Friday, February 21, 2014

Creating gridlock on 19th Avenue

Photo Codi Mills for the Chronicle

People living in the Parkmerced area are beginning to see the results of a dumb "smart growth" decision several years ago by City Hall, as developers begin building 182 housing units on Brotherhood Way. The Chronicle reported on that issue Tuesday:

Heightening their [neighbors]concern is the planned $1.2 billion makeover of the sprawling Parkmerced apartment complex that adjoins the Brotherhood Way development, work that is expected to bring thousands more homes and rental units to the area, adding congestion and subtracting trees and green space.

Just so. But we can be more specific about the number of housing units that this and other housing developments will bring to that part of town. As I wrote several years ago, these projects---including Parkmerced---will add 7,375 housing units and 16,850 new residents to the 19th Avenue corridor area over the next 20 years (See the city's 19th Avenue Corridor Study from 2010).

Parkmerced alone will add more than 5,000 new housing units, ending up with more than 8,000 units on a site that now has 3,221 housing units.

Think traffic in that part of town is bad now?

Opponents of the Parkmerced project focused on the potential loss of affordable, rent-controlled housing and ignored the traffic issue, because We Need Housing, smart growth, dense development, transit corridors, blah blah blah.

Maybe those 16,850 new city residents won't have cars and will join Jason Henderson---who teaches at nearby SF State---and ride bicycles instead.

When he wrote for the Examiner, Ken Garcia warned about the traffic issue, but neither of our daily papers has anyone left capable of challenging the city's dumb smart growth policies. Garcia was the last mainstream journalist to challenge the city's anti-car movement. 

The Chronicle's C.W. Nevius supports the Parkmerced project: "this is a good idea. It brings modern, ecologically sound housing to the site in a transit-friendly environment."

And it brings gridlock to that part of town.

Labels: , , , ,

7 Comments:

At 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where exactly do you propose people live, o wise one?

 
At 1:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to mention the hordes of pedestrians that will clog 19th Avenue and prevent drivers (i.e. people that actually need to be somewhere) from exercising their right to travel freely. We need to crack down on these pedestrians before they cause any more pollution. A good step would be to remove some of the crosswalks that are congesting this important thoroughfare.

 
At 10:33 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"Where exactly do you propose people live, o wise one?"

O Stupid, Anonymous One: You mean it's either build thousands of housing units on already congested city streets or build nothing at all? After all, they can all ride bikes, right? At the very least, City Hall should have nixed the Parkmerced project, though your moronic "progressive" leaders think this is "smart growth." But the supervisors and lemming-like "planners" in City Hall will all be retired on their generous pension plans when all these chickens come home to roost.

See also the Treasure Island project, which will allow 19,000 residents there! Only the contamination issues there will delay that dumb-ass project.

 
At 11:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK then. If we don't build those - where should we build an equivalent number of units? Where?

Personally I say we just go Logan's run and kill off anyone over 65.

 
At 4:51 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"OK then. If we don't build those - where should we build an equivalent number of units? Where?"

There really is no part of the city that can absorb 5,000 new housing units. The point is that the Parkmerced project is just too big for a part of town that already has serious traffic problems. This is also true of the Market/Octavia Plan (6,000 new housing units)and the UC project, one block off Octavia Blvd., that puts 450 new housing units on less than 6 acres in a densely-populated area.

The city should be a lot more careful in how it allows new housing to be built and reject these large projects.

 
At 11:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need to encourage people to live in other places than SF. For example, in Marin, I hear they are excited for more residents to come live there.

 
At 4:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So basically you are saying there should not be new housing, which is the same as saying that prices should go up to the point where only the bike riding techie hipsters can live here?

Fine by me! Bring it on!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home