U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 05-22-2015, 12:23 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348

Advertisements

While this blog post discusses SF specifically, the principles the author uses come from global examples and, from my perspective, is an interesting way to in-fill particularly supply-constrained cities. It's not perfect--we Americans like space and would generally protest having another building so close to the front of ours where there wasn't one before. That said, it is very incremental, a development pattern we don't see enough of anymore.

Quote:
I want to highlight the total space we’re setting aside for cars in the current setup. When we multiply the width of the lanes (38′ 9″) by the length of the block (425′), the result is more than 15,000 square feet of space for cars, just on a single block of McAllister Street.

Remember that San Francisco is suffering through an affordability crisis caused in large part by a massive housing deficit. We need space for a lot more units than we have, and no one wants to build up.
Quote:
Before



After


Both the Before and After diagrams are exactly the same scale. But in the new version, we trade the wide street and segregated sidewalks for the following:

(2) 15′ Narrow Streets For People
(1) 38.75′ Buildable Space (New Homes, Shops, etc.)
We can now reuse the old center roadway — nearly 40′ across — in a more productive way. Assuming we build to three stories, we now have 45,000 square feet of buildable space where people can live, work, shop, and relax — just on the 1400 block of McAllister.

The old segregated sidewalks (each 15′) are wide enough to become our new shared streets, built at a comfortable scale for people. Drivers respond to narrow streets by avoiding them when they can, and by moving very slowly — no more than about 5 mph — when they need to use them for local access. In a future post we’ll look at how to supplement narrow streets with a network of arterials and boulevards where cars and transit can move more quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2015, 12:59 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
29,773 posts, read 54,424,430 times
Reputation: 31073
"The old segregated sidewalks (each 15′) are wide enough to become our new shared streets, built at a comfortable scale for people. Drivers respond to narrow streets by avoiding them when they can, and by moving very slowly — no more than about 5 mph — when they need to use them for local access. In a future post we’ll look at how to supplement narrow streets with a network of arterials and boulevards where cars and transit can move more quickly."

The problem I see with this is moving most of those cars (avoiding) onto other streets, further clogging them, and at the same time adding more cars from the people living in this new housing. I also doubt the 5 mph theory, based on experience in our own suburban neighborhood. With the 25 MPH speed limit and resident complaints of speeding, the city installed nice landscaped traffic circles with 15 MPH speed signs in the intersections. When that didn't work, they installed choke points up and down the road to reduce the width and used your theory that people would slow down. That didn't work either, tickets are still written for 35-40 mph every day for those that get caught.
Attached Thumbnails
"Narrowing a Residential Street – McAllister"-a1.jpg   "Narrowing a Residential Street – McAllister"-a2.jpg  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2015, 01:02 PM
 
Location: in here, out there
3,064 posts, read 5,598,457 times
Reputation: 5109
There are a few streets in SF that could use this kind of upgrade. It would divert traffic and create new pedestrian areas. There are worse things that they could do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2015, 02:22 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
[color=Blue] With the 25 MPH speed limit and resident complaints of speeding, the city installed nice landscaped traffic circles with 15 MPH speed signs in the intersections. When that didn't work, they installed choke points up and down the road to reduce the width and used your theory that people would slow down. That didn't work either, tickets are still written for 35-40 mph every day for those that get caught.
Maybe the streets are still too wide overall? This street doesn't get traffic at 35 mph, though still higher than 15 mph when empty:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3224...bA!2e0!6m1!1e1

It's too narrow for cars in the opposite direction to travel easily. The streets in the OP are even narrower and have people walking in the middle of the street. It's not a similar situation to your suburban neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2015, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3979
Somehow I just do not see people in San Francisco going for this idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2015, 02:35 PM
 
781 posts, read 594,309 times
Reputation: 1457
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Somehow I just do not see people in San Francisco going for this idea.
Oh sure they will. Just tell them it's for the environment or bikes, better yet use the words "sustainability" and/or walkability that they have such a fetish for. You could sell them anything that way....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2015, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Boston
101 posts, read 93,324 times
Reputation: 205
15 feet? That is not wide enough to even let the sun in. You will end up with streets that look like this. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8490...8g!2e0!6m1!1e1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2015, 02:51 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
I wonder how wide this street is:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...76adff!6m1!1e1

There are probably a number of streets in San Francisco already 15 feet wide. These:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...76adff!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...76adff!6m1!1e1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2015, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by DetailSymbolizes View Post
Oh sure they will. Just tell them it's for the environment or bikes, better yet use the words "sustainability" and/or walkability that they have such a fetish for. You could sell them anything that way....
Mmm, no. Despite what people think of San Franciscans, they like their cars and dislike a lot of development. Especially in what looks like a fairly quiet residential neighborhood.

Pretty sure, that just like every other CA city, San Francisco has a hell of time implementing their bike plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2015, 02:54 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Mmm, no. Despite what people think of San Franciscans, they like their cars and dislike a lot of development. Especially in what looks like a fairly quiet residential neighborhood.
I'll add that the San Franciscans that do have those are more likely to be long-term residents and participate in local politics.
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 > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top