America needs a major infrastructure overhall. (buildings, build, parks, California)
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.
"The San Francisco Planning Commission Thursday unanimously approved a plan to allow fourplexes to be constructed on more than 110,000 parcels currently zoned for single-family homes or two-unit buildings.
The legislation, introduced by Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, comes as the YIMBY “legalize apartments” movement has swept the United States, leading to up-zoning in cities from Berkeley to Sacramento and Seattle to Minneapolis.
The rezoning would apply to both corner and mid-block properties. Currently, the city has 75,000 parcels zoned for single-family homes and another 36,000 zoned for two-units. While Mandelman’s legislation only included four-unit buildings, the Planning Commission recommended the city also allow six-unit projects on corner lots.
Key words - modest increase !!! This is universal across the USA. Just still the red tape and nimbyism needs to get thru and probably will be near the core maybe come corridors.
Still it is a restricted city limits in a vast Bay Region.
Did you look at the street view of that area, and essentially the rest of SF? It's very steep hills there. Those houses were mostly built before WWII, when no one was thinking about compact cities, although, that's a pretty compact area and rated a 93 for walkability. Look to the North, and there is a huge park a few blocks away. I am assuming the terrain is why there aren't a lot of smaller parks. There's a few parks scattered around, but they are expensive to build, as the land requires levelling.
Assuming they changed the zoning, a developer would still have to buy at least 20 houses to build any sort of MFH in that neighborhood, and that's $30 million or more before any other costs. Construction in SF is hugely expensive because of the earthquake mitigation required, which is another reason for a paucity of MFH.
I've never seen the attraction of living there, but that's me.
I am sure there is still room for more people in SF. And there are cities in the world which have similar or higher density, but have more public space. This depends on what type of housing you are building and how wide you make the roads. If you have plenty of SFH row houses instead of multi level apartment buildings, you are wasting valuable ground space, that could be used for parks etc.
Key words - modest increase !!! This is universal across the USA. Just still the red tape and nimbyism needs to get thru and probably will be near the core maybe come corridors.
Still it is a restricted city limits in a vast Bay Region.
Still needs to be done a lot of things in this world, no question, but don't you see the progress?
I am sure there is still room for more people in SF. And there are cities in the world which have similar or higher density, but have more public space. This depends on what type of housing you are building and how wide you make the roads. If you have plenty of SFH row houses instead of multi level apartment buildings, you are wasting valuable ground space, that could be used for parks etc.
Where do you put the so called public space? It's extremely difficult to build parks on steep hills without moving large quantities of dirt, and that can be done only in certain areas.
Now, the City could build parks, but each block has about 50 houses, so that's $75 million to buy a block in a neighborhood that was built prior to WWII, plus the demolition and park construction costs, assuming it's not too steep for a park. Again, the idea of the compact city is fine, but it's not feasible everywhere.
The US has the need for a massive infrastructure investment but lacks the will. The citizenry finds umpteen reasons not to do anything major that would be inconvenient. The stories of cost overrun on major projects, interstate highways to nowhere, and claims of "pork" pop up to fight off any effort to improve or build new projects. We have put it off so long that the cost and effort will be tremendous... some would say prohibitive.
If you have been to other developed countries you know how far behind we are. The effects of climate change will eventually spur us into action but the priorities will probably not match the actual need. The squeaky wheels will get the public grease. Milltary, public utility, sewage treatment, and transportation will eclipse all other tax supported projects. Water projects will possibly be a priority. Somebody will make a fortune on every project. Folks along the coast that smugly think they are situated high enough to be immune from coastal flooding will be surprised when their land is taken for a new airport or sewage plant or highway interchange. That stuff will have to be moved if it is at risk of flooding from rising sea levels.
Where do you put the so called public space? It's extremely difficult to build parks on steep hills without moving large quantities of dirt, and that can be done only in certain areas.
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
Now, the City could build parks, but each block has about 50 houses, so that's $75 million to buy a block in a neighborhood that was built prior to WWII, plus the demolition and park construction costs, assuming it's not too steep for a park. Again, the idea of the compact city is fine, but it's not feasible everywhere.
I am not suggesting that SF should build more parks. Just pointing out the consequences of historic planing decisions. In its current situation it would be better to focus on housing.
It looks like cherry picking, but it really isn't. My intention is to show, that there are certain parts of the city, that have little public space within that area and i should add, relative to the residential density.
What do i mean by that?
The Sunset District has a pop. density of 5,766/km2. If population density would be higher i could accept the argument for the relatively low concentration of public spaces. But the East Village in Manhattan has a density of 32,000/km2. So 5-6 times higher. Yet East Village in Manhattan seems to have at least the same amount of public space as the Sunset District.
Given how low the population density is there, there is really a lack of public space. You could build much more public space there if there would be high density housing like in the East Village.
I am not suggesting that SF should build more parks. Just pointing out the consequences of historic planing decisions. In its current situation it would be better to focus on housing.
It looks like cherry picking, but it really isn't. My intention is to show, that there are certain parts of the city, that have little public space within that area and i should add, relative to the residential density.
What do i mean by that?
The Sunset District has a pop. density of 5,766/km2. If population density would be higher i could accept the argument for the relatively low concentration of public spaces. But the East Village in Manhattan has a density of 32,000/km2. So 5-6 times higher. Yet East Village in Manhattan seems to have at least the same amount of public space as the Sunset District.
Given how low the population density is there, there is really a lack of public space. You could build much more public space there if there would be high density housing like in the East Village.
The East Village was built to be dense to house immigrants in tenement buildings. That didn't happen in the Sunset District, because it was developed later and there was also no demand for the kind of density seen in Manhattan. Development was late in the Sunset District for a couple of reasons, the main one being access (see Twin Peaks Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Peaks_Tunnel), the other being lack of demand for what at the time was largely sand dunes on top of hills https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisc...t_distgg_park/
It will be interesting to see what kind of fourplex housing gets built in the areas of SF that are getting new zoning rules. Here's an article on the ordinance change, with some links to other articles and some interesting comments on how rent control and the ordinance may do the opposite of what's intended https://sfist.com/2021/11/19/sup-man...ng-commission/
The East Village was built to be dense to house immigrants in tenement buildings. That didn't happen in the Sunset District, because it was developed later and there was also no demand for the kind of density seen in Manhattan. Development was late in the Sunset District for a couple of reasons, the main one being access (see Twin Peaks Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Peaks_Tunnel), the other being lack of demand for what at the time was largely sand dunes on top of hills https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisc...t_distgg_park/
It will be interesting to see what kind of fourplex housing gets built in the areas of SF that are getting new zoning rules. Here's an article on the ordinance change, with some links to other articles and some interesting comments on how rent control and the ordinance may do the opposite of what's intended https://sfist.com/2021/11/19/sup-man...ng-commission/
One of the things that I found amusing after moving here:
Rents were more affordable here in Philadelphia, which has never had rent control, than in New York or Boston, both of which have had it.
We need to stamp out the omnipresent grift and corruption before we start throwing around trillions of taxpayer dollars. Building a new road or a light rail line sounds great in theory but not so great in practice when every project requires a whole army of "equity and diversity consultants" at a very reasonable $499.99/hour on the clock 24/7, concrete is bought for $29.99/lb from local politician's cousin and every proud union laborer always has 160 hours of self-approved weekly overtime.
The East Village was built to be dense to house immigrants in tenement buildings. That didn't happen in the Sunset District, because it was developed later and there was also no demand for the kind of density seen in Manhattan. Development was late in the Sunset District for a couple of reasons, the main one being access (see Twin Peaks Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Peaks_Tunnel), the other being lack of demand for what at the time was largely sand dunes on top of hills https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisc...t_distgg_park/
It will be interesting to see what kind of fourplex housing gets built in the areas of SF that are getting new zoning rules. Here's an article on the ordinance change, with some links to other articles and some interesting comments on how rent control and the ordinance may do the opposite of what's intended https://sfist.com/2021/11/19/sup-man...ng-commission/
Yes, rent control is really the worst thing besides zoning that can happen to a city with a housing crisis. It only reinforces the housing crisis by decreasing supply. They did the same in Berlin and i think it was a terrible idea. The solution to the housing crisis is simple, more housing, either publicly or privately build, but it has to be legal in the first place. Upzoning is the right mean, but it needs to happen way more often and widespread to have any significant impact.
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.
