Quote:
Originally Posted by NOPA
I'm sorry but who fucking cares about shadows!?! I honestly cannot understand why all these NIMBY's throw the biggest shitfit. Its a big city. It needs to grow. If they are going to complain about tall buildings then THEY should shoulder the cost of everybody else's higher rent and cost of living for not allowing enough supply.
|
Hi NOPA,
That issue has been extensively discussed in this thread and elsewhere. I'm glad to see the City being somewhat more flexible, since Proposition K, the "Sunlight Ordinance" that was approved by the voters in 1984 is quite strict. Read more about this here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAFI1AJLUA.DTL.
To go to the other extreme though and say, "who fucking cares about shadows!?!" would certainly not be good for San Francisco either. Can you imagine if Union Square, Portsmouth Square or other public plazas or parks were permanently shaded? It would make them far less inviting and livable. Great cities of the world (think Europe for instance) have wonderful sunny piazzas, squares, shopping areas and walkways. San Francisco is a dense city which needs its open and sunny public spaces.
Both sunlight and wind effects need to be extensively studied when major structures are proposed, but reasonable compromises need to be made for the betterment of the City through new development and preservation of what makes San Francisco the wonderful place that it is.