There are no poor people buying homes (or living, for the most part) in San Francisco anymore. They’ve been pushed out to my side of the bay and they’re now being pushed out of here (in Oakland).
1 Like
I was thinking that part of the idea was denser housing so more people could live in the city…
2 Likes
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I disagree with making the area too much more dense, I think building parking below the streets, widening the road for cars, and making an above street Pedestrian+bike road would be optimal. The side of the roads that used to be parking would serve as upper and lower ramps for underground parking and upper level pedestrian use. I also think the roof tops of buildings should have terraces, greenhouses and solar panels. I included my sketch to show my ideas on paper, not as pretty as their view but I have lowered the impact of congestion by mixing transportation options.
~Billy
Email me for image!
It is so more people can live there, those that can afford the new housing. SF is the most expensive real estate in North America.
Two things.
My right foot doesn’t work
Second, I apologize, I shouldn’t have said that. Sincerely apologize.
2 Likes
Why not use the wasted space above the roadways? Leave enough room for high vehicles and design to allow adequate ventilation and sunlight transmission and there is still plenty of vertical space which can be enclosed and used.
1 Like
All right. Fair enough.
Your overall point is made and we both have our difficulties. 
1 Like
Agreed. This a wonderful solution to the wrong problem. The reason why affordable housing is disappearing is because the supply is constrained, and demand is not. SF needs more skyscrapers, not to rip out the existing roads. Why worry about 45 thousand square feet of space when we could rip out a block and get 200 thousand square feet of space, and still be able to get fire trucks around.
3 Likes
Housing ramps are an architectural issue, I assume they’re not allowed to breach the public street anyways.
Buses go right to your door in America?
I think it’s a valid concern, accessibility is important, but the before and after is essentially ‘US vs The rest of the world’, it’s nothing revolutionary and I think the differently abled could work without two-lane highways between their homes.
I don’t even know where that is. Why do I have to move!?
San Francisco has been pretty successful with road diets, with the most extreme example being the embarcadero which used to be a freeway. Good luck trying to get any housing built into the city though. There are absurd building height restrictions for the majority of the SF and plenty of NIMBYs to block any sort of development. Excuse me while I go back to reading burbed and cry into a towel.
vs
1 Like
Ah, the Embarcadero.
Same design as the viaduct in Seattle, I believe. Also earthquake damaged, although not so severely. SF had the right idea about how to replace it. Seattle didn’t.
2 Likes
Is it not still in progress? The renderings look nice.
It’s been a giant clusterfuck. The boring machine got stuck, in trying to get it out they caused bits of downtown to subside, it’s costing a fortune, overrunning by years, the tunnel itself isn’t going to be any use for most of the people that use the viaduct because it won’t have any downtown exits…
I just hope the viaduct doesn’t fall down while I need it for commuting.
But they should have just torn it down and gone with city streets.
2 Likes
And from a very good article linked to in BoingBoing a while ago now it does not help that all the surrounding communities are like oh a new business park awesome but apartments/housing nearby for the employees to live in, what no, enviroments and animals and stuff, can’t build those here. Which drives even more people to live in SF proper and take the company bus, etc, cause they would probably live a lot closer to work otherwise.
3 Likes
As a city-dweller and (reverse) commuter (driving to a suburb for work / residing in downtown) I’m always really bothered by the amount of traffic and the time / money spent to accommodate it. Stuff like this, combined with the increasing prevalence of telecommuting makes me question our reliance on car transit. I get WHY we allow, or HOW we have allowed, ourselves to commute in the tens of thousands over relatively great distances, but I feel as populations continue to boom and our environments continue to degrade, a return to more local living/working is near necessary. Setting up walking communities or micro villages within cities like this, where people live, work, etc would relieve so much traffic congestion. It would be a major change in infrastructure/life style, but there are plenty of jobs that could do away with the 9-5 office time and fall back on telecommuting or satellite work communities. Subsidize housing for employers/employees living / working in a single neighborhood.
3 Likes
I can see local government and attorneys getting behind this plan. It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity for graft.
1 Like
lots of people who could be participating in the hot economies of San Francisco, London, New York, and other housing infernos
I’ll pass, bunky. Like Pokey LaFarge, I’m gettin’ by just fine on Central time…
When the idea, as stated, is to narrow the broader roads that public transit uses, then yes they do.
You are correct, but in my opinion because of historical mistakes and bone headed politicians we would have a ton of issues to address first
