5 ms·

San Francisco is the only place I know with this bizarre obsession that things shouldn’t be allowed to cast shadows on other things, as a general rule. It’s ju

• pyuser583 3y ago
  That’s definitely a thing in other cities.
• parasti 3y ago
  Why is it strange? Sunlight is an extremely valuable asset, both physically and mentally. I actually find the opposite mindset (that sunlight doesn't matter) really strange.
  • bobsmooth 3y ago
    Those in Plato's cave don't value sunlight either.
  • CPLX 3y ago
    I mean of course it matters. But it definitely ain’t a valuable asset, it falls on pretty much the entire planet, excepting the infinitesimally small portions that are directly next to tall buildings. Even Ireland and Seattle from time to time. But either way, the link I posted is about San Fransciso not approving a low rise apartment because it could cast a shadow on a basketball court for a few hours A YEAR, which is, in fact, insane in an urban housing crisis context.
• zeagle 3y ago
  In the USA. For interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light . The second last paragraph comments on SF.
  • CPLX 3y ago
    Very interesting. The concept has been soundly rejected in the US. Except for San Francisco. How’s that working out?
    • jfoutz 3y ago
      I think NYC is king of sunlight regulation https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical-manual/08_Shadows_2014.pdf https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical-manual/08_Shadows_2...
      • quitit 3y ago
        The inclusion of a solar-study to prove adherence to shadow regulation is a standard part of most types of development applications, not just in the USA but around the world. This kind of build out is regulated for many reasons: property damage, aesthetics, health, and with a renewed focus: energy use. This includes casting shadows over one’s own property.
      • CPLX 3y ago
        I mean actually read it. It basically says shadows don’t really matter much and you barely need to worry about them and then goes on to spell out in very clear detail what happens when they do matter so there don’t have to be moronic lawsuits every time someone wants to build a low rise apartment building.
        • garbagewoman 3y ago
          Not sure who you think you’re arguing with
        • jfoutz 3y ago
          I'm not sure I understand - https://sfplanning.org/resource/shadow-analysis-procedures-and-scope-requirements https://sfplanning.org/resource/shadow-analysis-procedures-a... 40 feet, times of year, 20% shadow. make a model. At the surface level, they look similar to me. NYC has been doing that for a whole lot longer, I wouldn't doubt their planning department has a more refined process. But it's not like SF is alone in this kind of regulation.
• karaokeyoga 3y ago
  It's a thing in Tokyo as well, leading to some interesting building shapes. https://thetokyofilesurbandesign.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/japanese-sunshine-rights/ https://thetokyofilesurbandesign.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/ja...
• wrp 3y ago
  There was a case in Oregon, I think a couple decades ago, where an Indian tribe built a longhouse in town then tried to prevent construction of any building that might cast a shadow on it. I don't remember whether they aimed at the courts or city council, or how it turned out.
• googl-free 3y ago
  We have this in Austin too. Also the capitol view corridor, an inverted system protecting sightlines to the capitol building