4 ms·

I am at the center of this locally. We are seeing neighborhoods of houses be approved for 10 story housing buildings. In effect, we are glorifying building ten

I am at the center of this locally. We are seeing neighborhoods of houses be approved for 10 story housing buildings. In effect, we are glorifying building tenements when what we really need to do is change zoning laws to allow for smaller homes.

falcor84 3y ago
Approving building of additional homes would have helped 10 or 20 years ago. I suppose the metaphor is of ignoring the doctor when advised to reduce cholesterol and then ignoring again when prescribed statins, and then being surprised when you now need a bypass surgery.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  This is not true even in San Francisco. The population is barely now recovering from covid. This is entirely about cities needing to grow their payroll tax to overcome their losses in retail and CRE.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    No, it is about the exorbitant cost of housing in SF + the very real benefits from agglomeration
snapplebobapple 3y ago
you need to do both but I think it's better for the smaller homes thing to come second because that has lots of negative outcomes if you implement that when there is a shortage (i.e. you supply a lot of tiny units that noone will want once supply and demand come back into balance from higher density and then you end up spending a lot of unnecessary resources demolishing/rebuiling/combining). My bigger concern around this higher density is uneven reconfiguration of the transportation corridors to accommodate more walking/cycling/non stupid transit (i.e. subway/lrt/trams and other forms that aren't sharing the road and therefore getting stuck in the car congestion). If you build much higher density and still expect everyone to get around by car, that's a disaster in itself.
bartwr 3y ago
I know this is an unpopular opinion in the US, but the tenements can be pretty great. I grew up in Eastern Europe (Warsaw) in "commie" blocks and there was a lot of valid criticisms and problems (like poor quality of buildings, small apartments, or thin walls - but consider that they rebuilt whole Warsaw after it was completely grounded in WW2 in a decade or two!), but also a lot to love. Extremely walkable, safe, all amenities (cinemas, stores, cultural centers, playgrounds) in the walking distance, lots of trees and green, easy access to public transit. As a kid or teenager they were great. I preferred it 100x over suburbs where my parents moved later, and to typical American cityscapes. (And this is why I moved to NYC and love it) Here is a fun and a bit provocative/exaggerated video https://youtu.be/1eIxUuuJX7Y https://youtu.be/1eIxUuuJX7Y Everyone is different so I'm not forcing my perspective onto anyone, just worth considering - especially if you have not had such first hand experience (and the main objection to tenements comes from how depressing they look or American association of "projects = crime", which misses a lot of "why"). Feel free to disagree! And apart from that, I don't think "more of small houses" solves anything. It has to create more car dependence and social isolation. And it does not really scale, where would you fit more of smaller homes in SF?
- CubsFan1060 3y ago
  "Everyone is different" I think this is the root of it. You prefer higher density -- and that's great. I'm sure not everyone agrees, but I don't see any reason to take that away. In fact, I think it should be encouraged for those that like it. The issue, IMHO, is that some folks don't like that and prefer lower density. And a lot of these changes focus on taking that away from them (i.e. changing their current neighborhood). Also, just a comment on: "It has to create more car dependence and social isolation" I don't think that's true. I live in a pretty traditional SFH neighborhood. Within a 12 minute bike ride, I have: * Four grocery stores (Major chains) * 2 gyms * Dozens of restaurants * Several large parks * 2 home improvement stores * Several large employers * Several (non-Starbucks) coffee shops And lots more. It's certainly possible, with bikes, to have SFH neighborhoods where cars aren't required.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago

falcor84 3y ago

Approving building of additional homes would have helped 10 or 20 years ago. I suppose the metaphor is of ignoring the doctor when advised to reduce cholesterol and then ignoring again when prescribed statins, and then being surprised when you now need a bypass surgery.

tsunamifury 3y ago
This is not true even in San Francisco. The population is barely now recovering from covid. This is entirely about cities needing to grow their payroll tax to overcome their losses in retail and CRE.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  No, it is about the exorbitant cost of housing in SF + the very real benefits from agglomeration

snapplebobapple 3y ago

you need to do both but I think it's better for the smaller homes thing to come second because that has lots of negative outcomes if you implement that when there is a shortage (i.e. you supply a lot of tiny units that noone will want once supply and demand come back into balance from higher density and then you end up spending a lot of unnecessary resources demolishing/rebuiling/combining). My bigger concern around this higher density is uneven reconfiguration of the transportation corridors to accommodate more walking/cycling/non stupid transit (i.e. subway/lrt/trams and other forms that aren't sharing the road and therefore getting stuck in the car congestion). If you build much higher density and still expect everyone to get around by car, that's a disaster in itself.

bartwr 3y ago

I know this is an unpopular opinion in the US, but the tenements can be pretty great. I grew up in Eastern Europe (Warsaw) in "commie" blocks and there was a lot of valid criticisms and problems (like poor quality of buildings, small apartments, or thin walls - but consider that they rebuilt whole Warsaw after it was completely grounded in WW2 in a decade or two!), but also a lot to love. Extremely walkable, safe, all amenities (cinemas, stores, cultural centers, playgrounds) in the walking distance, lots of trees and green, easy access to public transit. As a kid or teenager they were great. I preferred it 100x over suburbs where my parents moved later, and to typical American cityscapes. (And this is why I moved to NYC and love it) Here is a fun and a bit provocative/exaggerated video https://youtu.be/1eIxUuuJX7Y https://youtu.be/1eIxUuuJX7Y Everyone is different so I'm not forcing my perspective onto anyone, just worth considering - especially if you have not had such first hand experience (and the main objection to tenements comes from how depressing they look or American association of "projects = crime", which misses a lot of "why"). Feel free to disagree! And apart from that, I don't think "more of small houses" solves anything. It has to create more car dependence and social isolation. And it does not really scale, where would you fit more of smaller homes in SF?

CubsFan1060 3y ago
"Everyone is different" I think this is the root of it. You prefer higher density -- and that's great. I'm sure not everyone agrees, but I don't see any reason to take that away. In fact, I think it should be encouraged for those that like it. The issue, IMHO, is that some folks don't like that and prefer lower density. And a lot of these changes focus on taking that away from them (i.e. changing their current neighborhood). Also, just a comment on: "It has to create more car dependence and social isolation" I don't think that's true. I live in a pretty traditional SFH neighborhood. Within a 12 minute bike ride, I have: * Four grocery stores (Major chains) * 2 gyms * Dozens of restaurants * Several large parks * 2 home improvement stores * Several large employers * Several (non-Starbucks) coffee shops And lots more. It's certainly possible, with bikes, to have SFH neighborhoods where cars aren't required.
- whimsicalism 3y ago