Hacker News Reader

Comment by teacup50 | Hacker News Reader

Housing density is only one attribute of a city; livability, open space, affordability, diversity, culture, safety, community -- these are often just as important to the people living in a city, and development doesn't occur in isolation from those issues.

View on HN

Livability, affordabilty, diversity, culture and community are all adversely impacted when the housing supply is artificially constrained the way it is in San Francisco, and the notion that, for instance, building marginally taller buildings, or legalizing the construction of backyard cottages, is going to have even the slightest impact on open space is absolute nonsense.

There was a neighborhood meeting this week about building over 1,000 units of affordable housing on what is now a parking lot, and the majority of current neighbors expressed a preference for the parking lot. Please, convince me that a massive slab of asphalt is better for San Francisco than making room for 1,000 new working class neighbors.

More details on the parking lot: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/05/08/at_balboa_reservoir...

I think Curbed is being really hard on the narrow streets proposal. City streets in America, and especially in bike-friendly places like the Bay Area, are absurdly wide. We would have much more livable cities without them.

I couldn't agree more. The most magical neighborhoods I've ever seen have had narrow streets that cater to pedestrians first and cars, like, fourth.

http://www.venere.com/blog/images/positano-streets-amalfi-co...

http://www.china-tour.cn/images/Lijiang/Lijiang-Nightlife.jp...

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5159/5889050432_4f8d86e07f_b.j...

Those places all look to have been built way before the automobile was a thing. And while I agree with narrow streets, because they're safer and more aesthetically pleasing etc, you can't ignore that transforming to that design will be a little disruptive in the near term.

My point is that some of the great and beautiful narrow cobble stone streets in, say, Boston or Philly, to use US examples, weren't built to handle heavy street traffic. Transforming high volume automobile streets to the walkable ideal is inevitably going to cause some headaches.

The automobile is rapidly becoming less and less of "a thing", especially in the Bay Area, and cities should get out in front of it.

Perhaps they are homeowners, who want the housing crisis to stay terrible because it keeps their property values high.

Indeed!

"The neighborhood is mostly single family homes, and the people there are very resistant to the idea of “renters” (the code word they use for poor people) living in the neighborhood."

http://sfbarf.tumblr.com/post/116593748570/balboa-reservoir-...

The people that live in a place shouldn't have a say in its future?

There is something of a difference between a neighborhood having a say in its future and a neighborhood having a dictatorial stranglehold on all changes within its bounds. Does the rest of the city have no say? The county? The state? The country?

Would you be OK with this principle if a white neighborhood wanted to enforce a "no black or brown people" rule? How about a "straight people only" rule? How about "no poor people"? This isn't a purely abstract question, but an actual question that has arisen repeatedly in the history of the US. Sunset Towns have been real things.

It's an absolutely silly question; there's a clear difference between zoning rules based on land use, and zoning rules based on discrimination against a protected class.

OK. Let's try again, without the silliness. This is a serious question that requires a serious answer.

There is a difference between a neighborhood having a say in its future and a neighborhood having a dictatorial stranglehold on all changes within its bounds. Does the rest of the city have no say? The county? The state? The country?

Do you think it's OK for a city to tell a neighborhood that they need to accept a certain set of non-discriminatory zoning rules based on land use, even if it's not what the people there want?

> Do you think it's OK for a city to tell a neighborhood that they need to accept a certain set of non-discriminatory zoning rules based on land use, even if it's not what the people there want?

Residents answer to their neighborhood, neighborhoods answer to their district, districts answer to the city, state, and so on.

How to respect individuals, communities, and a plan for the future across all of those lines of responsibility isn't answerable with a simple "yes" or "no"; however, the onus should be on the individuals requesting the change to 1) justify its necessity and value, 2) quantify its cost to existing residents, and 3) recommend mechanisms for remediation or renumeration for externalities imposed upon the local residents by whatever project is imposed upon them to the benefit of the broader populace.

In other words, you don't believe a neighborhood has an absolute dictatorial right to control all changes within its borders. Thank you for your in-principle agreement!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com