Comments on: Planning Chiefs: Urban Planning Still Hindered by Politics, Past Mistakes

By: taomom

taomom — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:59:31 +0000

Today was a big day for Peak Oil:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

“The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.”

By: Steve Lawton

Steve Lawton — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:11:18 +0000

Whew! Seventeen comments and nobody has called anybody a Nazi yet!

Suburban sprawl: an emergent settlement pattern, reinforced by regulation, enabled chiefly by cheap abundant petroleum.

By: zsolt

zsolt — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:50:00 +0000

“Zsolt and Chris, maybe we can agree that the American consumer is an idiot.”

We can absolutely agree on that. Actually, the decision of Americans to become “consumers” sealed the deal.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:59:53 +0000

Multiple bad decisions led to the proliferation of suburban banality and auto-dependent communities, clearly. Federal subsidies and post WWII housing policy played a huge role.

I’m happy that people are (slowly) realizing that change is needed. It’s a big opportunity for planners to redeem themselves.

By: patrick

patrick — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:40:34 +0000

Unfortunately it goes way beyond just the developer. Our entire society has been subsidizing suburban housing for decades. Subsidized gas, subsidized roads, subsidized parking, the American dream white picket fence, tax deductions for owners and much more have been making it artificially advantageous to buy in the suburbs.

And cities are just as culpable, onerous development fees, ridiculous approval processes, anti-development sentiment all contribute by making it a much more painful, expensive, and risky proposition to build in cities. Who would want to deal with the SF planning process when they can easily subsidize some agricultural land in the boonies?

On the up side, at least some people are realizing that something needs to change, and slowly it is. I wish things would change faster, but there is so much momentum behind the existing system, it’s going to take a while.

By: mikesonn

mikesonn — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:59:02 +0000

Zsolt and Chris, maybe we can agree that the American consumer is an idiot. Using the food example – yes, they want to live long and be healthy, but at the moment of purchase they look price and flavor (both artificial). Also, take the bay area for example – people buy homes in Tracy because the sticker price is artificially low. Just as the study from last week pointed out, once you factor in transportation costs, living in the city is much cheaper. Not to mention the time lost to commuting that could be spent with their families. People also consider a car trip to be relatively inexpensive because the gas is paid for (not per-trip cost like transit) and the maintenance is only once every 3-5 months and parking is cheap.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:49:27 +0000

Zsolt, you bring up an interesting point regarding consumer preference. I agree that private developers had a large hand in formulating, selling, and packaging the American Dream. However, it is the American consumer that allowed it to exist for the last 60 years. It is the American consumer that allowed it to wreak havoc on our landscape.

By: zsolt

zsolt — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:52:21 +0000

On the other hand, “consumer preference” is a pretty hollow term, usually not more than a facade for corporations peddling their wares on the largely ignorant public. Once things go sour, it is it claimed the corporations just gave people what they wanted. That’s actually far from truth. What people really want is a livable environment, but without level-headed expert opinion, they are led to vote against their own interests with their own money. (Similarly, what people really want is health and a long life, but given the heavily slanted food landscape, many will go for the candy.)

Real estate developers in particular have been very cynical in their destruction of the landscape with subdivisions and other schemes, while completely succeeding in selling people on the idea of the beautiful American Dream. Voices of reason have been very heavily outgunned by well moneyed interests, and without adequate pushback from federal and local government, this created a self-reinforcing loop.

By: mikesonn

mikesonn — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:34:02 +0000

Chris, I completely agree. Just look at federal housing policy right now. This is our country’s opportunity to change directions but the tax breaks, etc are just pushing us further down the hole.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:20:18 +0000

Regarding planners’ past mistakes – There is no doubt that planners were responsible for U.S. urban planning disasters like slum clearance and interstate highway planning, but we can’t forget that federal housing policy and U.S. consumer preference have been equally (if not more) responsible.

By: Charles Siegel

Charles Siegel — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:35:40 +0000

“Patrick Kennedy, the developer that has been one of the more significant influences on Berkeley’s downtown (Gaia building, among many), prides himself on limiting parking when building near transit”

Developers would build even more car-free housing in Berkeley than they have, but the NIMBYs usually try to stop them.

The NIMBYs shot themselves in the foot on the Trader Joe’s project in central Berkeley. If they had insisted on making the building car-free (no parking), the city would not have sold on-street parking permits to the residents, and the building would have attracted tenants who do not own cars. Instead, the NIMBYs insisted on maximimizing tenant parking, and then the developers pointed out that, according to city law, the tenants have a right to get permits if the building has parking. As a result, the building will probably attract some tenants with two-car households – one car in the building’s parking garage and one on the street competing for space with the NIMBYs. This in a location that is an easy walk to UC Campus and that would be ideal for students who do not have cars.

By: mikesonn

mikesonn — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:10:35 +0000

Uh Whoa just vocalized the thinking of many Americans (sadly, that portion of the population still holds major sway), but Uh Whoa is just putting the cart before the horse. The reason most people “need” cars (which I argue they don’t) is because of minimum parking requirements. Buildings need to be spaced further apart to accommodate parking, which makes parking all that much more important, making an increased need for increased parking, and then moving buildings further apart. Now, 50-70 yrs later, we feel like we “need” to have a car to do anything – which for most of the country is pretty spot on. But in SF, it is only wasting a very limited and valuable resource – space – like Tami noted.

By: Tami

Tami — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:21:57 +0000

I agree 100% with Michael Rhodes, Matthew Roth, Adrienne & Patrick. Strongly disagree with Uh Whoa. The idea that cars would be the primary mode of transportation was a mistake made made 50 years ago. Every new parking space that is built only reinforces that error.

There are 7×7 square miles in San Francisco. Do we want a city filled with eco/urban friendly livable space OR cars, congestion, traffic and parking garages? If a car isn’t on the road it’s sitting somewhere. Unfortunately, today we are designing more for cars and parking than we are for people and open space. It’s a big mistake that the SF Planning Department recognizes but unfortunately doesn’t act on.

If only SF Planning actually carried out the ideas outlined in their policy paper
“Rethinking SF Parking Requirements”
http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=25134

By: patrick

patrick — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:37:14 +0000

“If you have a car (most people have one because they need it) you wouldn’t buy a place without parking”.

If that were true, then there would be no need to legislate it, as no developer would be able to sell properties without a parking space.

People NEED air, water & food; they don’t need a car.

By: Adrienne

Adrienne — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:17:35 +0000

My family has two cars and if I could find a place I could afford to buy in SF it wouldn’t matter to me if it didn’t have parking. Parking is overrated and everyone needs to get over it. There are so many things that are more important than being able to park in front of your destination. Isn’t it sad that every public planning discussion in SF boils down to parking? We could have some amazing new spaces and housing for the working class and many other things but it all gets ruined by this ridiculous “need” for a place to put our cars.

By: Matthew Roth

Matthew Roth — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:26:12 +0000

@ Uh Wha
A couple of resources to challenge your assertion that parking requirements are common sense/necessary for selling units:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/realestate/12nati.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=donald%20shoup&st=cse

Patrick Kennedy, the developer that has been one of the more significant influences on Berkeley’s downtown (Gaia building, among many), prides himself on limiting parking when building near transit:
http://panoramic.com/about

Emerald Fund developer Oz Erickson talking about limited parking in a new rental on Harrison St.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/18/EDGO19O9MG.DTL

Some good links here about all the less-than 1:1 parking to unit ratios in community plans
http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/parking.html

This is a good article looking at whether banks in cities like Salt Lake will come around:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13529914

By: Michael Rhodes

Michael Rhodes — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:12:38 +0000

@Uh Wha: To clarify, by “arbitrary minimum parking requirements,” I’m referring to the specific number of spaces required by planning codes, not parking requirements in general. As UCLA’s Don Shoup has written about at length, planners and traffic engineers have often turned to shaky, not-entirely-scientific sources when setting minimum parking requirements for different types of land use:

http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Trouble.pdf

By: Uh Wha

Uh Wha — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:40:47 +0000

This blog is rapidly becoming the bay guardian of online tripe. Parking requirements have as much to do with banks agreeing to provide financing, and buyers looking for resale value as they do with good common sense. If you don’t use a garage (I don’t) you use it for storage. If you have a car (most people have one because they need it) you wouldn’t buy a place without parking. Planners know that. Smart ones, anyway.

By: mikesonn

mikesonn — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:13:11 +0000

So SPUR and the San Francisco Planning Department hosted the discussion saying “the field needs to move beyond worrying about past mistakes.” But just take a look at the Central Subway which is NOTHING more then a political handout to Chinatown with very little transportation merit for the huge cost. The blind leading the blind.