Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but 'new skyscrapers = corporate infringement ...' sounds authentically liberal to me.
|
First of all, most of the new skyscrapers going up in recent years have contained badly needed housing and although that housing is expensive, by law in San Francisco the developers must create 15-20% of it as "affordable" units (on site or off site). So opposing skyscraping condos is tantamount to opposing housing which has the effect of maintaining the shortage that makes SF the most expensive city in the continental US to buy a home. Is that "liberal"?
Yes, the TransBay tower, as proposed, will be all office but that is negotiable. The other proposals contained substantial amounts of housing and the one that was chosen could as well although that would probably mean a smaller payment from the developer since office is more lucrative than housing.
The fact is that no one is very upset about corporate occupancy or development of these towers. What bothers the opponents is that they aren't charming and Victorian and so don't fit their mental image of "San Francisco" even though San Francisco has always been a city of commerce, trade and industry.