The housing crisis #2
From "moderate" Joel Engardio in the Examiner (Strangest thing: Some agreement in SF housing debate):
“There aren’t enough roofs for all the people who want to live in San Francisco,” said Christine Johnson, 35, who directs the local office of the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) and also serves as a planning commissioner at City Hall. “Unless we make dramatic changes to how we think about and produce housing, we risk losing everything that makes our city special.”
More from Engardio:
...But he[George Wooding] is skeptical that 17 acres of open space at Balboa Reservoir can become a mini-Mission Bay on the Westside. There is a plan for 1,100 new homes at the site. Johnson would like to see 2,000 units. Wooding said 500 should be the limit. “What good is 2,000 houses if it takes 40 minutes to get on a train?” Wooding asked. “I like the idea of transit villages, but transportation has to come first. I hate it when we build things half-assed and then end up chasing mistakes.”
This is the thing about pro-development advocates in San Francisco: they never met a highrise they didn't like or a housing proposal they didn't want to make bigger.
Unlike Calvin Welch, they apparently think we can build our way to affordable housing here in San Francisco. That assumption ignores the demand side of the housing equation: San Francisco has long been a jobs center for the Bay Area but gentrification is making it increasingly impossible for working people to live here.
That is, the demand for housing is distorting the housing market so much that the supply part of the equation is less relevant.
Unlike Calvin Welch, they apparently think we can build our way to affordable housing here in San Francisco. That assumption ignores the demand side of the housing equation: San Francisco has long been a jobs center for the Bay Area but gentrification is making it increasingly impossible for working people to live here.
That is, the demand for housing is distorting the housing market so much that the supply part of the equation is less relevant.
But folks like Johnson---and the Chronicle's editorial board---insist that Brisbane, a town of 4,282, must allow a housing development for 4,400!
From a Chronicle editorial:
But the proposed development would bring big changes to Brisbane. The plan would more than triple the city’s population over the next 30 years. Change is hard, and Brisbane residents don’t want it. Just 16 percent of Brisbane residents wanted to see the Baylands parcel developed as housing, in a recent city-commissioned study.
Gee, I wonder why the people of Brisbane don't want to triple the size of their town? The Chronicle and SPUR aren't asking Brisbane to do something that's merely "hard"; they're asking that town to essentially commit suicide.
Would it be okay with the Chronicle's editorial board if the population of San Francisco is tripled? This is nuts.
See also Joel Engardio: Man in a bubble and Tunnel visions.
More on the housing issue tomorrow.
See also Joel Engardio: Man in a bubble and Tunnel visions.
More on the housing issue tomorrow.
Labels: Examiner, Housing in the City, Neighborhoods, SF Moderates, Smart Growth, SPUR, Traffic in SF
posted by Rob Anderson @ 4:08 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
A bit off topic, but the hub monsters planned for Van Ness to S.Van Ness and Market and Mission will add 12,000 residents. The EIRs for the Goodwill site and the One Oak project EIRs did not address ride sharing trips or Amazon type delivers. Finally someone stepped up and challenged the One Oak project EIR....the city did not address comments regarding lack of data on shared trips on the Goodwill EIR. What a farce.
All of these planning and building proposals are happening all over the bay. Mainly San Francisco. They all know it will triple the population. But that's not what they're looking for. They're looking to quadruple.
Welcome to the world of sustainable development. Look that term up then look up I.C.L.E.I. They have an office in Oakland. Then look up their partners by state mainly ca. Then look at the partners partners. It will trickle down to the mta spur and the sfmta. Sfmta transportation plans are because of this plan and a main part of this plan. This all has to do with agenda 21/agenda 30 plan Bay Area. All under the umbrella of climate change. Climate change is the excuse/arguement which use to be global warming. Globe hasn't warmed so it was changed to climate.
You can't ever lose with climate change because it's always changing. Sunny today rain tomorrow. Great so then another arguement is made that we must lower the global temperature which is not "global warming" to deal with the "climate change". Part of it is high density stack and pack housing using less energy and no cars lowering co2 emmisions by a 10th of a degree.
Now the genius that put sf in the middle of all this with development and sfmta transportation plans was none other than Gavin newsom.
Take a look at the San Francisco climate change actionplan. Not sure if it's plan or project signed by Gavin. It speaks of all of the transportation and development plans going on today as well as "encouraging people to get out of their cars(war on cars pro bike). It also states on working with ICLEI and following their guidelines.
I'm not argueing for or against climate change. As far as I'm concerned the more co2 for our trees the better so they can give me all the oxygen I need and my garden will look a whole lot better.
This Ibelieve is something you should research. It has to do with all of the high rise developments and war on cars.
Like evolution and the absence of a divine order in the universe, climate change is a reality, as the increasing severity of storms is showing us.
My dear anonymous, I've been writing about highrise development and the war on cars for years. Both my first post on the highrise issue and my first post on the war on cars were made in 2005.
Those two misguided policies are related, since development and transportation are intimately related.
Rob your 2005 post on the MO plan was sage! The Hub Monsters are a disaster waiting to happen. Besides the lack of data on shared ride and trip generation, the EIRs have failed to address soils and foundation type, particularly in the case of the Goodwill site, to be built on an ancient alluvial fan and using the same foundation type as the Infinity!!. In another decade once this project becomes "Infinity II" I will be there to tell them "I told you so"...but that will do little good.
I know you have been writing about it for years. I only recommended you research what I spoke about.
Climate change may very well be happening. But not at the severity some may like to argue. I mean shit according to all gore the planet should have been frozen and us under water. No one really knows how much is caused by man but that's besides the point really. climate change happens yes. But I'm not going to fall for that storm crap. They said California had a drought because of climate change. Then when we finally received our rains after many many years they came back and said oh the rain was because of climate change.
It's not climate change so much but the bullshit back n forth that they use as arguements to do what they're doing is the problem.
"hey Rob your have to move and live in this micro apartment ride a bike to work walk to Whole Foods don't drink a can of Regular Coke and ride our billet train to LA If you don't the climate is going to kill you. The United Nations created ICLEI and we created abag and we have the sfmta removing traffic lanes for bike lanes. Yes I know we are developing along the California coast and yes we are telling you sea level will rise and it will. Don't worry about that it won't rise in the areas we are building."
That kind of shit is not a solution. Recycling is a perfect example ca made some laws and it worked out. That's a solution. Not bulbouts or red carpet lanes.
Post a Comment
<< Home