More policy/technical analysis of the live-work drama (that stretched on for half a decade before being addressed through legislation) is on BOS website: https://sfbos.org/industrial-protection-zones-livework-projects-and-community-plans … A complex, cautionary tale re: calls today to simply deregulate as housing affordability strategy.
-
-
Live-work lofts boomed because new apartments were banned (if not explicitly, then through an unwritten understanding) everywhere but industrial areas and communities of color. Which brings us back to Peskin's bill, a new for 2019 strategy to keep it that way.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Not sure about that version of history. Land use politics of the '90s and '00s were about the eastern nhoods, in my experience. (out of which eventually came 8 adopted area plans). But maybe you were there and had a different experience...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Because your gentleman’s agreement had already settled the matter of any westside apartments in the 1970s, correct?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Wasn't here then, sorry. Not that old. In any case I think the analysis that all the land use havoc and gentrification battles in the eastern front-line nhoods of post-industrial SF over the last 20 years is because of westside zoning restrictions is, respectfully, too simplistic
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Why weren't the front lines on the west side, in your opinion?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
SF has been experiencing process of economic restructuring since <1980s, as industrial sector declined (either by evolution or deindustrialization, depending on your political analysis). The Eastside working class nhoods and their industry lands are the front line real estate.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
If the eastern neighborhoods were where real estate wanted to build, why did the western neighborhoods need restrictive zoning to stop developers from building housing there?
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes -
exclusionary neighborhoods want to retain their racist and classist exclusionary character. the opportunity of gentrification in the urban core provides an opportunity for landowners to capitalize on revaluing real estate “to its correct price” in a racist and classist way
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
in the former, those neighborhoods have political and capital power to keep people out. in the later, those landowners and investors of developers have the power to bring in who they want.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Is it just developers and landowners or is it the entire municipal structure? Liabilities and costs are growing faster than local tax revenues, so Bay Area cities often bring in office to compensate bc voters will usually not choose to tax themselves more to close the gap.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @SFyimby and
that’s absolutely part of it! city governance reflects the interests of those with the power to manipulate it! but framing it as a struggle between bourge homeowners and bourge investment capital that very much dictates the scope of development on its returns is a losing battle
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.