4 ms·

Why no need for highrises?

raldi 5y ago
Most of California, even the densest regions like the city of San Francisco, are covered in a sea of single-family houses. This is primarily because in the 1970's, all other kinds of housing were banned. See, for instance, the map at: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ If we allowed four-story apartment buildings again like we used to, the state's population could easily double in size without even having to raise a single height limit anywhere. (However, I should mention that I, for one, think six-story apartments are where it's at.)
- clairity 5y ago
  in LA, the limit in the early 1900s was 13 stories/150’ [0], so many of the older tall-ish buildings in downtown and along the wilshire corridor are a uniform height. it’s quite pleasing actually. i’d support a bill allowing all mixed-use buildings to be 13 stories/150’ by default, and taller along transit corridors. and all residential to be 4+1 by right, and bigger within 1/2 mile of a transit corridor. CA politicians don’t even let such bills get to vote oftentimes, but vote them down when they do. i’d be down to put them on the ballot as a voter proposition instead. [0]: https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/l-a-s-changing-skyline-a-brief-history-of-skyscrapers-in-the-city-of-angels https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/l-a-s-changing-skyline-a-...
  - sagarm 5y ago
    Politics is the art of the possible, and a bill that made those changes is highly unlikely to pass. San Francisco's state senator Scott Weiner has been leading in he charge. A few good bills have gotten through, but opposition from LA has been a serious hurdle to upzoning.
    - clairity 5y ago
      weiner has gotten a lot of credit at the state level, but no obvious political success. that's why a ballot measure may be the way to go. and LA isn't the principal opposition, that's broad among the state's landlords and homeowners. let's not let (geographical) divide-and-conquer obscure the goal here.
epistasis 5y ago
High rises don't necessarily help much with adding additional population, the real key is consistently higher density being allowed. Barcelona is an absolutely beautiful city with amazing transit and amenities, all without any high rises at all. Really the key is to ban single unit detached homes, get rid of setbacks, get rid of parking minimums, establish parking maximums, even. Basically, the entire planning profession has gotten every single thing wrong. Take any limit they have established, and reverse it, IMHO. All that feeder street nonsense has destroyed an entire century's worth of planning.
- raldi 5y ago
  We don't even need to ban single-family houses; we just need to repeal the laws that ban everything else. People who want to pay extra for SFHs will continue to be able to do so, but crucially, people who want to put something else on their land would be able to as well. Those folks would build enough housing to accommodate at least a doubling of the state population.
- _vertigo 5y ago
  Is this really the future you want to live in? I would like there to be a sane tradeoff between density and proximity to the city center. I stayed in an Airbnb in a central neighborhood in Barcelona (l'Eixample IIRC) and I found it to be pretty cramped quarters. I'm not sure how much difference there is between one apartment building and the next, but I have more space living in San Francisco right now and I still would like to have more. I personally would not like to live in SF if I had to live in housing that small. I want a garage, I want another room in my apartment, and I want a driveway where I can wash my car. I also want to live in a thriving city with lots of interesting people to meet and things to do. I recognize that these are contradictory desires. I think the latter desire is more healthy for society, but I think there is definitely a reason I feel the former desire. It's because that's how I grew up. I think that Americans, culturally, value space more than perhaps some other cultures do. I think that trying to fight against that is a losing fight. You will not get any policy passed if you lead with "banning single unit detached homes". That is far and away the most popular housing option in the United States and absolutely what the average American thinks of when they think about "buying" (vs renting). I walk by people living in their modern, rectangular condos big glass windows that let me see everything in their house at once and I cringe - who on earth wants to live in tiny terrarium that costs $4000 a month? Like it or not, most people feel this way about condos. Also like it or not, a lot of people basically think that these are the only two options, because that's all that they've seen. I think we need to just allow the missing middle. There are people who like high-rise condos, and there are people who like single family homes, and there are probably a lot more people who, when presented with the financial advantages of the middle options, would choose something in between.
gnopgnip 5y ago
Much of Paris only allows 4-5 story buildings, but Paris is more dense than NYC where skyscrapers are allowed
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Aren't skyscrapers in Manhattan mostly offices and luxury apartments?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

Most of California, even the densest regions like the city of San Francisco, are covered in a sea of single-family houses. This is primarily because in the 1970's, all other kinds of housing were banned. See, for instance, the map at: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ If we allowed four-story apartment buildings again like we used to, the state's population could easily double in size without even having to raise a single height limit anywhere. (However, I should mention that I, for one, think six-story apartments are where it's at.)

clairity 5y ago
in LA, the limit in the early 1900s was 13 stories/150’ [0], so many of the older tall-ish buildings in downtown and along the wilshire corridor are a uniform height. it’s quite pleasing actually. i’d support a bill allowing all mixed-use buildings to be 13 stories/150’ by default, and taller along transit corridors. and all residential to be 4+1 by right, and bigger within 1/2 mile of a transit corridor. CA politicians don’t even let such bills get to vote oftentimes, but vote them down when they do. i’d be down to put them on the ballot as a voter proposition instead. [0]: https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/l-a-s-changing-skyline-a-brief-history-of-skyscrapers-in-the-city-of-angels https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/l-a-s-changing-skyline-a-...
- sagarm 5y ago
  Politics is the art of the possible, and a bill that made those changes is highly unlikely to pass. San Francisco's state senator Scott Weiner has been leading in he charge. A few good bills have gotten through, but opposition from LA has been a serious hurdle to upzoning.
  - clairity 5y ago
    weiner has gotten a lot of credit at the state level, but no obvious political success. that's why a ballot measure may be the way to go. and LA isn't the principal opposition, that's broad among the state's landlords and homeowners. let's not let (geographical) divide-and-conquer obscure the goal here.

epistasis 5y ago

High rises don't necessarily help much with adding additional population, the real key is consistently higher density being allowed. Barcelona is an absolutely beautiful city with amazing transit and amenities, all without any high rises at all. Really the key is to ban single unit detached homes, get rid of setbacks, get rid of parking minimums, establish parking maximums, even. Basically, the entire planning profession has gotten every single thing wrong. Take any limit they have established, and reverse it, IMHO. All that feeder street nonsense has destroyed an entire century's worth of planning.

raldi 5y ago
We don't even need to ban single-family houses; we just need to repeal the laws that ban everything else. People who want to pay extra for SFHs will continue to be able to do so, but crucially, people who want to put something else on their land would be able to as well. Those folks would build enough housing to accommodate at least a doubling of the state population.
_vertigo 5y ago
Is this really the future you want to live in? I would like there to be a sane tradeoff between density and proximity to the city center. I stayed in an Airbnb in a central neighborhood in Barcelona (l'Eixample IIRC) and I found it to be pretty cramped quarters. I'm not sure how much difference there is between one apartment building and the next, but I have more space living in San Francisco right now and I still would like to have more. I personally would not like to live in SF if I had to live in housing that small. I want a garage, I want another room in my apartment, and I want a driveway where I can wash my car. I also want to live in a thriving city with lots of interesting people to meet and things to do. I recognize that these are contradictory desires. I think the latter desire is more healthy for society, but I think there is definitely a reason I feel the former desire. It's because that's how I grew up. I think that Americans, culturally, value space more than perhaps some other cultures do. I think that trying to fight against that is a losing fight. You will not get any policy passed if you lead with "banning single unit detached homes". That is far and away the most popular housing option in the United States and absolutely what the average American thinks of when they think about "buying" (vs renting). I walk by people living in their modern, rectangular condos big glass windows that let me see everything in their house at once and I cringe - who on earth wants to live in tiny terrarium that costs $4000 a month? Like it or not, most people feel this way about condos. Also like it or not, a lot of people basically think that these are the only two options, because that's all that they've seen. I think we need to just allow the missing middle. There are people who like high-rise condos, and there are people who like single family homes, and there are probably a lot more people who, when presented with the financial advantages of the middle options, would choose something in between.

gnopgnip 5y ago

Much of Paris only allows 4-5 story buildings, but Paris is more dense than NYC where skyscrapers are allowed

oh_sigh 5y ago
Aren't skyscrapers in Manhattan mostly offices and luxury apartments?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]