Someone finagled permission to build on Brotherhood Way and this is what they made. The houses themselves seem nice, but the neighborhood (if you can call it that) has a horror movie vibe to it.
The Summit Park development (https://www.fletcher.studio/summit-park) is actually pretty thoughtfully planned out imo. There are definitely compromises that have been made, and the developers are obviously not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but they have spent time to address community concerns and seem to have tried to balance their bottom line against livability, sustainability, and affordability considerations. There are maybe 100 units in this entire phase of the project, and aside from a few apartment towers a quarter mile or more up a steep hillside, there's nothing else in the area. What kind of businesses could this realistically support, a 7-11? They threw in a dog park and a playground, probably because that is what a family oriented neighborhood is most likely to need/want.
But then people like Kate Wagner come along and see the lack of a coffee shop and houses that don't look like they belong in the Mission, and immediately pooh pooh it (and implicitly the people who choose to live there). All while ignoring the fact that this used to be a ditch next to what is essentially a 4 lane highway...
Despite Wagner's claims to the contrary, I can't help but conclude that all of this "thoughtful urbanism" is just thin veneer over a core of elitism.
> What kind of businesses could this realistically support, a 7-11?
That's kind of my point, they built a pile of houses and nothing else. Even the yards are abbreviated.
> a ditch
I played in the area that was destroyed to make way for this development as a kid, and calling it "a ditch" does it a disservice. It was thick with life. It was part of a wildlife corridor. I remember all the skunks and raccoons and even possums that wandered the neighborhood when they razed that area.
Now it's people-lockers.
There was no particular reason why this parcel had to be developed. The developers must have gotten a good fixer, greased the right palms, and made a quick buck. Park Merced up the street (the "few apartment towers") has been trying to rebuild for two decades? There's plenty of room to build w/o destroying wildlife habitat.
> a core of elitism
Who me? If anything the people buying these houses are the elite, surely?
Regardless, your preference for preserving the status quo is absolutely valid. But other people's preferences for building SFHs is also valid. Maybe they would prefer the option not to live in large apartment complexes because of family or health or noise reasons. We live in a society, and part of that means sometimes other people get what they want even if it not something we want, and it is good and healthy to disagree with outcomes. But my point is that I think it is elitist to tell them that actually, their preferences are wrong (not just different).
> Who me? If anything the people buying these houses are the elite, surely?
It's the bit between the grass and the buildings. If you turn to the left (downhill, West) you can follow it all the way along to Lake Merced. It's the very Northern tip of the forest that stretches down past Santa Cruz. Rumor has it there's a den of coyotes on that hillside. We've seen 'em walking down our street.
(Not to nitpick, but 2011 is after they razed it. You can't see the huge flat spot of bare dirt dotted with huge piles of dirt and trees they left behind for several years (a decade?) before coming back and building that development, that used to be a dense thicket of trees and shrubs and animals etc., but you can kind of make out the break in the slope it causes. On the right, as you look up towards the apt. towers, you can see there's one hillside and then behind it another, in between them is the flat spot that was razed. We played on those slash piles too.)
> preserving the status quo
SF doesn't have a status quo, it's been changing rapidly ever since the Spanish took it from the Ohlone.
> your preference for preserving the status quo is absolutely valid. But other people's preferences for building SFHs is also valid
Well, again, it depends on your goals, eh? Like I said in a sib comment, I'm not trying to dis the people that prefer to live in what I call "people lockers", nor am I trying to argue matters of taste.
I'm sure there are objective measures that could show that this arrangement of (arguably very nice houses) is, uh, not as good as it could be. But I'm really just going off of the "vibe" of the place. As I said, it's creepy.
> But my point is that I think it is elitist to tell them that actually, their preferences are wrong (not just different).
I don't know if that's quite the right word then? I don't mean to quibble. Anyway, like I said, that's not what I'm doing, and I'm sorry I made it sounds that way.
There is one thing though, and if this makes me "elitist" so be it, SF is the largest metropolitan area with the most wilderness around it in the world. I am concerned that if too many people move here who do not share the fairly common respect for nature that is a hallmark of California (I'm think of the California Coastal Commission, one of the most powerful political blocs in the state) that we'll see the urbanization of the remaining open space.
Not only would that be sad on a personal and ecological level, it would destroy the agricultural output of the Central Valley. The coastal forest generate inland rain, you see. If we cut them down, CA becomes NV, in terms of climate and moisture.
Throw in a small cafe, local pub, and corner store, and that looks like a really nice little spot. Give it 30-50 years and people will have painted them different colors, and it won’t look like a retirement home
> Throw in a small cafe, local pub, and corner store, and that looks like a really nice little spot.
Where? As in, where would you "throw" them? The buildings don't have space. There's nothing for a mile or more. This is a drive-in only development. (The road is called Brotherhood Way because there's nothing on it but churches and temples. Until they built this.)
> Give it 30-50 years and people will have painted them different colors, and it won’t look like a retirement home
It's really creepy there. It's hard to convey, even google street view doesn't give you the full effect. Did you watch that movie "Vivarium"? It's the shape of the place. The way it's just houses with no integration with the world outside themselves or even with each other. Packed together tightly, so tall that they block the sun, no space to expand. The park next door might as well be a million miles away. They are lockers for people, not homes.
I looked at some of these on Zillow. I see attractive, modern homes, in a lovely neighborhood with lots of green space, at a reasonable price by local standards. Looks like a good value to me.
I dunno what to tell you. Visit in person and get back to me?
I'm not actually trying to shun or shame people who are happy to live in such a place, there's no use arguing over matters of taste, eh?
FWIW I've lived in a few places and I find I'm happier the more "homey" the neighborhood. I'd rather live in a smaller or less fancy place in a living neighborhood than a big fancy place in a dead zone. But that's me, eh?
People have downvoted this, but the "where?" is a very good question, considering that half the problem with places like these is that the zoning typically forbids anything that would give anyone any reason to actually walk around the neighborhood.
Those are not mansions by any means - I see some multi-story homes typical of San Francisco. This is a peaceful little corner of the city, I'm not sure how you get "horror movie vibe".
This is eerily similar from Street View images to the Mueller neighborhood in Austin. I imagine a South Park episode about all of this is not far behind.
Someone finagled permission to build on Brotherhood Way and this is what they made. The houses themselves seem nice, but the neighborhood (if you can call it that) has a horror movie vibe to it.