Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-08-2014, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,784,942 times
Reputation: 28561

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I remember reading something like 75% of people in San Francisco own a car, but the thing is everyone hunts for that perfect parking spot and doesn't use their car again until they desperately need to drive somewhere that they can't get to with public transportation.

I remember hearing a guy turn down a ride to the airport in SF because he didn't want his friend to lose the perfect parking spot that he had.
Car ownership is more like 50%. But that is pretty accurate. Those cars (parked on the street) don't move till absolutely necessary.

Driving around San Francisco, particularly downtown is a big pain!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2014, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,475,124 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
The average home price in SF right now is just under $1 million. $100k is working poor (for a family of. 4) in SF. The average rent price is $3300.



Of course it isn't green to circle the block. It is like death by a thousand cuts.

It is counterintuitive, but less parking leads to fewer people with cars. I am going back to SF again. Most people, who bring a car to SF (and don't have dedicated parking spots) ditch their cars after a few months. After dealing with parking tickets, street sweeping, and break-ins they realize it is too annoying and switch to car share, transit, bikes. Or move where they can have a parking spot (another neighborhood, or find a paid spot....). As a result, the neighborhoods where it is most annoying to find a parking spot have lower levels of car ownership.

This includes results of when SF redesigned one of their corridors to be a complete street and took out parking. It is way better than it used to be by far. (Valencia). Congestion decreased. I'll use anecdotal evidence. Before the street was redesigned, when visiting the area, all of my friends drove. Now most of them don't, they take transit (except for the ones who live super far). The level of car ownership in my small sample didn't change during the course of my 12 year period I am thinking about. The transit options didn't change either, but in the earlier part of the period, more people lived closer to transit than now. Oddly now more people use the transit, even though it is technically another stop for them. Now they park at the train stop along the way, and then use the tea into finish the trip to get to the neighborhood.
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/do...california.pdf

De bundling the parking works. If you want a parking spot, you should have to pay for it (in areas where there are reasonable alternatives). Everyone in the building shouldn't have to pay, there are plenty of places that do it need 1 parking spot per unit. In my neighborhood, and the ones nearby, the parking policies vary by building. Some buildings charge a monthly fee for a spot, others don't. The ones that charge a fee tend to be closer to transit. The ones with out a fee tend to be further from transit. The people who don't need parking (and don't drive) have the opportunity to save money by not paying for something they don't need.




This is good policy. I saw a recent article about a development in downtown Chicago where the developer complained the parking minimums were too high. I think 800 units were planned and 600 spots were required. It was a mixed use development. There was another nearby similar development and also a parking garage. In each case those lots were rarely more than 50% full. The el stop was 2-3 blocks away and there was a grocery store etc within 1 block. He wanted to reduce parking to 400 or something and share the parking with the underutilized structure on the next block. Opponents companies the develop would add too much traffic, although the area was a pretty low car ownership area....

Makes no sense!
Maybe. That might explain why there are so few families in SF as well. It's not a sustainable lifestyle for most families with kids. It makes life too difficult to have to do all that planning just to go to the grocery store.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 02:15 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,388,296 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Car ownership is more like 50%. But that is pretty accurate. Those cars (parked on the street) don't move till absolutely necessary.

Driving around San Francisco, particularly downtown is a big pain!


Sounds like alternate side of the street parking is indicated for SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,784,942 times
Reputation: 28561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Maybe. That might explain why there are so few families in SF as well. It's not a sustainable lifestyle for most families with kids. It makes life too difficult to have to do all that planning just to go to the grocery store.
The San Francisco no families problem has little to do with the lack of parking and a lot to do with crappy schools, a terrible school lottery system, lack of affordable housing, and no development of new housing.

Getting to the grocery store is easy, most neighborhoods have one in walking distance. Getting to target on the other hand..... SF just got its first targets in the past 2 years.

Car share is also super popular. Most people live with in 2 blocks of a zip car or city car share spot.

Lots of people with families who want the "city" life leave SF for places nearby like Oakland, Berkeley, Piedmont, Albany and Alameda places with better schools (or predictable school enrollment) and walkable neighborhoods. When a family sized house costs $1 million and you still end up with crappy schools, it is really easy to make the decision to move. The ones who want the suburbs, pick any number of other communities in the nearby county's.

But to be completely honest, to get the middle class lifestyle espoused by the American dream in the Bay Area, you need a $200k household income for your 1.5 kids. And that just means decent (not excellent) schools, a smaller house (1500 square feet and 3 bedrooms), and you will still probably have a 30+ minute commute. A 3 bedroom place within decent commuting distance of Silicon Valley or downtown San Francisco costs $700k+.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,182,754 times
Reputation: 6552
Who here wants to invest a couple hundred thousand on a property only to have it devalued because someone builds a bunch of (affordable) shacks next door? Really no one would. That's why we have zoning laws and deed restrictions. It protects us from someone else destroying the value of your investment. Now land is available with little or few restrictions. Look there to build a utopia of cheap shacks.
No one wants to say it, but I will. There is a reason why crime is so high around low income developments and it isn't because someone built a Mc Mansion next door.
Talk to anyone who lives near a low income development and they will tell you. You better lock your doors and make sure you leave nothing you care about in the yard. It won't be there come morning.
Call me a snob, that won't change the reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,784,942 times
Reputation: 28561
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Who here wants to invest a couple hundred thousand on a property only to have it devalued because someone builds a bunch of (affordable) shacks next door? Really no one would. That's why we have zoning laws and deed restrictions. It protects us from someone else destroying the value of your investment. Now land is available with little or few restrictions. Look there to build a utopia of cheap shacks.
No one wants to say it, but I will. There is a reason why crime is so high around low income developments and it isn't because someone built a Mc Mansion next door.
Talk to anyone who lives near a low income development and they will tell you. You better lock your doors and make sure you leave nothing you care about in the yard. It won't be there come morning.
Call me a snob, that won't change the reality.
This is a low income housing community in San Francisco. You can't see the anchor tenant of trader joes in this pick. Housing prices in the neighborhood are still $1M+. There is a huge waiting list. They have been open for like 7 years now. It replaced a high rise, and overall things are much better than they were before.

ECB - Housing: North Beach Place

Tons of new development in that corner since the "projects" opened.

All I have to say is that I would love to live in those low income units. A couple blocks from the water. Trader joes downstairs. 15 minute street car ride to the financial district....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,182,754 times
Reputation: 6552
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
This is a low income housing community in San Francisco. You can't see the anchor tenant of trader joes in this pick. Housing prices in the neighborhood are still $1M+. There is a huge waiting list. They have been open for like 7 years now. It replaced a high rise, and overall things are much better than they were before.

ECB - Housing: North Beach Place

Tons of new development in that corner since the "projects" opened.

All I have to say is that I would love to live in those low income units. A couple blocks from the water. Trader joes downstairs. 15 minute street car ride to the financial district....
Then move there.
Me I love the country and having acres between me and my closest neighbor. I love having neighbors I know well and trust and aren't so hurting for cash that they will rob me if I go out of town. My neighbor actually has the keys to my house for when I am away. We all know each other and look out for one another. Better still, no smog, no smell of sewage or old garbage or any other foul smells you find in your typical city.
I like San Francisco. Very beautiful. I love beaches and the ocean as well. 4 more years and I will live where it never gets cold and uncrowded beaches are everywhere. LOL also in the country so I get the best of both worlds.

Low income housing unfortunately is a magnet for not only the poor, but the dishonest poor as well.

Sherman Hills Wilkes-barre Pa for example.... Every week another shooting, mugging, fight, drug raid,or name the crime. Property values surrounding the area have plummeted. I wish it were unique. I wish people living in low income projects appreciated the gift they are given. No doubt many do, unfortunately many don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 05:37 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,388,296 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Who here wants to invest a couple hundred thousand on a property only to have it devalued because someone builds a bunch of (affordable) shacks next door? Really no one would. That's why we have zoning laws and deed restrictions. It protects us from someone else destroying the value of your investment. Now land is available with little or few restrictions. Look there to build a utopia of cheap shacks.
No one wants to say it, but I will. There is a reason why crime is so high around low income developments and it isn't because someone built a Mc Mansion next door.
Talk to anyone who lives near a low income development and they will tell you. You better lock your doors and make sure you leave nothing you care about in the yard. It won't be there come morning.
Call me a snob, that won't change the reality.

The proper solution for the "problem" you describe is found in things like deed restrictions and homeowner associations - not in government.

Even an honest conservative like Thomas Sowell acknowledged that zoning redistributes income from renters to owners and thus generally upward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 05:39 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,388,296 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
Then move there.
Me I love the country and having acres between me and my closest neighbor. I love having neighbors I know well and trust and aren't so hurting for cash that they will rob me if I go out of town. My neighbor actually has the keys to my house for when I am away. We all know each other and look out for one another. Better still, no smog, no smell of sewage or old garbage or any other foul smells you find in your typical city.
I like San Francisco. Very beautiful. I love beaches and the ocean as well. 4 more years and I will live where it never gets cold and uncrowded beaches are everywhere. LOL also in the country so I get the best of both worlds.

Low income housing unfortunately is a magnet for not only the poor, but the dishonest poor as well.

Sherman Hills Wilkes-barre Pa for example.... Every week another shooting, mugging, fight, drug raid,or name the crime. Property values surrounding the area have plummeted. I wish it were unique. I wish people living in low income projects appreciated the gift they are given. No doubt many do, unfortunately many don't.

Can't you read? There is a huge waiting list.

Simple solution to low income housing issue you describe: require a college degree for all low income rentals. Crime will drop like a rock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,630 posts, read 19,379,893 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Are you serious? Tenements "adequately met the housing demands. . . ", etc.



Parking free developments make a mess of local streets. Spending 45 minutes driving around finding a parking space in a city is hardly "green".
Yes they did. Families lived there for awhile saved up some capital and moved up to bigger apartments uptown, the Bronx and other boroughs.

Now we have generations plopped in project apartments and waiting lists tens of thousand deep but I guess this I considered progress to the do gooders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top