Comments on: Excessive Parking Creeps Up Folsom Street

By: Board of Supervisors Hears Appeal of 299 Valencia « Transbay Blog

Board of Supervisors Hears Appeal of 299 Valencia « Transbay Blog — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:49:56 +0000

[...] defect of the Planning Commission is one that we have discussed here before, in the context of Folsom Street. The latest episode in the parking battle saga was fought yesterday over seven parking spaces at [...]

By: Zig

Zig — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:56:18 +0000

Also curious if anyone has any thoughts on the idea of SF using some sort of tax increment financing to support transit improvements

I know this is a pipe dream as it is impossible for anyone in SF to sacrifice for the greater good but couldn’t SF bond for a subway on Geary by upzoning and capturing the new value of this upzoning?

I could imagine many many more high rise apartments being entitled between Van Ness and J-town and upzoning all the way to the beach all captured

Is there a mechanism for something like this? This could have have been done on 3rd street as well

By: Zig

Zig — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:51:45 +0000

I have mixed feeling about the idea of parking maximums

The the densest parts of the city it makes sense but in these slightly less dense areas the market buying these units would have a car as most affluent people do. Transit is SF is really not very good

I do understand all the pro arguments. Maybe it can be justified by the potentially cheaper units.

Where reducing parking requirements would really make a difference is in the less affluent areas; the Mission, Outer Mission on Geary but obvioulsy that is a whole other set of problems

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:25:26 +0000

Unfortunately, all these housing and mixed-use development projects precede effective and efficient transit development. Perhaps if a real subway was already in place there wouldn’t be a need to own a car to get around town…not to mention that the people who can afford to live in these developments prefer driving over transit.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:44:36 +0000

My take (no claim of originality) is that these dense projects should have minimal to NO residential parking AND the leases covenanted to prevent owning or leasing cars. In return for greater density(=profit) the developer/landlord/condo assn wil be rewquired to provide Fastpasses to all tenants free of charge. For the occasiuonal emergency, perhaps three zip/city car share slots.