Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, as I never addressed the current built environment, and am well aware of the current built environment.
Are you saying that "NIMBYs will allow highrises in Russian Hill because there are already 60-year old highrises on Russian Hill?" If that's your line of reasoning, we'll certainly agree to disagree. It's probably much more likely there will be no highrises exactly because there are already highrises, for obvious reasons.
We're arguing semantics here. These are all downtown or downtown-adjacent areas, already have generous zoning, and are already heavily built out (or being built out). I already addressed all this. You aren't going to stuff hundreds of thousands of additional people in a few downtown-adjacent blocks.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here either, and don't get the relevance. Obviously there will be something built in Candlestick, but it won't be high density highrises, for the (rather obvious) reasons previously listed. No sufficient context, transit, neighboring density, or political will. You might as well put towers in Burlingame, it makes about as much sense.
The NY area is highly NIMBY and difficult to build anything too, so in that respect, they're very similar.
The built form is somewhat different, though, because the region has always been centered around high density multifamily along heavy rail, high capacity transit. SF doesn't have this, except for BART, and so isn't likely to orient itself in this manner. You would need a couple thousand miles of BART, relocation of much of the Bay Area population, and destruction of huge swaths of the region's core.
And there are some cultural and economic factors at play. SF probably isn't going to built quite in that manner, because, at the end of the day, that isn't how SF rich live. Even in the city proper, the ideal is the Pacific Heights/Sea Cliff/Noe Valley/St. Francis Wood/Presidio Heights type single family home neighborhoods somewhat moreso than apartment buildings. Yes, there are exceptions.
A good illustration would be looking at the densest residential neighborhoods in each city. The densest neighborhoods in NYC are the Upper East and Upper West Sides, which also happen to have the biggest concentrations of wealth, and by a longshot. In SF, I believe the densest residential neighborhoods are Chinatown, Tenderloin and Mission, none of which have significant wealth. This illustrates that, while SF is both rich and dense, these two factors are not usually positively correlated. In NYC, they are not always positively correlated, but it's more the rule than the exception.
|
I generally agree with you and I think some clarification is in order. I'm talking possibilities and you're moreso talking current feasibilities. Two very different things. Your tone is that of expert status, but while you know a lot, you're missing a few details about San Francisco that can only really come from someone who lives here, which you do not.
A couple things to note. The population and demographics of San Francisco are quite rapidly changing, and this includes a changing of the guard in the upper stratospheres of income and influence. People coming in are generally more amicable to see increased density and greater high rise living. Some of the first new high rises in the Pac Heights area in decades are actually under construction now, though I'd classify them more as mid-rises (10-15 stories). Many of the city's new rich are tech executives or VC guys. It works in their interest to have better transit and more housing available where their workers want to live (San Francisco and other islands of urbanity in the Bay Area).
Also, true, you can't pack a few hundred thousand people into a few city blocks. Nobody said otherwise. However, when it comes to SOMA, Mid-Market, Civic Center, and Tenderloin are a bit larger in land area than you're giving them credit. SOMA currently has a density around 20k ppsm, with a ton of vacant lots, abandoned buildings, and buildings otherwise ripe to be redeveloped/densified. There is a couple of square miles of land here at least. Just increasing density to 80k ppsm could add 100,000 people, at least, in the central part of town. Given today's wealth and mix of uses needed, this will require some high rises. But unfortunately, new zoning plans for SOMA are mostly low-rise throughout, which is a perfect example of SF's often unwillingness to go up. But in fact this zoning has a lot of people perplexed and frustrated. The amount of dialogue ongoing in the city right now concerning zoning, land use, and the need to build more housing is far greater in scope and influence than has been for generations now. The tides are turning.
Another example of under-zoned land is right along Market St. A developer recently announced down-scaled plans to conform to the current 120 ft zoning right near Union Square. They attempted to get a whopping 200 ft by agreeing to fund half of a new theater for some area non-profits. But couldn't get other parties to pony up for the other half. It's sites like these that should probably be zoned for 300-400+ ft. But they are down at 120 ft. Van Ness is at 130 ft.
To your points about Hunters Point and other areas being pointless for density, consider some of the following:
1) Land costs are lower and it becomes easier to put higher density affordable housing in these areas
2) These areas are actually relatively up-zoned compared to other parts of the city, even closer to the core
3) There IS political will to develop these areas, especially considering that thus far there really is no political backlash to develop these areas, which is a HUGE plus in San Francisco
4) We're not talking a 5-10 year buildout. More like 15-20 years. By the time these areas are built up to a substantial degree, present talks about a 2nd Transbay Tube and increased BART/MUNI rail will likely be at minimum closer to reality if not well underway (rapidly intensifying discussions about transit expansion are a reality now, when even a year ago they were not). The idea is to serve these areas. And create other transit corridors.
SF will never be New York City. But it probably has room for a few hundred thousand more residents without destroying its character or identity. There won't be a few hundred thousand more residents tomorrow, but sometime in 30-50 more years? Sure.
Meanwhile, similar discussions about growth are progressing regionally, and for the first time in decades, the new mayor of Oakland and the current mayor of SF are talking strategy on how the two cities can work together and better complement each other. Regional connectivity and regional coordination on growth are becoming a forced reality rather than a far fetched hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
Not to mention urban planners from across north America study Vancouver as it's viewed as a template for other cities on the continent.
|
Here I would agree with Crawford. Vancouver is an urban model for cities that will never have a truly classic, dense urban form. But it's not an urban model for cities that have a truly class, dense urban form. Is Vancouver a super huge step up from Miami? Arguably. Is it a super huge step down from NYC, Chicago, Philly, SF, or even DC? Yes. In fact, people in SF cringe when people try to compare the new high rises here to Vancouver's.
Prev
Linear Mode
