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.
Your comment is irrelevant because I never said we should lift all rules on developers. As I already said, and you had no response to this, my saying that we should lift some regulations blocking development does not imply that we should lift all regulations and give the developers everything they want. Do you not understand the difference between "some" and "all"?
What regulations blocking "development" should be lifted?
I do not understand this board's love for developers! Having watched my city grow from about 5000 to ~20,000 in 30 years, the developers have always wanted to put in more tract housing, have fewer parks and less open space than what the city planners and the public wanted. They're the ones who want to build w/o sidewalks, and the like. Every project has been a big battle, with developers asking for far more than they expect to get.
My perspective is more developer since population growth in most of the Northeast has been stagnant for the last 30 years; yet housing prices rise. There's no fast growth here so the negatives don't seem obvious to me. Many projects are big battles because the default mode is "no growth anywhere" — exaggerating slightly.
What regulations blocking "development" should be lifted? Your snark is unnecessary.
The topic of this thread is not about the specific regulations I don't like but rather about whether or not walkability is realistic. As a I pointed out, walkability is not realistic in many areas due to regulations that prohibit some degree of density. It's not a coincidence that nearly all of the areas in the country where people voluntarily live without cars tend to be much more densely populated than average. It's not about "empathy" for developers but about wanting it to be at least possible to build, say, an apartment building within walking distance of a grocery store so the residents can walk to the store rather than drive if they so choose. That's not legally possibly to build in some places.
My perspective is more developer since population growth in most of the Northeast has been stagnant for the last 30 years; yet housing prices rise. There's no fast growth here so the negatives don't seem obvious to me. Many projects are big battles because the default mode is "no growth anywhere" — exaggerating slightly.
Growth has been an issue going on in Colorado for at least the last 35 years. The no growth anywhere, NIMBY has been an issue here too, but the people keep coming.
Some issues related to growth are school impacts, impact on provision of basic services such as water (a huge deal here) and other utilities.
The laws of physics are inviolable in our universe, the policies of government are not. Walkability is the result of choices made by government. Some perfectly reasonable built forms aren't built anymore, or nowhere near the scale of demand, because government policies say they can't be (eg, zoning, street width) or must meet so many requirements that they don't make economic sense.
Again, walkability is both realistic and perfectly in step with modern needs.
What is the probability that the city of San Francisco will choose to identify itself as a conservative Republican city then change its zoning laws?
Is walkability "realistic"? Uh ... it may be increasingly harder to attain but it is certainly still realistic and out-there. I live in a Colorado front range city in a neighborhood that has no sidewalks and lots of distracted parents whizzing their kids around in luxury-brand 6000lb SUV's while apparently looking down at their phones. So even though we're only several blocks from a large park and a mile from school it doesn't feel "walkable" or even "bikable" in the slightest unless you don't mind instant death by distracted gigantic SUV driver.
HOWEVER, there are certain pockets of my city that are more walkable than others, as I'd guess is the case in any city. I grew up in a beach-town on the West coast that was as close to 100% walkable as it gets. Walk to school. Walk to the beach. Walk to the movies. Walk to any of 4 grocery stores. Walk to anything and everything. I had no idea how fantastic that was until I experience non-walkability as an adult. We won't leave our school district though and nowhere in this district is walkable so it's at least another 6+ years until we can seek out that holy grail of walkability.
Most people buy a second home to "get away from it all." Way out in the woods or something. I'm seriously thinking of buying a second home in a small Colorado mountain town with an actual little downtown and if we do I'm going to pay the extra $100K to have a place within several blocks of the restaurants, single movie theater, parks, galleries, etc. etc. If I can't have walkability in my everyday life and I have the means then darn it I'll have it on my vacations and weekend trips, EVEN IF I HAVE TO DRIVE TWO HOURS TO GET THERE!
It's realistic if you seek it out - you say yourself you live in area that is pretty walkable, so obviously yes, it is realistic. No, the average person doesn't live in a walkable area, but that doesn't mean finding a walkable area is unrealistic.
Yeah, that's the thing. By being selective in California, it's not hard to find walkable neighborhoods. It's not something that's limited to the major cities either. Sacramento it's pretty easy to find whatever level of walkable you'd desire but you do have to be selective. If what you want is Midtown, then it's pretty easy. Just go live in Midtown. Personally, I don't want to live in Midtown but would prefer, although not strongly, somewhere that's more walkable than where I am. There's a number of neighborhoods that by being selective would meet my desires very well that aren't what I would consider walkable neighborhoods. You just do things like live somewhere closer to the shopping centers if you care. As an example, a friend lives in Pocket which is not particularly walkable but he specifically chose where he lives so that he can walk to things if he wants. Generally he drives, but often we'll walk. There's two grocery stores in pretty easy walking distance and a number of restaurants. It's more convenient to drive but often we'd walk there. We're pretty similar in that neither of us really would want to live in Midtown but do like being able to walk to things when we feel like it.
Where I'm at walking isn't really an option. Aside from two gas stations, there's really not much I can walk to. Again, not a top priority and I'm renting so I wasn't real selective. The house I'm in is owned by a friend of the family and works okay but it's not where I'd buy. All I'd really need to do is go a few miles though and be a bit selective.
What is the probability that the city of San Francisco will choose to identify itself as a conservative Republican city then change its zoning laws?
Zilch
Agreed.
But that's one city. Going back to your physics analogy, the laws of physics are inviolable (almost) at all times and in (almost) all places. The particular context that has led to modern SF real estate development is an aberration, not the rule.
And, again, those are choices made by residents and by their elected officials.
It's realistic for me. I would not live anywhere if I could not walk to a store or bus stop.
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.
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.
