San Francisco garage question...

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Just noticed that the old 24th Street Safeway is now a Whole Foods, but it still has a little parking lot. Some things only kinda/sorta change.

You will be delighted to know that there is growing talk and pressure for redevelopment of even the large Market St. Safeway and its lot. If they can do it to that one, they will eventually do it to all of them east of Twin Peaks. In the western neighborhoods, who knows? I've been traveling out to 7th Ave lately during covid--much more orderly, civilized shopping experience than the ones that are closer to me.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

San Francisco is a city of neighborhood shopping streets or "high" streets as they call them in the UK. Almost all residential neighborhoods have one. In Noe Valley 24th is the main one though with some shopping also on Castro. These neighborhoods are fairly small in area so just about every home has reasonable shopping within walking distance. Noe Valley has a walk score of 92* which should tell you this is NOT a problem act all.

*Officially a walk score of 92 means "Walker’s Paradise; Daily errands do not require a car"

I've Airbnb'd in Noe Valley before. As a neighborhood, it's much more convenient than 90% of places in the U.S., but I wasn't exactly blown away by the level of practicality for living car-free. If anything, I thought it felt much more inconvenient than I thought it would be.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

As a neighborhood, it's much more convenient than 90% of places in the U.S., but I wasn't exactly blown away by the level of practicality for living car-free.

well yeah, it's not really built as a place with "blow you away" car-free living, which is why we see a preponderance of homes there built with garages or retrofitted for such.

it's a tweener residential city neighborhood, a lot like the one i live in here in chicago. many things can be accomplished by foot/bike/transit, but at the same time, those who can afford to own a car in Noe Valley will more often than not still do so because of the convenience and because its not onerously hard to do so.

the amount of urban geography in the US with "blow you away" levels of car-free living outside of NYC is oh so very preciously small.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

You will be delighted to know that there is growing talk and pressure for redevelopment of even the large Market St. Safeway and its lot. If they can do it to that one, they will eventually do it to all of them east of Twin Peaks. In the western neighborhoods, who knows? I've been traveling out to 7th Ave lately during covid--much more orderly, civilized shopping experience than the ones that are closer to me.

I have been wanting them to redevelop that Safeway at Market and Church even before I lived here. Such a waste of valuable space. You could put so much housing there above the retail and throw in a bit of green space and say goodbye to that surface parking lot that attacks all the homeless.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by tech12

This is subjective of course, but in my opinion SF's "street-level quality" is easily on par with Philly and Boston, regardless of curb cuts on residential streets. There's at least as much density of people and retail in SF as in those cities, it's not like things are dead due to garages.

San Francisco's ubiquitous garages are interesting as a case study in how cars can be successfully accommodated in a pedestrian-friendly city; and a counterpoint to the conventional wisdom that street-fronting garages must be poor urban design.

A city's street-level quality is greater than the sum of its parts, and SF's density, walkability, architectural quality, and public realm are more than enough to make up for the curb cuts & garages - the end result being that the overall urban experience is just as good as any non-NYC city on the east coast.

That said, if we were making an apples-to-apples comparison, I would say that housing stock like this: https://goo.gl/maps/yjZ3NC3jJA9JfEUL8
...is a notch below this, due almost entirely to the presence of street-facing garages: https://goo.gl/maps/yBPxu4cLntLFHmCT9

[Steely Dan]

^ yeah, the street-facing garages are definitely an aesthetic ding against SF compared to that brooklyn streetview.

but even more stark is the difference in street trees. that brooklyn street has the glorious "city in an forest" street tree canopy thing going on while that SF street has those very unusual stumps with little clumps of leaves at the top (what even are those things?) making for a much more austere vibe.

SF in general seems to do a very poor job of street trees on its residential streets compared against it peers.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

San Francisco's ubiquitous garages are interesting as a case study in how cars can be successfully accommodated in a pedestrian-friendly city; and a counterpoint to the conventional wisdom that street-fronting garages must be poor urban design.

A city's street-level quality is greater than the sum of its parts, and SF's density, walkability, architectural quality, and public realm are more than enough to make up for the curb cuts & garages - the end result being that the overall urban experience is just as good as any non-NYC city on the east coast.

That said, if we were making an apples-to-apples comparison, I would say that housing stock like this: https://goo.gl/maps/yjZ3NC3jJA9JfEUL8
...is a notch below this, due almost entirely to the presence of street-facing garages: https://goo.gl/maps/yBPxu4cLntLFHmCT9

I give that stretch of California more points, though, for having a cable car route on it, but I guess that's also a main arterial, as opposed to the side residential street in Brooklyn...

Which made me curious to poke around there---on an intersecting street, you see this: https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.68416...7i16384!8i8192

So that neighborhood in Brooklyn isn't entirely garage-free.

[JManc]

SF is just not that lush of a city so even if they tried, they will never achieve the canopies of that Brooklyn street view. That will be an adjustment for me when I move out there in a few week; I live in a lush area with centuries old oaks and the Bay Area has squatty alien looking trees.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by JManc

SF is just not that lush of a city so even if they tried, they will never achieve the canopies of that Brooklyn street view. That will be an adjustment for me when I move out there in a few week; I live in a lush area with centuries old oaks and the Bay Area has squatty alien looking trees.

You need to go to the older, wealthier areas of the Bay Area to see that.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

You need to go to the older, wealthier areas of the Bay Area to see that.

The peninsula is lusher than the east/ south bays and even SF. They need stop hoarding all the trees!

[homebucket]

Tree lined streets aren't necessarily what SF is known for, but it does make up for it in other ways.

Here's some of the few tree-lined streets. Like sopas ej alluded to, these are the older and wealthier areas.
https://goo.gl/maps/ZnR1Tq9L9J8xD9PL8
https://goo.gl/maps/QSXP9dmqiPhmd18X7
https://goo.gl/maps/zDVscioUMqQVVVG29

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Tree lined streets aren't necessarily what SF is known for

yeah. and even when there are street trees in SF, they tend to stay smaller/stouter than those in cities in the eastern half of the nation that i'm more accustomed to.

there don't seem to be a ton of residential side streets in SF where you get rows of bigger/taller street trees on both sides that grow up and then out and over the street creating that cozy canopy effect.

here's a random side street in my chicago neighborhood that shows the effect i'm talking about fairly well: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9667...7i16384!8i8192


is it a climate/ecology thing? do bigger tree species just not grow in most parts of SF? (which would be odd considering that some of the largest trees on the planet are not too far away up in marin county.) bad/rocky soil? not enough rain? different cultural preferences?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah. and even when there are street trees in SF, they tend to stay smaller/stouter than those in cities in the eastern half of the nation that i'm more accustomed to.

there don't seem to be a ton of residential side streets in SF where you get rows of bigger/taller street trees on both sides that grow up and then out and over the street creating that cozy canopy effect.

here's a pretty typical random side street in my chicago neighborhood showing the effect i'm talking about: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9667...7i16384!8i8192


is it a climate/ecology thing? do bigger tree species just not grow in most parts of SF? (which would be odd considering that some of the largest trees on the planet are not too far away up in marin county.) bad/rocky soil? not enough rain? different cultural preferences?

I think it has to do with several factors. I believe the native landscape before development was very sandy, windy, and cold, so there were minimal trees. Mostly shrubs, wildflowers, and sand dunes. A few coastal live oak here and there and other shorter native trees. Somehow the microclimate of this particular tip of the peninsula is unique to the rest of the surrounding areas, which are able to grow big trees like you noted.

Neighborhood trees here also aren't given enough space to grow, with only tiny little squares in the sidewalks, and then all the overhead power lines.

[Steely Dan]

^ weirdly enough (or not), places in SF like outer sunset seem to be the worst offenders for lack of street trees.

this kinda residential street looks to be fairly typical out that way: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7550...7i16384!8i8192

and then golden gate park with all of its large trees is right up the street, so it's not like large trees can't be made to grow out that way.



i can't help but wonder how much more attractive i would personally find that street above if service alleys had been run through the middle of those blocks to eliminate all of the street-facing garages, driveways, and curb-cuts (along with getting rid of all the overhead wires & trash cans), which would then open more ground space along the street to plant some large trees that would then soften all of the hard edges/surfaces.

[Crawford]

Outer Sunset is really blustery and tons of sea salt in the air. Doesn't seem like street trees would make much sense. I bet a car parked outdoors would see corrosion over time.

Most of coastal CA is semi-arid. Yeah, there are a bunch of lush northern microclimates, but not in SF proper, so it would probably be difficult to have lush streetscapes. But, yeah, looking at Golden Gate Park, it has decent tree cover, even near the ocean, so hardly impossible.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Outer Sunset is really blustery and tons of sea salt in the air. Doesn't seem like street trees would make much sense.

how do you then account for the thousands of large trees in golden gate park and along sunset blvd.?

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ weirdly enough (or not), places in SF like outer sunset seem to be the worst offenders for lack of street trees.

this kinda residential street looks to be fairly typical out that way: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7550...7i16384!8i8192

and then golden gate park with all of its large trees is right up the street, so it's not like large trees can't be made to grow out that way.



i can't help but wonder how much more attractive i would personally find that street above if service alleys had been run through the middle of those blocks to eliminate all of the street-facing garages, driveways, and curb-cuts (along with getting rid of all the overhead wires & trash cans), which would then open more ground space along the street to plant some large trees that would then soften all of the hard edges/surfaces.

Yep. Treeless streets are miserable, unless the architecture is grandiose, or substantially interesting. Even in a climate like Chicago, a winter streetscape with no trees is definitely cheapened vs a leafless but canopied street.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

how do you then account for the thousands of large trees in golden gate park and along sunset blvd.?

Golden Gate Park and Sunset don't seem particularly lush, at least by the standards of wetter regions. But yeah, I don't doubt it's possible. SF isn't the Gobi Desert.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Golden Gate Park and Sunset don't seem particularly lush, at least by the standards of wetter regions. But yeah, I don't doubt it's possible. SF isn't the Gobi Desert.

Golden Gate Park seems pretty lush.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Golden Gate Park seems pretty lush.

Compared to Central California? Yeah. Doesn't look particularly lush compared to a park in Eastern North America or the Pacific Northwest or Northern Europe.

It reminds me of parks in Rome, actually, which makes sense given the somewhat similar climate.