4 ms·

Depends on your definitions I guess; I call Auckland's 1-2 story sprawl low, I don't call Paris' 5 story sprawl low. Aucklanders seem to generally be against e

by elyobo 9y ago

Depends on your definitions I guess; I call Auckland's 1-2 story sprawl low, I don't call Paris' 5 story sprawl low. Aucklanders seem to generally be against even Paris levels of density.

dredmorbius 9y ago
Point being that 10, 50, or 100 story towers, and the resulting oppressiveness, aren't necessary. Auckland (or San Francisco) could greatly increase housing supply with fairly modest density increases.
- closeparen 9y ago
  You would need huge increases in transit capacity to do that, and it would probably also push car-accessible streets to the point of total uselessness, wrecking any bus service that doesn't have dedicated lanes. The buses and trains from San Francisco's low-rise districts to its downtown are already crush loaded and Muni doesn't seem to be capable of adding capacity. Towers in/near the central business district have the distinct advantage of getting lots of people within walking distance of their offices. SOMA et al. also have low-rise commercial uses that can be converted to mixed uses. It's important to get as many units as we can out of this rare land, because tearing down existing housing is so destructive (and a total political non-starter). Our west, almost everything is already residential and is cheaper than whatever new construction would replace it (in the immediate term, which is all voters care about).
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Yes, curiously enough, increasing density does require increasing infrastructure, including transit capacity. This has been recognised going back ... quite some time. A century or more, for cities. Millennia, at the scale of nations, empires, and/or tribes, back when "transit" generally meant some form of water-borne craft. Muni hasn't had the will to add capacity. The physical possiblity exists, as evidenced by numerous cities around the world with far higher-capacity transit systems. (Though, admittedly, effectively none in the U.S., outside NYC.) The most straightforward approach for SF would almost certainly be transit-designated routes, with no non-transit or non-emergency traffic allowed. There have been multiple plans for developing additional dedicated subway capacity, though in the case of SF, the common congestion and lack of a bypass trackway (either a third bypass route, or full dedicated dual trackage in both directions) along the Market Street route especially is a particular problem. Longer trainsets (possibly breaking to two-car trolleys above ground, or remaining as, say, four-car systems on dedicated rights of way) would increase capacity. Dedicated rail along major corridors (Geary, Irving, 3rd St. Market, Columbus, Sunset, etc.) might also help.

by elyobo 9y ago

Depends on your definitions I guess; I call Auckland's 1-2 story sprawl low, I don't call Paris' 5 story sprawl low. Aucklanders seem to generally be against even Paris levels of density.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Point being that 10, 50, or 100 story towers, and the resulting oppressiveness, aren't necessary. Auckland (or San Francisco) could greatly increase housing supply with fairly modest density increases.

closeparen 9y ago
You would need huge increases in transit capacity to do that, and it would probably also push car-accessible streets to the point of total uselessness, wrecking any bus service that doesn't have dedicated lanes. The buses and trains from San Francisco's low-rise districts to its downtown are already crush loaded and Muni doesn't seem to be capable of adding capacity. Towers in/near the central business district have the distinct advantage of getting lots of people within walking distance of their offices. SOMA et al. also have low-rise commercial uses that can be converted to mixed uses. It's important to get as many units as we can out of this rare land, because tearing down existing housing is so destructive (and a total political non-starter). Our west, almost everything is already residential and is cheaper than whatever new construction would replace it (in the immediate term, which is all voters care about).
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Yes, curiously enough, increasing density does require increasing infrastructure, including transit capacity. This has been recognised going back ... quite some time. A century or more, for cities. Millennia, at the scale of nations, empires, and/or tribes, back when "transit" generally meant some form of water-borne craft. Muni hasn't had the will to add capacity. The physical possiblity exists, as evidenced by numerous cities around the world with far higher-capacity transit systems. (Though, admittedly, effectively none in the U.S., outside NYC.) The most straightforward approach for SF would almost certainly be transit-designated routes, with no non-transit or non-emergency traffic allowed. There have been multiple plans for developing additional dedicated subway capacity, though in the case of SF, the common congestion and lack of a bypass trackway (either a third bypass route, or full dedicated dual trackage in both directions) along the Market Street route especially is a particular problem. Longer trainsets (possibly breaking to two-car trolleys above ground, or remaining as, say, four-car systems on dedicated rights of way) would increase capacity. Dedicated rail along major corridors (Geary, Irving, 3rd St. Market, Columbus, Sunset, etc.) might also help.