Valencia upgrade: wider sidewalks, bike lanes, more trees, less parking.

Department of Public Works:

Bloggy hand-wringing: Apparently wider sidewalks
"displace lower-class and middle-class residents."

Tags: ,

17 Responses:

  1. perligata says:

    Well, to be fair, that blog says they will further displace them (are there even any left?), but complete and total Mission gentrification is a foregone conclusion at this point. (I agree with them that the 'loin could've used the money more.)

    • strspn says:

      If you displace these underclasses suffering from wide sidewalks as they do, perhaps those who actually have a job will end up in the 'loin improving de facto conditions there by displacing the present low-rent out-of-work loiners to less expensive ring 'burbs in Alemeda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties where they actually stand a chance of getting a job.

  2. skreidle says:

    Yes! Sidewalks are to blame for SF's costly ills.

    (Also, the image link doesn't.)

  3. lilmissnever says:

    Quoth the blogger: "Too bad if you're addicted to your Ford Explorer, can hardly afford Mission rent as it is or bought a home on what you thought was a quiet and quaint little street next to Valencia."

    I fail to see how this is a problem. If you can hardly afford Mission rents, perhaps you may wish to sell your Ford Explorer. You may even have enough money left over for ear plugs.

  4. sethg_prime says:

    the automobile, the lowest in the pecking order of the species

    Ah, yes, pity the poor oppressed automobile. Snerk.

  5. The argument seems to be, "if you make the neighborhood nicer, more people want to live there, and rent goes up." I didn't think the concept of gentrification extended to the natural law of supply and demand. I also thought that people with these concerns generally called for rent controls and building affordable housing, not leaving neighborhoods to crumble so that rent drops.

    Also:

    Effect number one: with narrower streets and tougher turns, car traffic on this arterial street is expected to slow down. The bike people are happy. After all, the automobile, the lowest in the pecking order of the species, will lose some of its privileges of speeding and making a second lane out of a bike lane.

    This is hurting my brain. It doesn't seem sincere enough to actually be an entitled asshole shouting about reverse racism, and yet the rest of the article makes me think it's supposed to be sarcastic somehow.

    • I didn't think the concept of gentrification extended to the natural law of supply and demand. I also thought that people with these concerns generally called for rent controls and building affordable housing, not leaving neighborhoods to crumble so that rent drops.

      How do you define gentrification?

  6. pdx6 says:

    A+ on the planning.

    The suicide lane on Valencia street is a really bad mistake, and is prime real estate for illegal parkers, it won't be missed. Valencia also desperately needs wider sidewalks since it is such a major ped thoroughfare. Add in more bike racks to the mix, and it'll be an even better street to visit.

    On the downside, rents are sky high on Valencia, which is pushing some of the vendors out. Ditto for other popular streets, such as Union.

  7. mcity says:

    I'm on the other side of the States from SF-both literally and figuratively-but isn't it one of the most expensive cities in the US anyways?

    • strspn says:

      That depends on whether you make most of your money from selling crack.

    • pdx6 says:

      Rent can be fairly expensive, but wages tend to match. If you own an autocar, you are likely poor because of it, since parking is pricey as are the fines and insurance. Transit and biking options are cheap and convenient, so an autocar really isn't needed.

      The cost of food, entertainment, and general other living expenses aren't really more expensive compared to anywhere else in the US: there's just more to select from.

  8. diemoniker says:

    Valencia street sees loads of foot traffic now even in its current state - it's not like the narrow sidewalks have driven people away, or kept people from treating the sidewalk like a cafe space, or made businesses located on Valencia at all unprofitable because of the oppressive level of foot traffic. If we had an infinite amount of money to spend massaging the public amenities of San Francisco...sure, widen the sidewalks. It definitely isn't going to stop people from double-parking though. That's what the bike lanes are for.

    • toastednut says:

      > Valencia street sees loads of foot traffic now even in its current state

      that's because walking on mission st. is so much more disgusting i would welcome either wider sidewalks on valencia, or clean up -- literally, an acid path and a scrub down -- mission st even a little (the former more likely than the latter).

  9. Displace lower-class residents? On the contrary, it gives them more space to spread out when they're trying to find a place to sleep...

  10. belgand says:

    I don't see any place on there designated for hipster smarm. Looks like it needs a redo.