ago
Also the T is the least well served line. Shadows of racism because of where it ends up, but still. The neighborhood ends up being filled with people rushing home after work, and since it isnt a mixed area, ie: not many families, the after-dark streets seem dangerous. I used to live right near Laguna and Market, and the amount of how much traffic meant I always felt safe no matter the day or night. Lots of businesses open late too.
- cbhl 10y ago
  I find nighttime traffic inversely correlated with how safe I feel at night -- in the Transbay district, it's completely quiet at night except for that one homeless person. Whereas at Mission and 9th, there are cars and bottles and people running around everywhere.

wtvanhest 10y ago

The key to making cities awesome for residents is to shrink the max footage any business gets on the block. Small store fronts increase variety in a given distance and allow for much shorter walking distances to far more stuff. It also benefits the city because there are more people in general.

gorkemyurt 10y ago

Yea that's why building the warriors stadium there was a great idea, it will bring the much needed foot traffic during games or concerts for more business to open up.

chrismealy 10y ago
Is this sarcastic? Stadiums are dead zones. During the game everybody is in the stadium. When there's no game you have a completely empty block. Before and after games you have huge crowds coming and going.
- gorkemyurt 10y ago
  No I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I really think its a good idea. San Francisco is not like any other typical American city, any big singer/artist on tour will come to San Francisco and this will be the only big event arena in the City. Owners are expecting 200 events/year.. That's a lot days when the streets of mission bay will be filled with 20k people.
  - chrismealy 10y ago
    I lived by a stadium (where the Sonics used to play), and let me tell you, it sucked. Either the neighborhood was dead or it was crammed with cars and people just passing through. It was never fun.
    - sedachv 10y ago
      +1. Someone mentioned the Los Angeles Staples Center elsewhere in this thread as a positive example. I live in South Park (the neighborhood that Staples Center is part of) and it is either empty or gridlocked. Same thing with the Coliseum, Forum, and Dodger Stadium.
    - sbov 10y ago
      To echo your thoughts, I lived in Cow Hollow and on the days of big events (blue angels, union street festival) I stayed inside. I don't mind tourists, and I love busy streets, but I'll pass on the traffic and asshats, that generally don't care about the neighborhood, that large events like these invite.

jessriedel 10y ago

Does anyone know why we never see new apartment and office building with shops on the street level? This seems like the most natural configuration for dense city, and SF has quite a bit of land specifically zoned in this way. See the orange regions here: https://williamhe4planning.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sf_citywide_zoning_map_jan2013.jpg https://williamhe4planning.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sf_ci... But almost all modern buildings I've seen, both residential and commercial, have huge lobbies. This means the shops are very thinly distributed at street-level, even in downtown areas with tall skyscrapers.

chrismealy 10y ago
New buildings tend to have boring street-levle commercial spaces (banks, tanning salons, etc) because the underground parking requires ramps at street level, and that makes the shops shallow. Interesting businesses generally need a fair amount of space back (like old buildings all have). Basically if you build for cars you're going to lose pedestrian amenities.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  This may be a contributing factor, especially in places where they are building small apartment building and each has a garage, but I don't think it's a dominant factor. First, a couple of ramps that go underground is really not that much space in the footing of a big tower. I see old neighborhoods with lots of shops that nevertheless have underground garages. Second, I don't think shops are that deep. New city blocks, especially hosting skyscrapers, are much deeper than the typical blocks in (say) the West Village. Those shops seem to do fine with very little floorspace.
forrestthewoods 10y ago
That's literally the only type of building I see being built in Seattle. For both towers and 4 to 8 story compounds.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Like, a 30-story tower where more than 50% of the street-level exposure is shops? I believe you, but it's not been my experience in a bunch of cities.

capkutay 10y ago

I agree with most of your statement but only partially agree with your view on Mission Bay. As a Mission Bay resident, I think it feels sleepy and a bit sterile, it does NOT feel dangerous at all. I've been in neighborhoods that feel sketchy in SF, but Mission Bay is not one of them. Its actually the only dense, urban area of SF I can think of that's both clean and quiet. Its still too early to tell if Mission Bay is a success or not. Most of the housing here is either still in the development pipeline[0,1,2] or just finished within the last 1-2 years. Mission Rock [1] is probably the most ambitious and likely to draw crowds. Also, the 4th street retail area is just starting to sprout up with shops. It just takes time for neighborhoods to develop. 0: http://www.onemissionbay.com/ http://www.onemissionbay.com/ 1: http://www.missionrock.com/ http://www.missionrock.com/ 2: http://www.dbarchitect.com/project_detail/161/FIVE88%20Workforce%20Housing.html http://www.dbarchitect.com/project_detail/161/FIVE88%20Workf...

ryanobjc 10y ago
Good points, but we are still running against the age old problem of a designed environment vs a natural environment. Perhaps an argument could be made that, this time, architects have finally gotten smart about the failures of designed spaces. The classic critique being "Notes on a Synthesis of Form": https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674627512/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674627512/ref=oh_aui_deta... I confess to not having fully read my copy of this book yet, so I cannot offer a rousing rebuttal to a 'better designed space'.

sedachv 10y ago

> Not enough realistic businesses - there is no legitimate reason to be on the street, other than wanting to 'hang out' in public spaces. What's wrong with that? "Hanging out" is what public places are for.

stfp 10y ago

Very much agree. Would be great to let neighborhoods or cities experiment with alternative zoning and planning policies, but sadly it seems every place is following the same templates. Some random pointers for those interested: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://narrowstreetssf.com/ http://narrowstreetssf.com/