[Chevalier]

And the weirdest thing is when you wonder who the hell was protesting the approvals. NOBODY thinks a KFC is superior to a modern apartment building. (And even if one did, you could just allocate the first floor of all buildings to commercial leases and let KFC move in where it wants.)

As far as I can tell, the only obstacle to new construction are existing property owners who fear that the appreciation of their old property's value will diminish as supply finally expands to meet demand. While they're probably right in the very short run, I'm pretty sure that turning SF into Copenhagen -- that is, 5-7 floor buildings, narrow streets dedicated to pedestrians and bikes, mixed usage between residential and commercial purposes, etc. -- would DRAMATICALLY improve long-term property values.

So who the hell is fighting to keep SF car-dependent, dirty, old, and sprawling? I just can't understand the resistance to new construction.

- - - - -

Edit: To answer my own question, aside from property owners, we know that car owners are ferociously defensive of parking minimums and low density. The idea is to ensure constant free parking anywhere they go and to discourage traffic they think slows them down.

Trying not to sound as contemptuous as I feel, such people are making very basic errors in logic when they believe pedestrians add to, rather than subtract from, automobile congestion. Also, literally this entire country has been razed to accommodate automobile interests with the partial exception of the urban cores of New York and San Francisco. One would think that if driving were so important, such people might decide to live in an existing sprawling strip mall rather than insist on turning SF into one.

[x0x0]

Well, many people are living in the housing that would have to be torn down, and replaced with non-rent controlled housing. They certainly oppose it. Others don't care to live across from heavy construction for a couple years, or see already heavily oversubscribed parking and public transport in their neighborhoods get significantly worse. Try getting a seat on bart at 24th st for most of the day. Or sometimes even getting on the busses in upper haight during commute hours.

As for cars, well, the difference between nyc and sf is that in the former, you can live without a car, and in sf, it is very difficult to live an adult life without a car. To list off many examples re sf: there are huge holes in public transportation, both temporally, safety wise (particularly for a petite woman), and geographically; there is not the same delivery culture for takeout, or laundry; grocery stores are far away from many places and don't deliver, though instacart helps some; there often aren't gyms or other services in reasonable (10 min) walking distance for large chunks of the city. We lived car-free in nyc and needed at least one car in sf. And once you have that car, and commit to the $600-$800/mo it costs, then you want to use it. Part of the reason to put up with occasional public transport headaches in nyc is you're saving the cost of a car. My take on public transport in sf is it would be worth it if the idiots that run what is, after all, a very rich city got their act together and improved public transport first rather than attempting to push people to not use cars in the vain hope that eventually muni and bart may be improved.

ps -- muni is wildly expensive compared to any other competent city, plus very slow

ps2 -- I dare say that most people who will disagree with my contention about transport in sf either haven't lived here or are young, able bodied, live in one of the few neighborhoods that are well-served, don't have kids, and often eat out or at work

[ripley12]

"muni is wildly expensive compared to any other competent city"

This is just so not true. Transit is much more expensive in both Tokyo and London.

Agreed about SF transit being awful though.

[x0x0]

combining the end-user and city-paid prices, it is

see, eg http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-muni-death-spiral/C...

   • Your Muni is slow. With an average vehicle speed of 8.1 mph, it is far and 
   away the slowest major urban transit system in the nation. While some of 
   this can be blamed on San Francisco's congestion and density, there are 
   myriad methods of speeding up service other agencies have adopted that Muni 
   hasn't. This isn't just an inconvenience for Muni's declining ridership; 
   it's a major financial drain on a beleaguered system. Slow vehicle speeds 
   force Muni to spend more money to provide less service. Muni's lethargy is 
   literally costing it millions.
   
   • For these and other reasons, Muni spends more to operate its vehicles than 
   virtually any comparable transit agency. For every mile Muni runs a bus in 
   this city, it spends $19.21; comparable agencies nationwide pay between $10 
   and $13. For every mile Muni runs a light-rail vehicle, it throws down 
   $24.37; comparable rail services spend between $12 and $22.

[ripley12]

That is an interesting link, thanks. I do wish it was better about providing sources though.