This is by design from the SF preservationists. The more development they can prevent, the better. The attitude I've heard is that SF is like Yosemite and it must absolutely not be allowed to change in any way.
back
3 comments
San Francisco is one of the most conservative℠ cities in the world.
If you allow development to happen in SF, think of what will happen to the historic laundromats[1]!
[1] https://missionlocal.org/2018/06/the-strange-and-terrible-sa...
To be fair there is a balance on preservation and development. Development run amok in the city is pretty bad while underinvestment also creates some strange pressures.
> Development run amok in the city is pretty bad
Legitimate question:
Do you have any examples of 'development running amok' ruining a city (or life for a significant part of a city's residents), that did not involve mind-blowing amounts of corruption?
It may be that I just don't have a proper understanding of what development running amok would hypothetically look like, because I can't even really envision it. What would it look like?
My town is gambling on a number of developments,
- 16 M Ferry Building; ferry commute to Manhattan
- Luxury condos on the water
- condos downtown above new (unoccupied) business spaces
Meanwhile:
- stalled condos next to housing projects
- vacant downtown office spaces
- local side streets are badly maintained
- rent prices are looking bananas; home prices I dunno.
- commute to Manhattan is slow on LIRR train (1h 10-20m) direct. Direct runs only once in the morning and once in the evening (otherwise it’s a transfer adding up to 15 minutes).
- LIRR is expensive ($300/mo) and ferry is supposed to be more expensive, but not faster
https://www.liherald.com/stories/glen-cove-moves-ahead-with-...
Couple examples:
Development run amok would be the city green lighting every project that comes through and/or some degree of corruption in the process.
Poorly constructed high density buildings in the middle of a city - in which the developer takes a large profit and squeezes all the tenants.
Running highways through public land value another.
Suburban sprawl hollows out the core of cities and increases the carbon foot print significantly.
I think he meant named places where this has happened with a large impact, not general scenarios.
SF preservations say they don't want their city turning into Hong Kong. So it's not objectively "ruined," just radically different from its current state. They are essentially conservative.
They might not personally like it, which is a personal preference, but I wouldn't describe Hong Kong as 'pretty bad', which is a value judgement.
By most metrics, Hong Kong is a much more livable than just about anywhere in the United States.
Wouldn't go that far. HK has people living in cages: https://allthatsinteresting.com/cage-homes-hong-kong
I support HK in their freedom but yeah not sure I believe your statement about more livable than anywhere in the US (which is a highly subjective statement). It also sounds like you have never been to the US.