View Single Post
  #1242  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2008, 2:09 AM
condodweller's Avatar
condodweller condodweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinpeaks View Post
Views are nice, but is that what's important in having a socially diverse, economically robust and environmentally focus city?
We need more housing by increasing density in neighborhoods and build tall buildings to support the high housing demand. Limiting housing will only drive the housing prices even higher. It is already unaffordable for middle income people. We need to support job growth in downtown by building more office space for companies to expand or relocate to SF. We can't depend on tourisim as our main business, we need a diversified economy. We have to think about the future and our environment by stopping sprawl and concentrate population and job growth in built areas.

Views from Bay Bridge and Twin Peaks will still be spectacular even with tall new buildings. We can't build a city based on an observation deck in Twins Peak loosing some of its Bay Bridge view or a tenant in Telegraph Hill complaining about a five story office building on a pier. This city should be beyond that, we have bigger, more important issues to address.

I apologize if it sounds like a rant.
Oh, what the heck, I'll join you with an opposing rant, which actually will have nothing to do with views

Affordable housing would be more likely attained through construction of more low and mid-rises in residential areas -- the stuff being build downtown is nowhere near affordable. Considering that we have only recently slightly surpassed SF's population peak of the early 1950s (just before the big Suburban exodus), I don't really buy the oft repeated mantra "we need more housing" -- affordable housing, perhaps, but downtown highrise condos? This isn't a trickle-down thing, either --the people that are moving into the Rincon are not leaving behind empty affordable spaces in the Mission or the Tenderloin, they're selling off swank pads in Pacific Heights, or moving here from out of town (or just buying a "pied au terre" for their annual visit). The way I see it, downtown highrise dwellers are just taking up what could be perfectly good, productive office space! Limiting more such structures does not in any way affect affordable housing.

To which I add that I agree that we need to bring more business into town, and as long as there is demand, we may as well build more office space. But there's a lot more to it than that -- many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay. After 100 years in SF, AAA just announced that it will sell its buildings on VanNess (now that the area is zoned for taller development), and move to Walnut Creek, taking 1200 employees with them. BofA preceded them, as well as Fireman's Fund, and other big employers. My guess is that affordable housing in the city is moot to their employees, who will now worry about affordable housing elsewhere. We need to ask ourselves, in the midst of our dizzyng building frenzy, what is this city doing to drive these employers away? It might help us with planning ahead.

End Rant.
Reply With Quote