6 ms·
Livability, affordabilty, diversity, culture and community are all adversely impacted when the housing supply is artificially constrained the way it is in San F
by beatpanda 11y ago
Livability, affordabilty, diversity, culture and community are all adversely impacted when the housing supply is artificially constrained the way it is in San Francisco, and the notion that, for instance, building marginally taller buildings, or legalizing the construction of backyard cottages, is going to have even the slightest impact on open space is absolute nonsense.
There was a neighborhood meeting this week about building over 1,000 units of affordable housing on what is now a parking lot, and the majority of current neighbors expressed a preference for the parking lot. Please, convince me that a massive slab of asphalt is better for San Francisco than making room for 1,000 new working class neighbors.
- raldi 11y agoMore details on the parking lot: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/05/08/at_balboa_reservoir_many_prefer_empty_parking_lot_to_housing.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/05/08/at_balboa_reservoir...
- beatpanda 11y agoI think Curbed is being really hard on the narrow streets proposal. City streets in America, and especially in bike-friendly places like the Bay Area, are absurdly wide. We would have much more livable cities without them.
- raldi 11y agoI couldn't agree more. The most magical neighborhoods I've ever seen have had narrow streets that cater to pedestrians first and cars, like, fourth. http://www.venere.com/blog/images/positano-streets-amalfi-coast.jpg http://www.venere.com/blog/images/positano-streets-amalfi-co... http://www.china-tour.cn/images/Lijiang/Lijiang-Nightlife.jpg http://www.china-tour.cn/images/Lijiang/Lijiang-Nightlife.jp... https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5159/5889050432_4f8d86e07f_b.jpg https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5159/5889050432_4f8d86e07f_b.j...
- remarkEon 11y agoThose places all look to have been built way before the automobile was a thing. And while I agree with narrow streets, because they're safer and more aesthetically pleasing etc, you can't ignore that transforming to that design will be a little disruptive in the near term. My point is that some of the great and beautiful narrow cobble stone streets in, say, Boston or Philly, to use US examples, weren't built to handle heavy street traffic. Transforming high volume automobile streets to the walkable ideal is inevitably going to cause some headaches.
- beatpanda 11y agoThe automobile is rapidly becoming less and less of "a thing", especially in the Bay Area, and cities should get out in front of it.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- zachalexander 11y agoPerhaps they are homeowners, who want the housing crisis to stay terrible because it keeps their property values high.
- beatpanda 11y agoIndeed! "The neighborhood is mostly single family homes, and the people there are very resistant to the idea of “renters” (the code word they use for poor people) living in the neighborhood." http://sfbarf.tumblr.com/post/116593748570/balboa-reservoir-is-a-17-acre-city-owned-site-that http://sfbarf.tumblr.com/post/116593748570/balboa-reservoir-...
- teacup50 11y agoThe people that live in a place shouldn't have a say in its future?
- Kalium 11y agoThere is something of a difference between a neighborhood having a say in its future and a neighborhood having a dictatorial stranglehold on all changes within its bounds. Does the rest of the city have no say? The county? The state? The country? Would you be OK with this principle if a white neighborhood wanted to enforce a "no black or brown people" rule? How about a "straight people only" rule? How about "no poor people"? This isn't a purely abstract question, but an actual question that has arisen repeatedly in the history of the US. Sunset Towns have been real things.
- teacup50 11y agoIt's an absolutely silly question; there's a clear difference between zoning rules based on land use, and zoning rules based on discrimination against a protected class.
- Kalium 11y agoOK. Let's try again, without the silliness. This is a serious question that requires a serious answer. There is a difference between a neighborhood having a say in its future and a neighborhood having a dictatorial stranglehold on all changes within its bounds. Does the rest of the city have no say? The county? The state? The country? Do you think it's OK for a city to tell a neighborhood that they need to accept a certain set of non-discriminatory zoning rules based on land use, even if it's not what the people there want?