Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle
I don't see the left-wing as being pro-development... if anything they are the most anti-development group with their fear of gEnTriFiCaTioN. The most leftist alderman here in Chicago basically compete over who can stop the most development in their wards. Happy to hear this is changing on the West coast but it's still pretty engrained in the far left here.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej
You're viewing it through a capitalist lens. A leftist wouldn't want luxury highrise condos with ground-level retail being built and displacing the lower-income people who are already there and housed, with businesses catering to their local neighborhood needs.
A leftist would be very pro-housing development with housing being affordable for all.
|
This happened recently in SF actually.
There was a project, 469 Stevenson, a 495 unit, 27 story tower that was proposed to be built on a Nordstrom
surface parking lot. A prime downtown location with tons of transit and jobs and walkability close by. It also included 24% affordable, below market rate units (118 units). However, it was denied by the city's Board of Supervisors due to very weak gentrification claims. Their argument was that this particular proposal would displace an
adjacent development, claiming that investors would buy it and move the existing residents out. Totally bogus. The project site is a parking lot and does not contain any buildings that house residents, businesses, or community organizations.
SF, to its credit, has built lots of 100% affordable housing projects over the past year, and has many more in the pipeline. It just makes it seem like they're saying if something isn't 100% affordable, it shouldn't be built. For a project that wasn't designed from the ground up to be 100% affordable, 24% seems quite generous to me.