Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaharocks
I'd agree with this. Build build build is a worthwhile strategy in places that aren't an international magnet for scenery, climate, architecture, and economy.
The built environment essentially can't be improved in San Francisco. So I don't fault people for wanting to keep it the way it is - if you build a ton of ugly-ass 2020's apartment complexes, you risk losing some of what makes the area special, but people are still going to crowd in and pay high prices, because they want to be there.
There are ways to fix this issue, but they involve major political changes at the national level. They are not solvable for SF at the local level.
|
Disagree strongly. SoMA could be massively up zoned. This doesn't mean all 60 story buildings either, it means more density. Also, all neighborhoods SoMa southward along the bay could house hundreds of thousands of new residents if there was less burocracy in residential development. I'm talking about Bayview, the under utilized formally industrial areas, ect.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Fr...f076adff!8m2!3d37.7749295!4d-122.4194155
These neighborhoods hold little historical value and could really become something if allowed to.
Otherwise, I agree that other parts of the city should be preserved as they are extremely unique and beautiful. Dont touch Nob Hill, Pac Heights or the Castro, please.
Threaded Mode