Los Angeles has a San Francisco at its heart

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. You're comparing a major street with commercial activity to a residential side street. I was comparing similar (i.e. upscale, small scale, 1-4 family residential blocks) in prime, but not CBD neighborhoods.

And, even in this flawed comparison, you see the same general issues with the curb cuts and street-level garages. It's not a fatal flaw or anything, but clearly it's a difference. I think the Northeast Corridor cities, generally speaking, work a little better at street level.

The SF street grid has nothing to be called a "residential side street" if not this.

You are wanting to take the example of a purely residential street in an upscale neighborhood full of single family homes that, yes, have garages and criticize the existence of garages. And you are going to reject any street that's not purely residential as "major" or "too commercial" whether or not there are a lot of visible garages. Lower Nob Hill is not "CBD". It just looks like it compared to most residential neighborhoods other than those in Manhattan. It genuinely is one of SF's densest mostly residential (and neighborhood-serving commercial) neighborhoods and a lot of the pre-War apartment buildings don't have parking or garages.

I'm not playing by your rules because they don't tell anyone anyting useful.

Yes, many post-War SF buildings have uderground garages. Those, of necessity, have access points which the city Planning Dept. tightly controls, demanding that, for the most part, they be on side streets where that is possible (there are some such in SOMA and the Mission for example). On the other hand, some of these very same alley-like small streets bisecting blocks are now being cut off from all traffic except those living there-on and turned into mostly pedestrian spaces. How will you feel about the "walkability" of a former street blocked to through traffic and now full of benches and other street furniture but onto which everybody's garage exits?

SF has a wide variety of these spaces: Everything from "parklettes" created out of a couple of former parking spaces (and now all over town) to pedestrian-priority former side streets to "privately owned publicly accessible open spaces" (mandated in all new commercial buildings) to actual mini-parks. Everywhere something interesting to see which makes for great walking, the occasional garage door notwithstanding.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

But they are, and parking regulations are a part of that.

Again, show me where in the LAO report where this is claimed. I would like to see exactly how they quantify the effect.

Even if you can establish a correlation, you are still conflating cause and effect. The reality is that market forces demand parking beyond what the city requires by code. Developers aren't complaining about having to build parking. No, they insist on building more than what is required. They know what sells. Whatever effect the amount of parking might have on the overall housing supply is almost entirely driven by market forces.

[mhays]

Your assumptions seem to be based only on LA. They're wrong in my area and many others, where developers cried out for lowered/eliminated requirements, got them, and are now taking full advantage.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Even if you can establish a correlation, you are still conflating cause and effect. The reality is that market forces demand parking beyond what the city requires by code. Developers aren't complaining about having to build parking. No, they insist on building more than what is required. They know what sells. Whatever effect the amount of parking might have on the overall housing supply is almost entirely driven by market forces.

Parking demand is obviously VERY site-specific. In many places developers don't want parking, but are forced to include this very expensive add-on anyways. Mandated underground parking spots can be crazy expensive.

I don't doubt that LA has fairly intense parking demand, but don't see the relevance to the thread topic. What does the "why" matter?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I'm not playing by your rules because they don't tell anyone anyting useful.

Ok, fine. Yes, in your example, where you display exactly 0 1-4 homes, you are correct that 0 such homes have parking. Incredible but true.

Back in the real world, SF has significantly greater parking accommodation when comparing like things, as has already been noted.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by mhays

Your assumptions seem to be based only on LA. They're wrong in my area and many others, where developers cried out for lowered/eliminated requirements, got them, and are now taking full advantage.

Yes, lower density areas, or areas with lower rates of car ownership can obviously get away with lower parking requirements, or eliminate them entirely if there is ample street parking. Even in dense suburban LA, you could get away with eliminating garages and driveways as most residential lots have enough frontage for two or three cars. But in the city, parking is the immovable rock that developers and urban planners have to work around. I don't see it as the big problem that some others do. Look at the streetview image of the apartments in West Hollywood. It's a perfectly pleasant place to walk around in. A canopy of trees, charming building facades. It's not a wall of garages. You would never even notice that there's plenty of off-street parking there.

[mhays]

I mean dense urban neighborhoods where there's good bus and/or rail service. And especially dense urban neighborhoods where a lot of people can walk to jobs. In my tweener city. This has very little to do with parking on the street.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Ok, fine. Yes, in your example, where you display exactly 0 1-4 homes, you are correct that 0 such homes have parking. Incredible but true.

Back in the real world, SF has significantly greater parking accommodation when comparing like things, as has already been noted.

???. So you're discrediting the neighborhoods that are posted because they do not have single family homes? A large percentage of the area north of Market and east of Van Ness are filled with structurally dense multi story neighborhoods that are mixed use out of neccessity. So even the most insignificant "side streets" look commercial because it has the density to support it. It's silly to write off this huge area as downtown and it's equally silly to discredit their walkability simply because they are not filled with single family homes.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cory

???. So you're discrediting the neighborhoods that are posted because they do not have single family homes?

Obviously, yes. Why would we not compare apples-to-apples? How can an apartment building be compared to a townhouse? Why would mixed use streets be compared to single-use streets?

Originally Posted by Cory

A large percentage of the area north of Market and east of Van Ness are filled with structurally dense multi story neighborhoods that are mixed use out of neccessity. So even the most insignificant "side streets" look commercial because it has the density to support it. It's silly to write off this huge area as downtown and it's equally silly to discredit their walkability simply because they are not filled with single family homes.

You're fabricating some nonexistent scenario. No one is "writing off" anything; it's just not an apples-to-apples comparison so irrelevant.

If you want to ignore the previous comparison, and make your own comparison, then go right ahead. It won't change a thing, as a multifamily-to-multifamily comparison will show the exact same differences- generally more ground-level parking, more curb cuts and wider streets in the SF examples.

[Quixote]

I was just in SF on Saturday, and I would agree with Crawford for the reasons he mentioned. I don't think it's at all controversial to say that SF at its best is a slight notch below NYC, Boston, Philly, and DC.

In terms of pure urban design, Philly is clearly #1 in my eyes. The human scale of the streets and buildings creates an idyllic, sometimes medieval-like pedestrian experience. Even the row houses come right to the sidewalk and aren't set back with grand stoops like Boston's Back Bay or NYC's Park Slope. Replace asphalt with cobblestone and it could very well feel as if one were transported back in time to the late 18th, early 19th centuries.

But as I hinted at previously, design is just one factor that must be considered. Most of Philly's neighborhoods are socioeconomically depressed, so it loses major points in the livability category (amenities, safety, cleanliness). Tokyo sits on the opposite end of the spectrum. While its urban design clearly isn't pre-war and has more autocentric qualities, each neighborhood has well-maintained streets/sidewalks/crosswalks and is spotless, (presumably) safe, and within walking distance of quality services.

SF (bringing it back full circle) is like Tokyo in that regard; livability takes precedence over design/aesthetics.

[Kira Ju]

Los Angeles has a lot to explore. This is a very interesting area. I'm looking for a lot of information about this area. Thanks for your information

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I was just in SF on Saturday, and I would agree with Crawford for the reasons he mentioned. I don't think it's at all controversial to say that SF at its best is a slight notch below NYC, Boston, Philly, and DC.

In my experience, as far as downtowns go, SF is ahead of Boston, Philly and DC as far as vibrancy and amenities, not to mention a more seamless transition between downtown and desirable high density neighborhoods.

In terms of pure urban design, Philly is clearly #1 in my eyes. The human scale of the streets and buildings creates an idyllic, sometimes medieval-like pedestrian experience. Even the row houses come right to the sidewalk and aren't set back with grand stoops like Boston's Back Bay or NYC's Park Slope. Replace asphalt with cobblestone and it could very well feel as if one were transported back in time to the late 18th, early 19th centuries.

Why would we want that tho?

I worked as a missionary in Brazil 20+ years ago and had to mwalk in cobblestone streets miles a day-it sucked.

Sometimes nostalgia is impractical.

But as I hinted at previously, design is just one factor that must be considered. Most of Philly's neighborhoods are socioeconomically depressed, so it loses major points in the livability category (amenities, safety, cleanliness).

Right so this is also a huge ding against the premise of this thread as much of the area of LA being compared to SF is also largely poor and rather gritty no?

Tokyo sits on the opposite end of the spectrum. While its urban design clearly isn't pre-war and has more autocentric qualities, each neighborhood has well-maintained streets/sidewalks/crosswalks and is spotless, (presumably) safe, and within walking distance of quality services.

SF (bringing it back full circle) is like Tokyo in that regard; livability takes precedence over design/aesthetics.

Agreed. I think Tokyo is better at accomodating for housing needs than SF. Too many NIMBYs here.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by The North One

San Francisco trails way behind Boston.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this website.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

In my experience, as far as downtowns go, SF is ahead of Boston, Philly and DC as far as vibrancy and amenities, not to mention a more seamless transition between downtown and desirable high density Neighborhoods.

Agreed 100%. SF's core also has significantly higher population densities than those cities. Measuring by census tract, philly tops out around 70,000 oer square mile, boston tops out at around 100,000, wheras SF tops out at 160,000 (in the tenderloin).

Though as the internet has taught me over the past decade, these facts seems to frustrate some internet nerds from the cities you mentioned, who feel like they're in a dickwaving contest and could never lose to a westcoast city.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

In my experience, as far as downtowns go, SF is ahead of Boston, Philly and DC as far as vibrancy and amenities, not to mention a more seamless transition between downtown and desirable high density neighborhoods.

Agreed about Boston, but Philly is pretty seamless as well.

We're only talking about neighborhood vernacular here, not really CBDs. SF's downtown area blows Boston and Philly's out of the water in terms of commercial activity, but so does Chicago.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by tech12

Agreed 100%. SF's core also has significantly higher population densities than those cities. Measuring by census tract, philly tops out around 70,000 oer square mile, boston tops out at around 100,000, wheras SF tops out at 160,000 (in the tenderloin).

Though as the internet has taught me over the past decade, these facts seems to frustrate some internet nerds from the cities you mentioned, who feel like they're in a dickwaving contest and could never lose to a westcoast city.

We're only talking about urban design, and nothing more. In terms of urban design, I said that I would put SF a slight notch below NYC, Boston, Philly, and DC; we're just nitpicking at this point. As Crawford explained, an apples-to-apples comparison does show that SF has more autocentric qualities than the Northeast Corridor such as wider streets (in general and vis–à–vis the sidewalks) and front-facing garages/curb cuts. But this isn't to say that SF is autocentric. Manhattan's design is more autocentric than Philly's with its wide avenues (especially on the fringes), but that's not saying much since Manhattan is the holy grail of urbanism.

All things considered, however, SF is much more urban than DC and much more livable than Philly. Density-wise, it's a clear #2 behind NYC and more or less tied with Boston for second place in terms of the overall package (urban design and livability).

[badrunner]

If you go by the narrowest of criteria for what constitutes good urban design I guess those narrow 18th century cobblestone roads are what all modern cities should aspire to.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

If you go by the narrowest of criteria for what constitutes good urban design I guess those narrow 18th century cobblestone roads are what all modern cities should aspire to.

I just called Manhattan -- with its 5-7-lane commercial avenues and physically imposing skyscrapers, both antithetical to Philly's built environment -- the "holy grail of urbanism."

I give up.

[badrunner]

I agree with what you said about Manhattan, and Tokyo.

I was addressing this:

Originally Posted by Quixote

In terms of pure urban design, Philly is clearly #1 in my eyes. The human scale of the streets and buildings creates an idyllic, sometimes medieval-like pedestrian experience.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by badrunner

If you go by the narrowest of criteria for what constitutes good urban design I guess those narrow 18th century cobblestone roads are what all modern cities should aspire to.

lol why are Californians so easily offended?

The urbanism in the Northeast is better than SF, get over it.