3 ms·
"As explained live/work was only built on non-residential land - residential units were created and none were destroyed." No. You're wrong. The quote explicitl
by timr 12y ago
"As explained live/work was only built on non-residential land - residential units were created and none were destroyed."
No. You're wrong. The quote explicitly says that the developer bought out a whole block, and kicked people out of private residences, in addition to converting warehouses. This was not the only occasion where that happened.
- spikels 12y agoWe are just going around in circles timr. The Cronicle article (as usual) is pretty poorly written so it's not clear who was evicted. Given the regulation at the time concerning demolition, rent control and live/work I am confident no housing was destroyed and no legal residential tenants were evicted. To say the article "explicitly" says this is wishful reading. Oh well. We disagree about a fact. One last link - here's the planning dept report on the original 1988 live/work law. Fits what I remember hearing about it's origins in the mid-1990s. Shows the difficulty we have getting the results we want even with the power to make the rules and tons of resources. I'm not optimistic. https://archive.org/details/citywidelivework19sanf https://archive.org/details/citywidelivework19sanf