>I personally think that much of the "rust belt" corridor served by the
>3rd St. LRT line should be preserved as industrially zoned land, for
>employment sites, not used for housing (which is most likely to continue
>the trend to SF becoming a bedroom suburb for Silicon Valley), which
>doesn't serve the interests of working class SF residents, who don't
>commute to Santa Clara. If the rust belt can attract significant
>employment sites, then people from other parts of SF will need to be
>able to get there.
I must disagree, at least in part. Barring a major earthquake, new
housing construction is one of the only things that will keep SF much of
a middle-class town at all. New construction should drive down the
market price of housing to the point that the non-rich can afford to move
into/stay in the city, while regulatory attempts to hold back rising real
estate values can only make a tiny dent for a subset of existing
residents.
Unless we suddenly get lots more apartment towers (unlikely for aesthetic
reasons) the former industrial zones are really all we have to work with.
The good news is that today's economy requires far less industrial land
- information, service, and related industries, and not just those hiring
at the top of the scale, can use mixed-use, commercial, or even
residential land without causing trouble for all but the most
NIMBY/BANANA neighbors.
Not to say we don't want *any* industrial land - we do. But the
experience of NYC and other cities shows that inner-city development can
bring new vitality to formerly neglected areas, benefiting new and old
neighbors alike.
What does this have to do with transit? you ask.
Only this: that if you buy the premise that transit can revitalize a
neighborhood, which it *sometimes* can and *often* does not, you do want
to promote high-density, mixed-use development.
Also: you can avoid becoming a bedroom community by making the
opportunities for commercial development make more sense. Good
*regional* transit and well-balanced neighborhoods for commercial and
residential use are an effective way to attract employers, which (like it
or not) cities must always be in the business of doing. Attract the
high-value ones (e.g. Cisco) and the others (e.g. Solectron) will follow.
Andrew
Andrew Sullivan
s u l l i . o r g andrew@sulli.org - www.sulli.org
1668 Grove, SF CA 94117 - 415 673 0626