June 22, 2012

Plans For Parcel P: On This (Hayes Valley) Farm They're Building...

Parcel P Site

Plans to develop the 49,500 square foot parcel bordered by Oak, Octavia, Hickory and Laguna known as Parcel P over in Hayes Valley and currently home to part of the Hayes Valley Farm are up for approval next week.

With Avalon Bay having acquired the parcel, Build Inc.’s vision for breaking the development of the parcel into smaller pieces with different architects to create the feeling of an organically grown neighborhood is no longer but Avalon's design does employ "different forms and dwelling unit types, with varying architectural expression."

Parcel P Rendering: Hickory Street

The proposal is to remove an existing surface parking lot and vegetation, regrade the project site, improve the Hickory Street right-of-way through the block along the northerly frontage of the property, and construct a new mixed-use building with 182 dwelling units, 3,800 square feet of retail space, and 91 off-street parking spaces, situated over a subterranean parking garage.
The project would vary in height across the site, reaching a maximum height of five stories. While the Project would consist of a single structure, the building would be articulated as a series of different forms and dwelling unit types, with varying architectural expression across the site.

Click the image above to enlarge.

Parcel P Update (Hayes Valley Farm Sprouts New Website) And Plan [SocketSite]
RFPs For Housing Along Octavia Boulevard [SocketSite]

First Published: June 22, 2012 3:45 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

3 stories? Jesus Christ San Francisco, get it together.

Posted by: sf at June 22, 2012 4:56 PM

At this point I applaud their goal of "varied architectural expression", but I don't see evidence of it from these initial renderings.

BTW, I think 3-4 stories is appropriate for this location and neighborhood. Yes, density is important, but not in all areas. The scale of the surrounding area is typically 3-4 stories.

Posted by: futurist at June 22, 2012 5:05 PM

"The scale of the surrounding area is typically 3-4 stories."

Buildings built from the 1870s to the 1920s are 2, 3, and 4-story. Those later are 5, 6, 10, or a little more. But sure, let's go back to 3.

We are condemning this neighborhood to decades of unbearably tight street parking. So stupid...

Posted by: BobN at June 22, 2012 5:17 PM

this is exactly why San Francisco is so expensive. We need to increase density to decrease the cost-of-living. More density also brings more customers to local businesses, so the neighborhood gets better. This should be at least 10-12 stories.

SF will be forever the highest rents in the country, if this doesn't change soon.

Posted by: MarinaRenter at June 22, 2012 5:36 PM

@ MarinaRenter Yes but we need to increase it along areas that have the infrastructure to support it. Market Street, along the Mission corridor and Geary Blvd and Van Ness.

If we wanted to lower rents, we would remove rent control. All it does is subsidize the wealthy in below market rentals and create a huge disincentive for small property owners to rent their units. One of the laws of economics is that when you put a ceiling on the price it reduces the supply.

Posted by: Patrick at June 22, 2012 6:34 PM

No BobN: look at the aerial shot of the neighborhood: most buildings are 3-4 stories. That's the norm for that neighborhood. None that I know of are 10 stories. Where do you get that?

As for parking, well, if and when MUNI improves, more people will stop relying on cars and take public transit.

Posted by: futurist at June 22, 2012 9:00 PM

Well *someone's* gonna have to build up. Plus, across Oak is 4 stories.

Posted by: EH at June 22, 2012 9:30 PM

The aerial shot isn't of "the neighborhood", it only includes parts of the ajoining blocks.

There are several 1920-1940s apartment buildings in Hayes Valley that are between six and ten stories. There's one on Buchanan between Oak and Hayes, a couple on Laguna over by the the UC extension, three on Alamo Square, and others scattered about.

Posted by: BobN at June 22, 2012 9:45 PM

"We are condemning this neighborhood to decades of unbearably tight street parking."

Which would have the effect of less people attempting to rely on street parking, no? It all balances out eventually.

The alternative would overload the street system, condemning the neighborhood and everyone passing through it to eternal congestion.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 23, 2012 8:11 AM

The alternative would overload the street system, condemning the neighborhood and everyone passing through it to eternal congestion.

At some point, an idea becomes ideology and starts to ignore reality.

This neighborhood, my neighborhood, is a pass-through zone for tens of thousands of vehicles a day (I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it surpasses 100,000). And you're telling me that congestion will result if new residents of this area toodle along Fell for a few blocks and turn right into an adequate underground garage instead of circling surrounding blocks for half an hour.

If you want to restrict driving, restrict driving.

Posted by: BobN at June 23, 2012 10:14 AM

^Yes. That's exactly what we're saying. You add several hundred more folks turning into and out of a garage, and congestion gets significantly worse. This isn't an ideology, it's verifiable fact with dozens of studies and common sense supporting it.

I don't want to "restrict" driving (talk about the heavy hand of government!), I just want to regulate the amount of traffic entering and exiting the network to keep the entire system from melting down (the same as any other network - phone, power, internet, etc).

Posted by: anon at June 23, 2012 10:33 AM

You add several hundred more folks turning into and out of a garage, and congestion gets significantly worse.

Several hundred?

Besides, even if it were several hundred, don't the few who live in a neighborhood have more right to determine how they live than the folks who don't live in the area?

P.S. I said turn off Fell. I'd put the out driveway on a side street.

Posted by: BobN at June 23, 2012 11:17 AM

For things like a traffic network, I don't believe in neighborhood fiefdoms, no. That's a citywide concern affecting everyone.

Posted by: anon at June 23, 2012 11:53 AM

This is supposed to be a CITY. Cities have traffic and congestion, it is the result of density. Restricting underground parkinng just puts cars circling on the streets. If you don't like cars buy an island like Larry Ellison, or just move to the northern sierras or some other RURAL enviroment. All of the anti car restrictions the city has put in place have only made traffic and parking WORSE.

Posted by: GiveMeABreak! at June 23, 2012 12:12 PM

i can't believe how low rise this project is, way to go avalon bay, way to go sf. this site could support 300-500 more units, easily, with only another 3 stories. why walkups? where's the retail fronting laguna? if the [Removed by Editor] neighbors across the near-expressway are an issue, why not at least rise along the hickory lane side?

Posted by: david m at June 23, 2012 12:24 PM

Exactly. This is a CITY. Cities are for people, not cars. Build MORE housing - TONS and TONS of it, but not a lot more parking, since we can't build more roads (unless you want double decker roads underground? I suppose I'd be ok with that).

Being realistic about the amount of new roads that we CAN build, I vote for continued growth for the city - meaning TONS and TONS of new housing (like 40+ story buildings everywhere), but very little new parking. We've got space for people (as a city), but not for many more cars (since we're not suburban Fresno - feel free to move there if you'd like plenty of space for more cars).

Posted by: anon at June 23, 2012 1:03 PM

@anon-cars or some type of personal transportation vehicle which will probably be more green and clean as time marches on are not going to vanish from city life. The Bay Area is a sprawling area more like Fresno, and the jobs for many city dwellers are way wayyyyyyyy south of "the city". We are not a central city driven region like NYC or Chicago where all roads and trains go to a "downtown".

Until there is a metro system that covers the ENTIRE city for fast clean public transit, don't expect people to give up on cars.
NOW- if there were some sort of tax on paarking spaces that would go towards public subway construction I would be all for it.

http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2007/05/bike-movement-as-hate-agenda.html#comments

Posted by: Priuslyspeaking at June 23, 2012 1:45 PM

People make a rational cost/benefit analysis about transportation, just like everything else. Just make parking and driving so expensive that people are willing to put up with the minor hassle and inconvenience of bicycling or taking transit.

All on-street parking in The City should be either metered or via stickers and prices should be steadily increased until parking is easy. This would have the advantage of taking most of the cars off the road, which would decrease congestion and make Muni must faster, cheaper and more reliable.

Alternatively, we could do congestion pricing, but charging market rate for *all* parking in San Francisco is easier.

This would make The City much more pedestrian and family friendly too boot. The number one hazard to children is automobiles. Slowing down traffic and reducing the amount of cars on the road would make parents feel much better about living here.

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at June 23, 2012 2:14 PM

Nobody disobeys laws for traffic and pedesitrian right of ways more than bike riders in San Francisco. They seem to feel they are immune from any law or code of conduct. They park on sidewalks, run red lights, and (lately) kill pedestrians.

From a post on district 5 blog :
""Cyclist manners? What a joke! I have personally experienced how rude and freaking demented bike people are. One was speeding on the sidewalk and nicked my 96 yr old grandmother. She walks with a cane and nearly lost her balance. The bicyclist stopped and gave us a dirty look then got back on his bike and took off. What I do not understand is how bikers can demand special treatment on the road when they don't obey the traffic laws..."

Or my favorite:

""Does anyone realize how crazy an anti-car agenda is in San Francisco? San Francisco has lots of big hills and WIND. Only an athlete who doesn't care about sucking in a lot of polluted air and who doesn't have passengers or freight and who has a bicycle with a lot of gears could hope to use bicycles as serious transportation. Oh, and it would help if he doesn't want to go anywhere or go too far--especially into any dangerous neighborhoods. Does Critical Mass ride up the real hills or past the housing projects in Hunter's Point? Of course not. Does anyone realize how anti-disabled, anti-senior, anti-kid, the anti-car agenda is? It's so discriminatory it could be considered a hate agenda."

I just cannot wait to see the results of banning cars on the whole length of Market Street as proposed. It could become a true 5 mile homeless camp with bike riders causing more pedestrian injuries than cars ever did. Only in S.F. could things be this strage.


Posted by: Priuslyspeaking at June 23, 2012 4:02 PM

Who in the world said anything about "green or clean" with regard to cars? I have a car. I like driving. I have zero problem with folks owning cars (buy ten, who cares!?!) I DO have a major problem with the city allowing more parking than the roads can handle, which causes congestion and makes MY driving much worse. I DON'T have a problem with tons more PEOPLE, which is why I say limit parking, but let people build however much housing the market can handle.

This has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with being green or any of that other BS. I just want congestion-free roads and packed sidewalks.

Posted by: anon at June 23, 2012 4:48 PM

@anon, the comment was directed to NVJ's comment that the number of cars in the city should be reduced. It is an attractive Luddite fantasy to some, but progress cannot be turned back. I am not going to ride a bike from 94123 to SFO for the northern and western parts of San Francisco are poorly served by public transit which is slow, out of date, unreliable and at times even dangerous. Still, now that Market Street is going to be made a giant bike path, how much more do bike advocates want?

Posted by: Priuslyspeaking at June 23, 2012 6:53 PM

Congestion pricing has worked fabulously well in The City of London. It is an odd sort of belief system that considers a traffic jam progress.

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at June 23, 2012 11:34 PM

as a contrarian viewpoint, may I present NVJ response reworded to

"congestion pricing in housing has worked well in SF to prevent tenenment syle conditons. It is an odd sort of belief system that considers overcrowding progress"

just a try at balance on this denisty booster site.

Posted by: guest at June 24, 2012 12:14 PM

Congestion pricing is really putting a toll on a road that has already been built with public funds. It's one thing to build a road financed by tolls -- that is not a public good, because it is excludable. But imposing a toll on a road already built with public funds is another matter. That is just an additional tax.

It is no different than charging entrance to Dolores Park because it is too crowded.

Moreover, city revenue sources should be progressive, not regressive. If we need more money to maintain the park, we should tax property rather than rely on use fees. We should reduce use fees whenever possible.

Whenever you impose a regressive tax, effectively making a public good usable only by the wealthy, you need to compensate the losers.

Poorer people value their time less than money. Richer people value their money less than their time. So to a poorer person, a reduction in congestion in exchange for paying to use the road is bad deal. To a rich person, it's a good deal.

So how is congestion pricing a success? It is a success because it is only applied to the city center. Moreover, those within the zone receive a 90% discount (but only about 100,000 live in the center). Therefore it is really a tax on those commuting into the financial district from 7 am to 6 pm on days that are not bank holidays -- i.e. relatively well of workers who commute into the city center during banking hours.

Attempts to extend it areas have met with strong resistance. The size of the zone was reduced in 2010.

I think it would be a great success in Manhattan too, but not in all of NY. In SF, it would work in downtown -- basically 1 square mile from the ferry building to fidi. If you tried to push it out to Noe or West Portal, you would meet with strong resistance.

Posted by: Robert at June 24, 2012 4:00 PM

just a try at balance on this denisty booster site.

Yes, because central Paris and Manhattan (4-6 times the density of SF and similar income demographics otherwise) are "overcrowded". Lol, this isn't 1910.

Posted by: anon at June 24, 2012 6:08 PM

And in Paris, the Champs Elysees, perhaps the most beautiful street in the world, also has vehicle traffic including cars and buses,and works remarkably well. It has incredible landscaping,beautiful paving, lighting,no drunks or homeless, great shops, tons of people day and night.

Why can't our Market Street be a great street as well, with cars and public transit?

Because we do not have visionary leaders and because we continue to "put up with" the drunks and homeless, without finding a solution.

Our world renowned "tolerance" keeps our own Market Street, basically one big dump.

Posted by: futurist at June 24, 2012 7:20 PM

^Not sure what that has to do with anything else being discussed here, but whatever.

If we quadruple the density of SF to Paris levels, I'd be very supportive of having a car-first street or two like Paris does. Since we already have a boatload of car-first streets (80, 101, 280, 19th Ave, Van Ness, Lombard, the list goes on), but measly 17,000 per sq mile population density, we've got some fixin' to do first.

Posted by: anon at June 24, 2012 7:37 PM

^Not sure what that has to do with anything else being discussed here, but whatever.

If we quadruple the density of SF to Paris levels, I'd be very supportive of having a car-first street or two like Paris does. Since we already have a boatload of car-first streets (80, 101, 280, 19th Ave, Van Ness, Lombard, the list goes on), but measly 17,000 per sq mile population density, we've got some fixin' to do first.

Posted by: anon at June 24, 2012 7:40 PM

I DO have a major problem with the city allowing more parking than the roads can handle

Parking one's car OFF THE ROAD in a garage and rarely using it doesn't fill the streets...

Posted by: BobN at June 24, 2012 8:55 PM

Evidence says otherwise.

Posted by: Anon at June 24, 2012 9:29 PM

@Anon - B.S.! "Evidence" does not say otherwise. "Evidence" shows that getting cars off streets and underground can have advantages. Just as "evidence" shows that closing streets to car traffic increases crime and reduces pedestrian life (examples: K Street in Sacramento, Philadelphia, State Street in Chicago, Fresno, etc. ALL of whom finally allowed cars to return, which brought back stores , restaurants, etc.). It is obvious from your many many posts that you are not travelling to Europe, or even Chicago for that matter. It is also obvious that you have not explored some of the latest thinking in the architecture and planning communities regarding "re-thinking" the banning of cars in cities. Mark my words, closing Market Street to autos from the Ferry Building to the Castro will create a true urban wasteland. How is it that Chicago has no restrictions on parking in new residential or commercial projects and yet has a FAR more vibrant downtown and retail district? I recently visited the Hancock building as part of an architectural tour while in Chicago and was astonished that they hid the parking on floors 7 thought 20, far above street level. The pedestrian plazas, shops and cafes were left for people and are part of a space far more successful than any office plaza space we have in San Francisco. Most of the cars tucked under the tall residential towers in Chicago are used rarely, and mainly for longer distance travel. Don't believe me, GOOGLE recent planning association articles about this.

I feel that the Socketsite anti car crowd should ONLY post if they themselves do now own or use cars, otherwise, it is typical San Francisco NIMBY nonsense.

Posted by: Enough Already! at June 25, 2012 7:29 AM

"And in Paris, the Champs Elysees, perhaps the most beautiful street in the world"

You are joking, right? For chrissake, Lombard Street (the curvy part) is far prettier than the giant strip mall that is the Champs Elysees. I agree that the Arc de Triomphe at the end is pretty.

Posted by: anon at June 25, 2012 7:45 AM

anon,

I agree, the Champs Elysees has become a strip mall these past 10 years. The small luxury boutiques (with made in France product) have been quickly overtaken by high margin luxury chain stores (with much of the product is made everywhere but France). So have many parisian tourist attractions. Take the Saint Germain des Pres neighborhood. It used to be crowded with book stores and intellectual. Almost all have been overtaken by luxury brand stores with pretty people who will buy a book only if teaches them to be prettier or wealthier. Ou sont les existentialistes?

The reason for that? Paris is a very attractive city, a must visit for many. It's the most visited city in the world. But lodging is so expensive that most regular tourists cannot stay more than a few days at a time, and they break the bank when they do that. To make it worthwhile, shopping for luxury has to be on the list of things to do.

But with little time and so much to do, chances are that you will not have the time to go to all shopping districts. There's just so many, and spread everywhere! Therefore shopping is moving where tourists are going (and where physically possible). The slow merging of all luxury brands into a handful of conglomerates is helping this trend too.

If we're not careful, SF could trend that way. For instance, forbidding chain stores or extra liquor licenses in North Beach sounds overprotective and often counterproductive, but it's slightly better than the alternative.

Posted by: lol at June 25, 2012 8:18 AM

@Enough already -

I didn't say anything about removing cars from Market Street - I'm very, very, very much against that. I did say that we should limit PARKING. That's all that I've ever said in this thread.

If you don't believe that limiting parking reduces auto ownership rates (which have a direct causal relationship with congestion), then you're living in a fantasy land (and yes, it does it in all of the cities that you mention). Building below grade parking is still parking, and cars still get parked there. I've never seen any study showing that folks with below grade parking drive less than those parking on the street, but feel free to shoot a study my way if you have one (a quick Google search, as you suggested, shows nothing of the sort).

Posted by: anon at June 25, 2012 8:53 AM

@anon: you're blowing smoke. I manage a parking garage with around 50 spaces underneath an apartment complex in a location with similar density to the project in question: we log around 40-50 gate openings daily, a few more at weekends. That means everyone is using their car maybe every other day on average. No way can you extrapolate that to a measurable increase in traffic due to off-street parking.

I believe this is true of most residential developments in the denser neighorhoods that include parking and it is really just common sense. It's incredible that City planning policy has been adopted from the selfish and discriminatory ideology of anti-car idiots.

Posted by: BobTheBuilder at June 25, 2012 9:24 AM

What is your solution to the problem of traffic congestion Robert? Congestion severely negatively impacts all users of the street, particularly Muni and other transit agencies.

You frequently see on here car drivers insisting that they refuse to give up their automobiles until Muni is faster, oblivious to the fact that they themselves are the number one reason for Muni's declining speed and reliability.

Various approaches worldwide have been tried to fix traffic congestion problems: restricting automobile usage by things like license plate number or lottery, congestion pricing, lane restrictions and parking restrictions. It is certainly true that reducing the amount of parking reduces the amount of cars on the road: it is nonsensical to believe otherwise. I can point anyone to many studies indicating this but I am sure you can all use Google on your own.

Building more lanes doesn't really work, as additional traffic quickly fills the additional capacity in most cases and in an already built up urban environment like San Francisco it is prohibitively expensive anyway.

There are hundreds of examples of car free urban areas around the world. The Zocolo in Guadalajara is a great example of an urban core that was revitalized after the banning of automobiles and the severe restriction of other vehicle traffic. It has turned into one of the great urban areas and is emulated widely in Latin America today. Amsterdam is another example of how the quality of life can be improved by placing restrictions on auto usage.

Market would probably be best served by a BRT lane with dividers so that selfish car drivers do not cut in and block Muni like they do today. Add a bike lane and a single car lane for deliveries and local traffic and timed lights to keep cars to 10-15 MPH and you could probably have a workable solution for everyone. There needs to be better traffic enforcement, preferably with automated cameras. Even today, pigheaded car drivers routinely ignore the signaling on Market, drive in the bicycle lane and double park, inconveniencing everyone else just so that they can save a few seconds.

I personally am glad to hear from all stakeholders in the discussion of how to improve transportation and quality of life in San Francisco. One must have a pretty amazing sense of over-entitlement to insist that only one side of a viewpoint should be allowed to be considered or even expressed. If you want to control the terms of the debate go start your own blog.

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at June 25, 2012 9:32 AM

What is your solution to the problem of traffic congestion Robert? Congestion severely negatively impacts all users of the street, particularly Muni and other transit agencies.

What is your solution to overcrowding in Dolores Park?

Yes, congestion is a cost. Use of the road is a benefit. People keep using the road until the congestion cost exceeds the use benefit, at which point they stop using the road.

Some people have different cost/benefit analysis, which means that those who can most bear the cost are the ones using the road. That's fine, too.

Some people don't go to Dolores Park on crowded days. Others do. The level of crowding is a function of all of these trade offs. I don't see why this is a problem in and of itself.

You are basically trying to force your trade off onto everyone else, which is odd. Don't assume that the optimal trade off for you is also optimal for everyone else.

Why do you think the trade off should be different, or why do you want to impose a different trade off?

San Francisco is not a rich city, and the "urban core" of the city consists of about a square mile. Most streets here are not congested. Noe doesn't have a congestion problem. Neither does West Portal. This is a town of 800,000 people, not a megalopolis of 20 million.

In terms of my proposed solution, it would be to do what works. congestion pricing would work in the financial district/downtown, where you have wealthy people commuting into a small area.

That's how it was done in London.

You do know that in london the congestion pricing zone the area covers a population of 130,000, whereas London proper has 7 million and the larger region is home to 20 million?

It would not work city-wide here or there.

Improving muni is a separate issue. Some possibilities

* undeground on critical transit corridors

* dedicated bus lanes/grade separation on designated important but less critical transit corridors

* On non-dedicated corridors, make the buses fit into lanes -- enlarge the lanes or use narrower buses. Currently, the buses take up more than 1 lane, which makes them not play well with any other kind of traffic. Traffic would be less likely to slow down buses and buses would be less likely to interfere with traffic if they could stick to one lane.

* reduce the number of stops. If buses in other cities stopped every 2 blocks, then they would also be as slow as Muni.

* Performance/pension reform in muni

* I like the system of photographing parallel parkers that are blocking traffic.

* reverse the flow of lanes on some streets to correspond to traffic patterns.

But I really think its odd that of all the problems to focus on "congestion" is the one of choice.

It is just so far down on the list.

Posted by: Robert at June 25, 2012 10:11 AM

@BobTheBuilder - waiting for stats to prove that I'm "blowing smoke". I'll stick by the census stats showing that auto ownership rates are directly driven by parking in a neighborhood.

You seem to be implying that folks in dense neighborhoods drive less than others, which I'll buy, but that doesn't mean that they still don't drive more than those without cars - and since we're already at road capacity in the area in question (most Hayes Valley roads are at LOS "D" or "F"), any increase is terrible. That said, I can see why a new building needs some parking, so I'm willing to allow for congestion to get a little bit worse, but not much more than is happening with this project. And as I've said before, I'd love to see this with at least 10 times as many units - as the neighborhood needs and wants many, many more people, just not many (or any) more cars.

Posted by: anon at June 25, 2012 10:21 AM

Robert, thanks for what might be the best post on the subject!

Posted by: anon94123 at June 25, 2012 10:27 AM

@anon: you're still choosing to miss the point. Who cares how many cars are "owned"? You can validly care about how many miles are driven by those cars (and you can validly care about how many times they are circling the same block looking for parking) but you have no right whatsoever to tell people they cannot own and store a car where it is doing no harm to anyone (and is in fact actually contributing to society by paying the same registration and taxes as those in Fresno).

And if you're willing to up the density with 10x dwelling units, you have to also be willing to up the parking allowed by 10x, else you're just an idealog seeking to force your idea of what is right on others.

Posted by: BobTheBuilder at June 25, 2012 10:42 AM

Robert,

I wonder if narrower buses would work. After all there are special requirements for accessibility by the disabled. Wheel chairs need to have access, move around without crushing people's toes. Also smaller buses means higher numbers which means more bodies driving these buses, which adds to the cost per passenger. All problems with their own solution.

But this is a great idea. I have always thought we should expand the streetcar network, for one.

After all streetcars are rather narrow and don't (can't!) take more than their lane. Overall people respect streetcars more than buses, because of

1 - the fear of anything on rails
2 - people know that if they block a streetcar, this is a hard stop usually followed by a swift tow-away!

Plus streetcars can really add to a city's character. Make them modern but tasteful.

Posted by: lol at June 25, 2012 10:46 AM

"And if you're willing to up the density with 10x dwelling units, you have to also be willing to up the parking allowed by 10x, ..."

You're making the assumption that people who live in dense neighborhoods have the same desire for driving as those in less dense neighborhoods.

"... else you're just an idealog seeking to force your idea of what is right on others."

And requiring parking minimums is not forcing an ideology on others? Strange logic.

Those who feel that driving is an integral part of their lives have plenty of options. Most of the housing units in this city include parking and 99% of the greater bay area housing pool is bundled with parking whether you want it or not. The suburban median is four off street parking spots per SFH.

With so many homes available bundled with parking I don't understand why anyone could complain when something different is built. I don't require that every home built cater to every one of my needs. There's enough inventory that matches my requirements and I only need one of them. Why do some people who like to drive insist that every home include parking?

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 25, 2012 11:06 AM

lol,

Streetcars are wheel chair accessible. And while narrower buses would hold fewer people, the current design of the buses is wasteful There are large sections of the bus in which there is single row seating with a large gap between seats. We don't have *that* many disabled people in the city, that 1/3 of the bus should be reserved for them.

Although yes, maybe the lanes need to be wider, I don't really care which is changed.

But I think it was a horrible planning failure to purchase wide-body buses to run on narrow roads. Basically they bought buses designed for other american cities that have wider roads, and ran them here. If that was the plan, then they should have repaved the roads on which bus lines run to support the width, possibly eliminating street parking there. Another option would be to purchase buses designed for smaller widths from europe.

Muni is not well run, as an agency. And they don't need to stop so often. It's ridiculous to take the Mission 33 and stop on every other block.

Posted by: Robert at June 25, 2012 11:15 AM

Congestion in a park is very different than transportation congestion. The economy has significant inefficiencies due to our terrible transportation infrastructure. The United States has been under-investing in infrastructure (and over "investing" in financial wizardry) for many decades now.

Many of your suggestions for improving Muni involve spending more money, which is fine but hard to come by these days. The idea of having stops spaced farther apart is great and one of the Transit Effective Projects (TEP) suggestions.

Creating dedicated transit only lanes with effective enforcement, however that can be done, would be great. You can see Muni slowly moving toward that on Market.

I agree with you that congestion pricing only makes sense for some small part of The City, similar to what was done in London. It should be part of a comprehensive strategy to keep traffic moving. It can also generate revenue which can be used for other projects. If you are really concerned with transportation access for lower income people, I think the focus should be on improving Muni service.

It might be possible to created a differentiated availability model similar to the "Lexus lane's" many municipalities in Southern California are experimenting with. That way people who can trade time for money still can drive their cars. This seems like it would be hard to do here though. There just aren't enough lanes.

Posted by: NoeValleyJim at June 25, 2012 11:21 AM

I also don't see the 'varied architectural expression'!! looks all the same to me.

The initial rendering that were paraded out years ago had varied architectural expression; this does not. Fail.

Posted by: Gabriel at June 25, 2012 11:31 AM

I love the idea that people who live close in, who choose to walk, to ride buses, are the ones who are forced to scrounge around for street parking in a dense neighborhood between rare drives anywhere so that residents of the Sunset can plow through the neighborhood at full speed on their way to and from work every day, all in the name of "reducing congestion".

Posted by: BobN at June 25, 2012 3:58 PM

^Those seem like two separate issues. The Sunset should be upzoned substantially as well, so that they have the same "issues" finding parking that you seem to envision.

Posted by: anon at June 25, 2012 4:06 PM

That looks like a block of public housing.

Posted by: Snark17 at June 25, 2012 6:53 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Highlights And Insights From Warriors First Neighborhood Meeting | HOME | With Easter Egg Hunts And Putt-ering In Mind: A Woodside Estate »