HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2020, 3:57 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
I feel like this is a reasonable idea. We need more affordable housing in San Francisco, and in the Bay Area in general, and with the current demand for office space in the city, this should help spur the construction of more affordable housing.
How will this spur affordable housing development?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2020, 4:21 PM
38R 38R is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: The TL
Posts: 290
I propose a total and complete shut down of new office space entering the Bay Area until our region's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2020, 4:27 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 4,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
The decline continues...

Tune in to season 2 where we discuss how the solution to housing and office needs IS not to build housing or office.
These people are as crazy as New Yorkers. I'd like to see Mitch McConnell rule the U.S. by fiat and eliminate this insanity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2020, 10:30 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
One kind of crazy for another.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 4:36 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Now, I don't care who takes potshots at the new DA. He's an idiot.
Wish we had a jaw-dropping emoticon. We agree!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 4:58 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMKeynes View Post
These people are as crazy as New Yorkers. I'd like to see Mitch McConnell rule the U.S. by fiat and eliminate this insanity.
Something needs to be done to eliminate the insanity, most definitely. Much of it self induced too. A thriving population, and more money in the hands of people is good for the economy. Its a pity some economic engines are limited and increasingly held up by the #meONLY movement as I like to think of it. Me ME ME .... thats the NIMBY mentality.

But yeah, we need more housing point blank. They really need to force this housing too. Eminent domain is great. Whole sections of SF for example should be taken by force via the state to build this housing (I know it wouldn't happen, but it should). In our neck of the woods JMKeynes, I'm hoping once Deblasio leaves, we'll get more competent leadership.

Its a pity NYC hasn't taken more action to curtain these asinine ploys by the community to derail perfectly legal as-of-right developments. Well within the legal framework of the codes and regulations. Where the hell is Cuomo in all of this. He needs to get more involved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 7:10 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Whole sections of SF for example should be taken by force via the state to build this housing (I know it wouldn't happen, but it should).
If the SF government took over whole sections of the city it's more likely they'd build community gardens than housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 12:04 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
If the SF government took over whole sections of the city it's more likely they'd build community gardens than housing.
That's funny. I was working on research about urban agriculture with a professor of mine recently and pretty much told her I wasn't going any further with it. I just don't agree with it. Sure, they are a nice idea. If you have a yard, please, go for it. But I don't think cities like NYC should be purposively encouraging these farms on lots that could otherwise be developed. It makes no sense. They produce barely anything(most of them), they create semi-dead spots most of the time, and they produce very little of the social benefit supporters pretend they provide. Of course, as with anything in academia, race comes into the picture. The literature tries to paint the picture that black people "controlling" their food supply is one of the most important ways to get past the racist food supply system...or something. It all gets really silly the futher you get into it.


Just put the farms in the burbs if you must have farms as close to people as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 3:03 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
What would be the concern with rezoning the Richmond District?


https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ri....4723029?hl=en

Like I'm genuinely asking. Just curious, but when I see SF for example, I see so many areas that look like prime areas for housing.

The Richmond District, Jordan Park, Inner Sunset.

So much land, why aren't they developing these existing parcels that seem low-rise to 2-3 floors in nature. Seems like it should be denser, no?

What are the limits of the zoning in these neighborhoods?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 4:18 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
If SF had the total density of Manhattan or even just Brooklyn ( the borough I compare it to the most), would the built urban environment be fundamentally changed for the worst? Baring in mind, new zoning can make sure what is replace what does as best as it can to ensure the same design, feel, and relationship to the street as all the other buildings in many of these historic neighborhoods. If you stretched the 10-20 apartment building in the Tenderloin to immediate neighborhoods south that are still somewhat low rise, would that really grind people’s gears?


And SF isn’t the only one that should grow in the Bay Area. Oakland, Berkeley, Daly City, etc should all get ready to be more urban.


But a thought came across my mind recently. Maybe the Bay Area is planning purposely to not have enough affordable housing. When you see the top guys in tech and how almost every employee in that field is making at least $100,000 or more ( could even be more, I don’t know), no matter how much it grows, the Bay is replacing middle to low income folks with just high middle to high income individuals. Good on paper, but until the AI take over, terrible for most people who add to the service economy. You’re gonna see less teachers, police officers, chefs/ restaurant owners, small businesses not in tech, clerks, etc.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 8:07 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
What would be the concern with rezoning the Richmond District?
The single family homeowners who dominate the area would hate it and toss out any politician who tried to change the character of their neighborhoods.

Quote:
The Richmond District, Jordan Park, Inner Sunset.

So much land, why aren't they developing these existing parcels that seem low-rise to 2-3 floors in nature. Seems like it should be denser, no?

What are the limits of the zoning in these neighborhoods?
Well,

Quote:
Scott Wiener back with another plan to build denser housing in California
Alexei Koseff March 9, 2020 Updated: March 10, 2020 12:10 p.m.

SACRAMENTO — After failing to pass legislation to open up less densely populated parts of California to multifamily housing, state Sen. Scott Wiener is trying again with a “lighter touch” plan aimed at suburbs.

The San Francisco Democrat on Monday introduced SB902, which would essentially eliminate single-family zoning across the state by allowing multiunit housing in nearly all residential neighborhoods. Unlike his past effort, however, Wiener’s new proposal would cap the number of units that could be built in the smallest communities at two and limit the number in midsize cities to three.

The bill resurrects a provision of SB50, Wiener’s bill that also would have enabled taller, denser residential development around public transit and in wealthy suburbs. It failed on the Senate floor in January, after a similar proposal stalled in 2018 . . . .
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...d-15118206.php

I think this has the same chance as an iceberg forming in H*ll.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 8:15 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
If you stretched the 10-20 apartment building in the Tenderloin to immediate neighborhoods south that are still somewhat low rise, would that really grind people’s gears?
.
From your lips to the planners' ears. The area to the immediate south of the Tenderloin is Central SOMA. Mission Bay, even further south, is nearing full buildout of its brownfields with density roughly comparable to the Tenderloin in terms of building height/bulk but not population because, while the Tenderloin is mostly residential, much of Mission Bay is not (there will be significant office and other non-residential in Central SOMA also).

Quote:
How the city plans to add 25,000 people to Central SoMa
By Adam Brinklow Dec 16, 2016, 2:56pm PST

With the new Central Subway extension coming through, city planners have their eye on the future of Central SoMa.

The proposed Central SoMa plan defines that neighborhood as the 17 or so blocks in the area west of Second Street, east of Sixth, north of Townsend, and south of Folsom or Howard (depending on the block).

As California law demands, the Planning Department released a Draft Environmental Impact Report to the public this week so that everybody with a stake in the neighborhood can have their say.

Along with a raft of transit and street layout changes, the most significant effect of the proposal should sound familiar: The neighborhood will be getting taller.

North of Harrison Street, height limits between Second and Third would jump from 130 feet to 200. South of Harrison would go from 85 feet to a whopping 350.

And blocks south of Bryant and between Fourth and Sixth would shoot from 85 to 400 feet.

The draft EIR estimates that the Central SoMa plan would add more than 25,000 people to the neighborhood by 2040 . . . .

https://sf.curbed.com/2016/12/16/139...pact-report-sf


https://www.bisnow.com/san-francisco...pprovals-88524

Video Link

Last edited by Pedestrian; Mar 14, 2020 at 8:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 8:16 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 505
Nice Twitter post Pedestrian, but SF Government is already in charge of the neighborhoods. The Avenues are one big community garden.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 8:45 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,669
Upzoning, like what Wiener is proposing, is a great idea. Allow the homeowners to elect to build apartment buildings on their land and make tons of rent money on which they can retire comfortably. The basement-fascist's fantasy of vast government confiscation of private homes is a non-starter, and rightly so.

Also, as alluded to above, property owners and planning departments in the rest of the Bay Area's cities and unincorporated areas -- about 95% of the region's developable land, and populated at a mere fraction of San Francisco's density -- must step up and supply the vast majority of the region's new housing. That is especially the case in underdeveloped areas at and near Caltrain stations, BART stations, ACE and Amtrak stations, and especially VTA stations.
__________________
Donald Trump is America's Hitler.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 10:23 PM
liat91 liat91 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 728
Before San Francisco builds more high density stuff all over the place, you might want to think about that major fault line that runs under it.

Imagine the damage an active major strike-slip fault would do under Manhattan. Even Tokyo doesn’t have this sort of fault under it, as I believe they wouldn’t have built such a city of that magnitude over it.
__________________
WATCH OUT!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 11:04 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by liat91 View Post
Before San Francisco builds more high density stuff all over the place, you might want to think about that major fault line that runs under it.

Imagine the damage an active major strike-slip fault would do under Manhattan. Even Tokyo doesn’t have this sort of fault under it, as I believe they wouldn’t have built such a city of that magnitude over it.
Fault line doesn't exactly run under it.


https://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...-fault-america

The SFFD hates highrises . . . but who cares what they think?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2020, 11:41 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by liat91 View Post
Before San Francisco builds more high density stuff all over the place, you might want to think about that major fault line that runs under it.

Imagine the damage an active major strike-slip fault would do under Manhattan. Even Tokyo doesn’t have this sort of fault under it, as I believe they wouldn’t have built such a city of that magnitude over it.
Strike-slip is a pretty common type of fault, and not even the worst.

Thrust faults in subduction zones are capable of greater magnitude earthquakes and bigger tsunamis: the 1960 Valdivia (Chile) quake (9.5), the 1964 Alaska quake (9.2), the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (9.1-9.3) and tsunami, and the 2011 Tohuku quake in Japan (9.1) and tsunami were all megathrust earthquakes.

Strike-slip faults don't generally produce those magnitudes, and because the ocean floor doesn't drop or rise as with thrust earthquakes in subduction zones, the tsunamis are usually much smaller as well. The 1906 San Francisco quake is estimated at 7.9, which is the same as or smaller than the earthquake that devastated Tokyo in 1923 (est. 7.9-8.2). The 1989 Loma Prieta quake, centered south of San Francisco, was 6.9.

As to Tokyo specifically, the city was wiped out in 1707 by a megathrust earthquake estimated between 8.6 and 9.3, and then again in 1923 as noted above. You don't need a strike-slip fault to wipe out a city; the thrust faults do a better job of that.

As for faults directly beneath Tokyo, there's at least one, according to this article:

Quote:
The fault line that runs beneath Tokyo is kilometres closer to the surface than seismologists realized, according to a new survey. That could be worrying news to residents waiting for the next 'big one' to hit the city, as quakes occurring at a shallow depth tend to cause more shaking and damage to buildings than deeper ones.

Tokyo is among the most densely populated earthquake zones in the world, with some 33 million people living and working in the conurbation. In 1923, around 105,000 people in the city were killed by a huge magnitude 7.9 quake.
__________________
Donald Trump is America's Hitler.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2020, 12:18 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Generally speaking, I'd rather be in a new tower built to current seismic standards WAY more than an older building that's below standards.

I'm laughing at the "whopping 350" foot heights on the edge of a major city center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2020, 12:32 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,669
I'm just glad my landlord recently completed a seismic retrofit--new steel cross-bracing on the first two floors.
__________________
Donald Trump is America's Hitler.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2020, 6:46 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
I'm glad they up zoned Soma, but looking at the model that pedestrian posted- I can't help but think that a lot of space is being wasted.

The FiDi level of density could be at least doubled or tripled in the immediate surrounding area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:55 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.