1198 Valencia Rendering 9-15

With a slightly refined design and 49 units, down from 52 as originally proposed, the plans for a five-story building to rise on the northwest corner of 23rd and Valencia in the Mission could be approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission this afternoon.

The former gas station on the 1198 Valencia Street site was shuttered in 2007 and the current plans for the parcel have been in the works since 2012.  And if the project is approved, the development could be waylaid if the proposed Mission District housing moratorium is passed by voters next month unless permits for the project are first secured.

In addition to the 49 condos, the proposed development includes 5,000 square feet of ground-floor retail spaces and a 37-car garage with its entrance along 23rd Street.

1198 Valencia Rendering 9-15 San Jose Corner

As designed, however, the project is only permitted 25 parking spaces per Code and the Planning Commission will have to authorize the additional twelve.

1198 Valencia Rendering 9-15 San Jose

The Planning Department is recommending the project be approved, while a number of project opponents, including Accion Latina, generally state “gentrification, displacement, and lack of affordable
housing as primary reasons for opposition to the project.” As proposed, six of the 49 condos will be Below-Market-Rate.

140 thoughts on “Valencia Street Development Slated For Approval, But…”
  1. I hope Planning holds fast and doesn’t grant a CU for the additional twelve parking spaces requested. I’m sorry, the developer knew the code going in and is asking for a free hand out to drum up the perceived value of the units.

    1. Or we could focus on the fact that parking is scarce in the area and the additional parking is completely reasonable.

        1. This is such an obvious answer: Because those who actually live in that immediate neighborhood deal with the scarce street parking EVERY SINGLE DAY.

          That’s why.

          1. A reality of urban living if you choose to drive. If you think the solution is building 1:1 parking you’re deluding yourself.

          1. Ok, then you can’t advocate less parking for anywhere outside of where you currently live. We’ll say five blocks in each direction?

        2. The fact that parking is scarce. As noted above. In the comment that you replied to. Directly.

    2. I live in the area, 24th and Valencia, and parking is incredible tight, especially 6 pm to 9 pm. That is one of the reasons I got rid of my car 4 years ago. I now use a zipcar from one of the nearby lots. Most of my transit needs are met by BART, which I use for work.

      The discussion about more onsite parking is misguided and ignorant about this site’s location. Just like the project down at Hill St. these infill projects are necessary to meet housing demand in areas of the city with good (not great) transit.

      1. The planners have managed to create that rarity, a pleasant walkable street. Now people drive there to experience it.

  2. It will be interesting to see all the car haters change their tune when they can’t bike everywhere anymore due to aging. Methinks they will be the first ones griping about lack of parking in the building in which they live – assuming they’re not prisoners of rent control.

    1. yeah how on earth do old people survive in european cities and new york without their own personal automobile to take them everywhere? matter of fact, did old people even exist before the war, or did they come along with the advent of every household having 2 cars?

      1. He didn’t really say “old people”, but merely “aging”. Fact is, some older people need to drive, some younger people need to drive, some families need to drive.

        And there’s nothing wrong with that.

        1. But do they need to live in a dense urban area that cannot easily accommodate their “need” to maintain a suburban drive-everywhere lifestyle?

          As I always say, in San Ramon one can easily have a THREE CAR garage, and there are parking lots at every building, to accommodate one’s drive in lifestyle.

          1. Plus, are you saying you like the idea of these aging people piloting 5,000 pounds of metal and plastic at dangerous speeds in dense urban areas? That is pretty scary to me. I know as my father approached the end of his life as an independent person, he drove for at least two years past the time he should have given up his license.

            And no, I am not young, so this is an issue I will be facing soon enough.

          2. “But do they need to live in a dense urban area that cannot easily accommodate their “need” to maintain a suburban drive-everywhere lifestyle?”

            Sure, if they want to

          3. James: But if we maintain that lifestyle for them, it actively works against efforts to make the city more accessible for folks who want to have a transit-oriented lifestyle.

            Besides, there are thousands of places in the country where you can drive but only a handful where you can live without a car.

          4. @BrianM: Just because one has a car, does not mean that one has a “suburban drive-everywhere” lifestyle. I drive far less living in SF than I did living in Palo Alto. On the other hand, having a car is still essential because public transit and biking just aren’t sufficient (though use those transport modes as well as walking a lot).

            Unfortunately, car-haters like you choose to ignore the real needs of real people in the City and instead make ignorant statements about “surbuban lifestyles”. Your stale and nasty arguments add nothing to the debate and do not help in formulating policy. Before making such holier than thou statements again, please actually talk with your neighbors who have cars.

          5. I echo your sentiment. This location is an ideal spot to age in place (without a car). It’s a short two block walk to BART and only 1 to 2 blocks to a handful of Muni lines, directly connecting to many corners of this city. More parking at this site inevitably leads to an increase in congestion, slowing down Muni service for everyone.

        2. Driving is a lifestyle choice, pure and simple. I have a family and I live in the City but I hardly drive. Walking and the bus take me, my kid, and my wife where we need to go. Driving, unless you are going to the Zoo or someplace way out on the West Side, is inconvenient and aggravating.

          1. You could spend an hour on the L-Taraval if you wanted to get to the Zoo and leave the car home.

          2. Chris: Just because your job, work, family and social set up allows you not to drive “much”, does not mean that is true of everyone.

          3. Well that’s your choice and you’re entirely entitled to it. But, it is hardly mutually exclusive of the choices of others to afford themselves to the use of an automobile it meeting their travel needs.

          4. Exactly – no one is forcing the car-addicted to buy these units or even live in SF. Anyone buying a unit in this building going in would be doing so knowing they are buying unit without a deed space. The market will self-select and those not needing or wanting a car will live there.

            Funny how a perfectly obvious free market solution is offered, the crazy NIMBY types scream about “car haters”.

          5. You car lovers sure are overly sensitive. My point was that we don’t live in a suburb and there are other choices beside driving. Unfortunately, so many people who live in San Francisco now were obviously raised in the suburbs and can’t see beyond their car-based culture to try living in another way. Just don’t expect all of us to want to support your resource-intensive, atomized, lifestyle choices and to be willing to subsidize them. If you want to drive everywhere and have free parking guaranteed at your destination, well, you could probably live very happily just about anywhere else in America outside Manhattan and the Loop in Chicago.

          6. @ Chris: I’m enjoying your little ongoing tale, but I have a few comments:
            1. I’m not a car lover, but a car user. I do love my husband and my cat, however.
            2. Yes, there are other choices: I use all of them at different times: I walk, I bike, I drive, I use public transit.
            3.I was not born in a suburb, but rather rural Midwest. We had a car, a pickup, and a tractor.
            4. What is an “atomized” lifestyle? Is that like the Jetsons?
            5. I don’t always find free parking when I drive: feeding meters and parking garages also cost money.

          7. @Housingwonk: Well if we are going to discuss the market, it is obvious that the market is demanding more parking or, otherwise, the developer wouldn’t want to put it in there.

          8. @NoeNeighbor – then I assume that you’re fine with places that the market is asking for less parking? Nothing would enthrall me more than letting the amount of parking be decided by the market.

          9. if it were truly decided by the market, there would be more parking than less. A developer will always skimp on parking because he doesnt care about the problem not offering parking puts onto the streets and society by making congestion worse. If you polled potential buyers, 70+% would want parking and 50% would want 2 parking spaces. in a 100 unit building, that means that the buyers would want 120 parking spots. THe true market is somewhere in between the lets say 50 the developer wants to build and 120 the market wants. lets say 85 in this case

      2. How? Because these cities have extensive transit systems that discourage the need or desire to own a car. The Bay Area encourages car ownership.

        1. That’s the whole point of providing less off street parking in new developments: to discourage car ownership.

          1. the way to discourage ownership is to create some decent transit. We are truly 3rd world in transit

          2. No, building decent transit is encouraging transit use, not discouraging car ownership. Complimentary perhaps, but not at all the same thing.

          3. Futurist, most Uber/Lyft drivers do not live in the city. Some don’t even live in the Bay Area.

        2. SF has a long history of people living careless. It is a very compact city full of transit

          The spread of jobs now I will grant you have made this ineffectual as its hard to commute out of SF

      3. no one has been able to answer my question about how old people get around european cities without cars…

    2. There are thousands of very elderly people in this city that do not own cars and get around via transit, walking, and taxis (see: Chinatown / Nob Hill / Tenderloin / etc.). Having a car is only possible for a certain income level in any major city, and it’s always been this way.

      1. It’s actually an ironic comment if we assume he is speaking of the elderly. The aging of the suburbs is a huge problem as nobody can get anywhere without driving

    3. What’s wrong with Uber? Many of my relatives on both sides and both well off and poor aged in SF without cars.

      What has changed? This used to be normal

  3. I would like to see the Planning Comm approve the CU for 12 more spaces: my reasons: The reality is that many of the owners who purchase in this building will own a car; cars are not going away in SF; the 12 additional spaces will help ease the very tight ON-Street parking that is part of this neighborhood. I would like to think that the adjacent residents would welcome MORE off street parking

    1. The only way cars are “going away” in SF is if they aren’t accommodated by more parking spaces, though. Gently discouraging car ownership in favor of alternate options is precisely the point, and the primary way to accomplish this is through less off street parking.

          1. I’m sure many do. Are you assuming they just magically disappear at night? The cars are all owned by private citizens. Where do you think they park them?

          2. Flywheels are cabs, which have dedicated parking, and the others, along with car shares, allow for shared cars, rather than ownership, thus reducing the overall need for parking (and cars). Weird conversation.

          3. Many of my neighbors in Noe drive for the ride sharing services, and when they are done they typically park their car on the street, since they don’t have a garage.

          4. I’ll give you that, but my point is that EVEN ride sharing services involve vehicles on our streets and places to park them.

            Obviously, a GREAT urban transit system would certainly shift more car uses to public transit; Look at London, Paris and NY as examples. But let’s not forget, even those great cities still have cars on the street and street parking.

            Oh, and so does the Holy Grail of urban cycling, Amsterdam, have cars on the street and street parking.

          5. Right, and those rideshares aren’t necessarily increasing off-street parking if they’re replacing car ownership. And yes, cities that have great transit and bike use transit also have cars. What’s the connection between that and the need for increased off street parking?

      1. Cars are not going away period. Parking is important to keep cars from circling and creating congestion. We will have zero emission cars, but there are no decent transit projects that will be completed over next 30 yrs. without decent transit, we will remain near 75% of households having 1 car and 50% having 2 cars

      2. @OtherDan: Why doesn’t the City focus more on making the alternatives more appealing and useful? The City is not “gently” discouraging car ownership, it is actively working to make life difficult for drivers.

        1. This Muni rider has noticed improved Muni service on many lines across the city. The SFMTA is making a real effort to improve and speed up service. Building more parking for more cars is a direct threat to better, faster, and more reliable Muni service.

        2. Actively working to discourage car ownership in favor of alternatives. Yep. Nothing is more appealing than owning a car, but I don’t see any reason to blame the government because it doesn’t make car ownership convenient. Driving difficult? Don’t do it.

    2. Someone argues for more density, or less parking than allowed under zoning. Futurist: The zoning is the zoning! Too bad!

      Some developer begs for more parking than allowed under zoning. Futurist: Oh well let’s be reasonable and help them out

      1. And that’s what being open minded and flexible to each location is all about. thanks for pointing that out!

      1. The codes have clauses in them to allow for alternate solutions and a public process to debate that.

        I support that.

          1. I could care less about my perception here. People here love to tightly box others into narrow roles. Fact is, case by case, there are always exceptions and revisions to every code regulation.

  4. Cars are a part of the equation (as is transit, ridesharing apps, bikes, etc…) this isn’t a zero-sum game. If the project doesn’t pencil out without the additional parking spaces (commonly trotted out) then the developer should be required to pay into a pot allocated for transit impact fees for that rule bending privilege. This is already being discussed at City Hall and is long overdue.

  5. Anyone have a ballpark estimate of the value of a parking space for a 2BR condo in this location? I was surprised that Onyx at the base of Potrero Hill (a less transit-friendly location) is only asking an additional $50k for a parking space to go with a $1.7M condo. A couple of years back I heard a real estate broker peg the value of a parking space for a large 3 BR condo on the Mission / Noe border at $300,000. Has Uber destroyed the value of parking spaces too?

    1. I would encourage you to believe very little that a real estate broker says about value: they will always inflate a number when talking to a seller, and don’t forget: higher sale simply means a higher commission.

      But I would put a number of between $75-100k on an enclosed, secure parking space for this building.

      1. So shouldn’t the city then extract some monetary value from that CU giveaway in that case? That’s an extra $900K – 1.2M the developer stands to make for those 12 additional unbundled parking spaces based on your estimates. Even a fraction of that is some nice pocket change that could go a long way towards repairing the wear and tear on our city’s streets.

        1. Ah…………No.

          And to add to your unusual logic, lets start extracting some monetary value from all the cyclists who have benefited from the many bike lanes and markings the city has installed for their use and safety, without them paying a dime for the added features.

          and BTW: the bike lanes and markings are fine with me: they have made biking safer; now if we can only get the cyclists to obey the traffic laws.

          1. Unfortunately the only thing that’s unusual is that the city has yet to set up a fee (soon to change) for new residential developments to mitigate their impact on traffic and transit; something that’s already levied on commercial projects.

            And sorry, the whole car vs. bike thing is tired. Let’s focus on pedestrians, maybe we should charge them to use the sidewalk!

          2. Cyclists pay taxes just like you and cyclists also contribute more to a community than commuters who clog the streets.

            and BTW: if only we can only get cars to obey traffic laws.

          3. False equivalency, since there are also dedicated car lanes (and many more of them). You could suggest a premium for dedicated bike parking to make that align correctly.

          4. Got it Brad. Good to know that only certain types of people contribute “more” to SF than others.
            Love your tolerance and open-mindedness.

  6. While I don’t mind having the extra 12 spaces I object to the notion that old people need to drive. Quite the opposite, old people cause a disproportionate number of accidents and should not be driving. Ride share and transit are the solution for them and frankly for the majority.

    1. Yeah, it’s a pretty transit-friendly and walkable neighborhood, and having a little less parking shouldn’t be too much of a problem. The expansion of car sharing plus the occasional use of taxi type services might shift the balance away from individually owned vehicles. Which overall is good, I’d think.

      1. Assuming that you live and work in the area. Everything is great if it’s at your doorstep…home, job, food, entertainment Sadly, that luxury exists for few. We either rely on transit or our cars for the long haul.

        1. I’d think that’s why one would pay a premium to be a long haul commuter, though, right? If you want to live somewhere far away from another place you need to be, you account for that by paying that premium: the cost of the parking space. That’s clearly the tradeoff, here.

      1. I think that might be misleading, as the number of 75 year-old drivers is likely dwarfed by, say, those 45-54–nor does this take into account miles driven. I’m not sure that one table gives an accurate representation.

      2. Lying with statistics.

        I bet the number of accidents per 100 licensed drivers who are blind is also quite low– not because blind people are good drivers, but because responsible people stop driving when they are no longer able. If there were 4 accidents per 100 licensed blind drivers, that would be insanely high, because it would mean that there are a significant number of blind people still driving.

        Old people likewise tend to stop driving when they lose their abilities, which means that those 4 accidents are caused by a significantly smaller group of people who refuse to stop. Compare accident rates per mile driven, and you’ll have a much better idea of the relative dangers.

        But yeah, we probably should discourage younger drivers too.

        1. Well, yeah true, per miles driven would be better. BUT if older people are less likely to get into accidents because they drive less doesn’t really change that fact.

    2. You need to educate yourself on the facts. You are just plain wrong.

      And, of course your classic SF smugness about how the majority should live.

  7. As the original Dan posting here, I agree with what another Dan just posted– the neighborhood is very walkable, there are buses and Uber, and also older folks (like me!) can bike on Valencia’s flat streets. There is a plan for CPMC to open medical offices just a couple of blocks away, groceries are a short walk away, and everything else can be delivered. It may well be younger folks who have young children who need a car the most, but my guess is that there will not be many families with young children in this building anyway– they could buy a house in Glen Park or Bernal, with parking, for what a 2 bedroom in this building will cost.

    1. If there is a CPMC office in this building, some of the sick & old people will need to be driven there.
      I take care of people in their 90’s. They are too infirm to hop in or out of a cab/uber (that is usually double parked in the bike lane) on their own. It takes 2 of us to take one of them to the doctor–one to help while the other parks the car.

      1. The CPMC medical offices are planned for another new condo building, already built, a few blocks away. So how many parking spaces built here is irrelevant. If the new CPMC Valencia clinic does open, a passenger loading zone, or 15 minute meters will allow the elderly to be taken in to appointments.

  8. It’s two blocks from BART. Why is there *any* parking? More realistically: this is Valencia Street, yet based on the rather cryptic renders, it looks like the pedestrian streetscape is mostly blank walls. Is the 5,000 square feet of retail just a thin veneer to hide the ground level parking? If we can’t build out full retail here, where can we?

    1. 1. Because not everyone takes Bart.
      2. Because some people need their car, and have a right to own one.
      3. The retail is not a thin veneer. It’s just retail.

      1. A person’s right to own a car isn’t a requirement for local zoning laws to accommodate a place to put them. That’s plain silly.

      2. 1. Hardly any locations in SF are as convenient to BART and other public transportation as this is. The zoning should reflect that.

        2. Individual “rights” are circumscribed in all sorts of ways to further the common good, libertarian fantasies notwithstanding.

        3. The size and shapes and heights of the retail do matter, in their desirability and in the types of retail tenants they’ll attract. On this point, I’ll confess that after wading through the 141 pages on the planning department agenda, I see that there are five spaces, each about 25 x 50 feet, with 14 foot high ceilings, so not bad!

        So the Valencia street frontage is OK, but the 23rd Street and San Jose Ave frontages are treated as throwaways. We have to do better than that if we want to make walking an ordinary, everyday part of people’s lives, instead of just an occasional experience or recreational activity.

        1. Not only is this wildly convenient for BART, Muni and walking, it is also RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the (elephant in the room) tech bus stop for Google, Facebook, Apple, nearly every other tech company you can name. And the ones that don’t stop in front of Muddy Waters stop on the next block of Valencia. The people who take those buses do not need cars to get to work and thus would barely need them at all, and it couldn’t get any more convenient than this. Also, if they have kids, they are right across the street from a great public school — you can walk your kids to school then get on the bus, easy-peasy. Realistically, all this arguing over the elderly living here, but really, who is going to live here now? There is no reason for all of these to have parking spaces.

      3. The Futurist is strangely resistant to any effort by the government to incentivize transportation mode-shift in the city’s built environment through zoning. Continuing the same auto-centric requirements policies of the last 80 years will not move SF towards London, Paris, Tokyo. The Status Quo-ist may be a more appropriate handle.

        1. Well, I’m not THE Futurist, just Futurist. For the record.

          I have always advocated improving our public transit system, but it’s barely improving and changing. We have decades to become world class like major Euro cities already are, with regard to urban transit.

          Until we make it the best and VERY convenient, cars will continue to remain a strong choice for many people living here.

      4. “A right to own one?”

        Let’s be clear, there are tons of parking spaces available here and in every other part of the city, if you have the money. This very building will have two dozen, regardless of this conditional permit.

        Yet we must add more, because it would be a travesty if there was a single person who wanted a parking space and couldn’t afford one. That would be a violation of their “right to own a car”.

        But wanting housing and not being able to afford it? Screw ’em, they can live in Vallejo. Because apparently no one has the right to live in San Francisco– to have 325 square feet of space to call home– but they sure have a right to 325 square feet to put their car in.

        The right to own a car takes priority over the right to have a roof over your head. It’s absolutely perverse.

        1. Seriously these people have distorted logic. I have two kids and need to drive them. I didn’t complain that the world was not accommodating me and my “rights” to live in Nob Hill or North Beach

          We looked for a house in West Portal, Parkside and the near by suburbs.

    2. @Alberto: Look at a BART map — Does it go everywher in the Bay Area that one might want to go? The idea that just because a place is convenient to mass transist means one doesn’t ever need a car is fallacious. Also, the converse, that just because someone owns a car means they won’t use mass transit is equally absurd. Rather than being so absolutist, try to understand how real people actually get around in this City and beyond (hint: it is typically by a mix of means that includes mass transit and cars).

      1. It’s about choice and self selection. Your implying we only need build housing with bundled parking for your preference.

        1. No, we only need build SOME housing with bundled parking. You’re the one being an absolutist.

          And NoeNeighbor is saying exactly what I have been saying many times over and over: a variable mix of transit choices is what works for most people, in MOST cities.

          1. Are we not building some parking with bundled parking? It seems that that’s all that’s being built outside of SF… Or does that not count as housing?

  9. Is it my imagination or is the cyclist riding through a red light in the first image? If so that is pretty funny considering the discussion.

      1. On Valencia St., almost all bikes stop at red lights. That’s because red lights are timed so there is no advantage to running them. The fastest way to bike or drive Valencia is at 13 mph. You’ll hit all green lights.

        1. Not really. They try to ride the green wave. But if stopped, they’ll blow through. Almost all of them.

        2. I ride the length of the Valencia bike path at least two days a week. The vast majority of cyclists stop at each light. If one runs a light you just hit a light at the next block. One doesn’t get anywhere faster by running lights on Valencia. If one goes the proper speed, every light is green when you get to it.

          1. Dan, I’m frequently there, and it’s very common for cyclists on Valencia to blow through lights. Maybe it’s better there than rest of city, but most cyclists in SF are entitled brats that’s don’t seem to care about the law or other road users

          2. Many of them will also swerve into the crosswalk to pass right signalling motorists from behind, motorists who have already obviated the bike lane as they are supposed to do. That’s the other big cyclist scofflaw problem on Valencia.

          3. @ Dan: you can’t be referring to the same Valencia st. we are. What you’re saying is just plain wrong. The majority and I mean 99.9% of cyclists do NOT stop at stop lights and stop signs all over the city, including Valencia. They just don’t because they truly believe there are special rules for them, and that most likely will not get caught.

            Scares and anger me even more when I a woman or man on their bike with a child in the back seat and she/he still refuses to stop or even slow down at lights and signs.

  10. I don’t get the comments about a builder should pay a premium to add parking spaces. This development is bringing in huge sums of money to city coffers, much of it to be spent on maintaining our streets.

    As a gas station lot, let’s just say taxed at $1M valuation or $17K/yr in property tax… this new development w/ 49 condos (split between 2 bdrms and 1, let’s say avg. $1.5M/ea) and retail, the outcome is around $900K/revenue a year. That is nothing to say to the ROI of having 100-200 additional people living and spending $$ in the City.

    It is beyond me how a town of so much wealth, of such high price paid in taxes, of such a small geography can still have the worst roads in America. (Even w/ Prop 13) The developer is doing their part to raise funds for the roads. Our leaders just need to do a better job of balancing the books.

    And let’s look 15-20 yrs down the road. Cars will be 100% emissions free and driving themselves. There is no more bicyclist argument against road safety or gridlock (except when bicyclists break the law and run into them). Why should not every resident with the needed means be able to have the freedom of that car ownership? it can go home and park itself while waiting for your movie or dinner to end. unless it doesn’t have a garage.

    1. In this future world of driverless cars car ownership will be pointless for many as there wil be driverless taxis everywhere

      You seem to not understand the spatial issues with excessive car ownership in SF

    2. Interesting point. In a future with driverless cars, many parking spaces will become functionally obsolete. Cities with fewer of these useless things taking up valuable urban real estate will already be ahead.

      1. Wait. Help me out with your strange logic. So, who will own a “driverless” car? Will I get to own one? Can I park it in my garage? What parking spaces are you talking about? You mean on the street? So will these obsolete parking spaces become housing? parklets? bike shops? pot shops?

        And why are they useless? Your comment is so full of holes, you’re drowning in fantasy.

        1. Companies like Uber will own the driverless cars, and they’ll be out picking up 24 hours a day (only stopping to recharge and/or for maintenance, in facilities like existing parking garages in the city and/or existing big parking lots outside the city (think current airport or mall parking). Individuals won’t own driverless cars, because that makes no sense. If you can click a button on your phone and have one ready to take you anywhere immediately, why in the world would you own one that you have to clean and maintain? What’s the point?

          1. And you actually believe this Martian fantasy?

            Because many of us prefer to own our own vehicles capable of carrying us, our camping and ski equipment up to, say Tahoe, or down to Joshua Tree instead of riding in some little bubble topped lawn mower owned by Uber.

            Oh, yours is such a rich fantasy, I need a drink,

          2. Oh, absolutely, Futurist. These people probably think everyone is happy to travel on commercial airliners. Obviously, many of us prefer to own our own planes instead of relying on some cramped cattle car in the sky that doesn’t even take you straight to Palm Beach. And you can’t even pack your skis without some ridiculous rigmarole! Absurd.

            PS: we need to get a law passed that every new housing development requires constructing additional hangars at the nearest airport. Anything less would restrict our freeeedom.

          3. Futurist, “some”, “many”, and “all” are very different words. You’d be surprised at what people do once everyone else around them is also doing it. Owning your own self-driving car only seems like something you’d do because you’ve owned your own legacy car.

            In 20-30 years when people are hitting driving age having never experienced the awful experience of driving their own car, it will be much more natural to call up a car to take them to Tahoe. Not sure why you’d assume an Uber car would be smaller or “bubble-topped”? I would assume that they’ll have all sorts of levels of luxury, from something analogous to coach on commercial airliners up to a NetJets type of experience.

          4. Anon, you simply continue to amaze and delight us with your Utopian tales of fantasy. Who, but you says “legacy” car? Who but you says the “awful experience of driving your own car”?

            You seem to lead a rather sad, angry life, but convinced that so many people are will fall for your future world. Just laughable.

          5. im thinking we will be closer to a Mad Max world in 30 yrs than a self-driving utopia. im honing my driving skills for that.

  11. Oh no, displacement! Think of all the people who are living in this chain-linked former gas station, that will be forced out!

  12. Street-scape is scary (or boring).

    Not a big fan of having to walk a block just to get into or out the front door.

  13. It was also narrowed from four lanes to two with bike lanes ca. 2005. Thank your friendly neighborhood planner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *