5 ms·

There was an article posted here a few months back lamenting how SF is gradually losing stoops and gaining garages, with driveways that cross the sidewalk. Peo

There was an article posted here a few months back lamenting how SF is gradually losing stoops and gaining garages, with driveways that cross the sidewalk. People enter and exit their cars in the closed garage, never having the chance to greet their neighbors on the way, and also make what was traditionally a pedestrian-only zone more hazardous since now they drive across it (often with poor visibility). As someone who has always lived in the Midwest or suburbs, when we bought our first house a couple years ago I was happy to have it be a rowhome in a small downtown, with an actual porch out front sticking into the sidewalk. I can sit out there on my bench swing thing and interact with my neighbors in a natural, informal way.

Declanomous 9y ago
I've noticed something similar in Chicago. We have an 'eyes-on-the-street' clause in our building code, which requires a certain number of windows face the street. I've noticed a lot of buildings that are being built have 'windows' which look into some interstitial space that prevents the people in the inside from seeing the people on the street and vice versa. I personally think that this falls under the heading of what I deem anti-social behavior. Anti-social behavior isn't limited to property crime and violence, it's anything that dehumanizes your fellow man. The people who construct their life so they only interact with exactly the people whom they want are the most anti-social people I can imagine. I personally think they should move to the suburbs if they can't stand the thought of interacting with a neighbor. Thankfully in Chicago we have alleys, and you have to pay a yearly surcharge for the 'no parking' area created by street cuts, so there aren't many driveways crossing sidewalks.
- nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
  To me 'asocial' seems like a more accurate term. It's not like they are out to harm fellow humans or society.
  - Declanomous 9y ago
    Anti-social can also mean someone who just doesn't want to interact with other people. I'm deliberately invoking both meanings of the word, because I think taking the desire to avoid interaction to the extreme harms society.
    - nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
      Either I've been introduced to a new meaning of the term of you are mistaken about the meaning. I'm going to look it up. Perhaps I could persuade you to do the same. Also, by wording it as "extreme", it becomes a bit difficult to have a debate. Doing "too much" of anything is by definition more than what is harmless. In the case from the context above, one interpretation is just people's desire for privacy. I'd also say that by giving it a name with a negative connotation we are pressuring the people who have preferences that can be described as asocial to be more like the others and that I believe is unfair.
      - throwanem 9y ago
        You have been introduced to a new meaning of the term. I don't think it's especially unfair to argue that engineering to prevent chance interactions should be discouraged, and invoking privacy in this context is a bugaboo - access to privacy really isn't the same thing as making sure that you never have to greet or talk to anyone in a way that isn't planned. I know a lot of people who don't really have that sort of unplanned interaction with anyone, and they tend to be the same people who think I must be uncommonly brave to use my city's public transit system, which they erroneously fancy to be peopled primarily by dangerous characters. By preserving their ignorance of their fellow people, they free their imaginations to assume the worst, and in a democratic society where such imaginings can quite easily translate into wrongheaded and harmful public policy, I don't think it is at all hard to argue that such ignorance, and such fancy, grows questionable - even dangerous - to the same extent to which it is indulged.
        mmmpop 9y ago
        > You have been introduced to a new meaning of the term. Says who? It's one thing to invent a brand new word, but it's another to modify a word with already established meaning to a slightly different meaning just because some people started using it the wrong way and it stuck. See the word "poignant" for another great example of the active bastardization of English.
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    It's not like they are out to harm fellow humans or society. Right -- it's not that they're "out to" cause harm. They just don't give an F. So in that sense, it 'antisocial' seems more apt.
- mlinksva 9y ago
  Yearly surcharge is a great idea, maybe https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/supp_info/driveway_permits/overview_and_policy.html https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/supp_info/d... documents, though seems too cheap ($100, $200 in central business district). SF sadly does not have this http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/30/concrete-giveaway-free-and-exclusive-parking-on-the-public-street/ http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/30/concrete-giveaway-free-... and still being studied last year according to http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Planning/ParkingSupply_and_Utilization/Parking_Supply_final_report_11.29.16.pdf http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Planning/Pa...
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    Right. How much money would that spot bring in it was metered? (I'm assuming Chicago business district has metered parking).
    - Declanomous 9y ago
      Surprisingly, not all of the space inside the CBD is metered. There's actually a fair number of spots in the loop that aren't metered. Regardless, that's actually a pretty easy question to answer, because Chicago gets charged for every minute a spot isn't available by the company they sold the street parking to. Inside the loop, the price would be $43,891.30 for every parking spot removed. Inside the CBD, but outside the loop, the price would be $35,040 for every parking spot removed. The entire meter deal has been a boondoggle, and the previous mayor has been subpoenaed about it several times but has gotten out of it citing "health issues." It's really screwed over the cities flexibility when it comes to urban planning. Plus Chicago has the most expensive meters in the nation. Source: http://chicagometers.com/cost-hours/ http://chicagometers.com/cost-hours/
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
closeparen 9y ago
Off street parking becomes a more valuable/necessary investment every time the movement to eliminate street parking or densify beyond the natural limits of street parking gains traction. If we want people to stop needing parking, we need to actually improve transit.

Declanomous 9y ago

I've noticed something similar in Chicago. We have an 'eyes-on-the-street' clause in our building code, which requires a certain number of windows face the street. I've noticed a lot of buildings that are being built have 'windows' which look into some interstitial space that prevents the people in the inside from seeing the people on the street and vice versa. I personally think that this falls under the heading of what I deem anti-social behavior. Anti-social behavior isn't limited to property crime and violence, it's anything that dehumanizes your fellow man. The people who construct their life so they only interact with exactly the people whom they want are the most anti-social people I can imagine. I personally think they should move to the suburbs if they can't stand the thought of interacting with a neighbor. Thankfully in Chicago we have alleys, and you have to pay a yearly surcharge for the 'no parking' area created by street cuts, so there aren't many driveways crossing sidewalks.

nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
To me 'asocial' seems like a more accurate term. It's not like they are out to harm fellow humans or society.
- Declanomous 9y ago
  Anti-social can also mean someone who just doesn't want to interact with other people. I'm deliberately invoking both meanings of the word, because I think taking the desire to avoid interaction to the extreme harms society.
  - nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
    Either I've been introduced to a new meaning of the term of you are mistaken about the meaning. I'm going to look it up. Perhaps I could persuade you to do the same. Also, by wording it as "extreme", it becomes a bit difficult to have a debate. Doing "too much" of anything is by definition more than what is harmless. In the case from the context above, one interpretation is just people's desire for privacy. I'd also say that by giving it a name with a negative connotation we are pressuring the people who have preferences that can be described as asocial to be more like the others and that I believe is unfair.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      You have been introduced to a new meaning of the term. I don't think it's especially unfair to argue that engineering to prevent chance interactions should be discouraged, and invoking privacy in this context is a bugaboo - access to privacy really isn't the same thing as making sure that you never have to greet or talk to anyone in a way that isn't planned. I know a lot of people who don't really have that sort of unplanned interaction with anyone, and they tend to be the same people who think I must be uncommonly brave to use my city's public transit system, which they erroneously fancy to be peopled primarily by dangerous characters. By preserving their ignorance of their fellow people, they free their imaginations to assume the worst, and in a democratic society where such imaginings can quite easily translate into wrongheaded and harmful public policy, I don't think it is at all hard to argue that such ignorance, and such fancy, grows questionable - even dangerous - to the same extent to which it is indulged.
      - mmmpop 9y ago
        > You have been introduced to a new meaning of the term. Says who? It's one thing to invent a brand new word, but it's another to modify a word with already established meaning to a slightly different meaning just because some people started using it the wrong way and it stuck. See the word "poignant" for another great example of the active bastardization of English.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  It's not like they are out to harm fellow humans or society. Right -- it's not that they're "out to" cause harm. They just don't give an F. So in that sense, it 'antisocial' seems more apt.
mlinksva 9y ago
Yearly surcharge is a great idea, maybe https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/supp_info/driveway_permits/overview_and_policy.html https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/supp_info/d... documents, though seems too cheap ($100, $200 in central business district). SF sadly does not have this http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/30/concrete-giveaway-free-and-exclusive-parking-on-the-public-street/ http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/30/concrete-giveaway-free-... and still being studied last year according to http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Planning/ParkingSupply_and_Utilization/Parking_Supply_final_report_11.29.16.pdf http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Planning/Pa...
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Right. How much money would that spot bring in it was metered? (I'm assuming Chicago business district has metered parking).
  - Declanomous 9y ago
    Surprisingly, not all of the space inside the CBD is metered. There's actually a fair number of spots in the loop that aren't metered. Regardless, that's actually a pretty easy question to answer, because Chicago gets charged for every minute a spot isn't available by the company they sold the street parking to. Inside the loop, the price would be $43,891.30 for every parking spot removed. Inside the CBD, but outside the loop, the price would be $35,040 for every parking spot removed. The entire meter deal has been a boondoggle, and the previous mayor has been subpoenaed about it several times but has gotten out of it citing "health issues." It's really screwed over the cities flexibility when it comes to urban planning. Plus Chicago has the most expensive meters in the nation. Source: http://chicagometers.com/cost-hours/ http://chicagometers.com/cost-hours/
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

closeparen 9y ago

Off street parking becomes a more valuable/necessary investment every time the movement to eliminate street parking or densify beyond the natural limits of street parking gains traction. If we want people to stop needing parking, we need to actually improve transit.