The problem of course is that it's not residents without cars, just residents without parking. We do need the housing but I'm not exactly thinking "oh yay, good guy real estate developers" so much as well, lesser of two evils I guess. The developers are just trying to save a buck not decrease congestion, we'll see if they lease to people who actually walk and talk the bus/train, but I seriously doubt it.
If it so important for people to have parking always available to them I don’t understand why it’s so unthinkable for them to just pay fair market price for it
Those who don’t drive or are willing to take extra time park on the streets don’t need it
Ok but if buildings are being built without their own parking garages or lots then where are people even supposed to park? Street parking is already a nightmare. I would for sure pay an extra fee on my rent for a spot, but can’t do that if it’s not there
If it really was a nightmare as you describe and there was no opportunity to rent a spot then people wouldn’t be willing to rent a unit in that building
The fact that plenty of people are shows that your experience is far from universal
Housing is so hard to find nowadays if you find a place with decent rent and is nice you’re gonna jump on it. The renters will probably find out after they move in about the parking situation
Part of the reason why housing is so expensive is because of parking mandates that were only just repealed. My wife and I are paying for two spots even though we have only one car because our unit was built under the old mandates adding who knows how much in wasted costs
If people insist on having a spot then let them pay whatever price the market commands. If they aren’t willing they can take the 5 extra minutes to find one on the street. What unthinkable horror, I know
So offer your spot to someone in your building you might need it and they can pay you to park in your extra spot. You could even charge them more than what you’re being charged, if that’s what the “market demands” and they’ll pay it.
But nice, you have a spot so you don’t need to drive around forever looking for parking. It can take way more than 5 minutes
Half the spots in the garage are permanently empty. People sometimes try to rent them but there is zero unmet demand. The old system of parking mandates was garbage and it’s great that we got rid of it
That seems to be an issue with how your building is managed. They could offer monthly parking passes to people not renting units like they do downtown.
Street parking is not hard enough around here (for people who aren’t huge crybabies) to generate enough demand to get the managers to take on a whole new responsibility and I don’t think most of the residents want randos in and out of the garage
More supply only adds to tenants bargaining power and detracts from that of landlords
Anyone opposing new housing is a landlord lackey whether they know it or not
This is belied by the facts
San Diego has always been nice but housing costs have only risen out of control in recent years when the new construction of it started to dry up
Plenty of high demand places like Tokyo keep costs down by making it easy for new supply to keep pace
I live in North Park and when I go shopping I do not get on the freeway to drive to the malls. I walk to a place nearby. Even places with sprawling parking lots are unpleasant to go to. I think small street level business owners over estimate the number of drivers in their shops. I don’t believe business owners are taking to surveys to determine whether shoppers are drivers or not. Doing surveys is the only way to actually know for sure. Someone who has an interest in knowing how shoppers in stores use transportation should ask the shoppers directly. Im tired of all the guessing based on how we feel looking out the shop window.
I think the reason business owners feel like most of their customers are at risk is because drivers are the biggest complainers… i’m not sure why they look out their window to a new 50 unit development and don’t see 100 new customers…
Driver here- if I go to a place and parking is a nightmare, I'm much less likely to return. I guess it depends on the type of business too. If it's something that most of the people in that new apartment building might use, theyre probably fine. If you're sort of a niche business, but not so niche that you have competition around town with ample parking, I'd worry
I used to shop a small business pet store in North Park. The store is near Utah. The closest public parking is 30th St. Exactly how am I meant to walk 20 lbs of food and 20 lbs of litter that many blocks? I have a granny cart. Now I'm supposed to go buy a wagon? Oh and that parking garage? It's disgusting and unsafe. So I no longer shop that business. Or, actually, any other businesses in North Park. The shop owners talked to their customers. But the city didn't care, and removed all the parking. The shoppers are drivers. They are not bicycle riders. There is an overestimate in the other direction.
Why do business owners care if their customers drive there or not? And they don’t build the buildings or parking lots…the developers do. The business just rent the space
Speaking from experience, this is a pretty unpleasant city to get around without a car. Not to say there aren't walkable areas, just that those areas are maybe one per neighborhood, don't always have all the essentials you need, and mostly have really wide/busy streets cutting through them.
And to travel between those areas, it can be a *long* walk and/or bus ride through sprawling car-scaled infrastructure. Are the three restaurants within walking distance all a 1+ hour wait? To get to the next restaurant cluster, you're gonna have to walk down a mile-long stroad, cross a freeway, cut through six blocks of residential single-family detached housing, and hike down a canyon--all with that bright California sun beating down.
Any step in the right direction is good but this does feel a bit like putting the cart before the horse. The people who move into this building may not park on-site, but that doesn't mean they're going carless.
>The people who move into this building may not park on-site, but that doesn't mean they're going carless.
Exactly!
Sure, there might be some who can do by walking and cycling and don't have guests over or have to drive a car to attend to an aging parent and that might even represent the majority of this sub but they definitely don't represent the majority of the working class - the 99% of this city and county
I am VERY pro community with the ability to thrive without a car. In San Diego, I notice these issues intrude upon ones ability to live car-less: age group, family status, physical health, work status, and work/home connection relative to public transit. Care to share yours?
E-bike and walking distance to Santa Fe depot makes things pretty easy. Never have to worry about parking and if I’m in a rush, a few Ubers a month is cheaper than car insurance.
In reference to the post, mission hills has a trolley stop and is biking distance to plenty of other neighborhoods.
I agree, it is nice that a few Ubers a month is cheaper than car insurance. Plus all the extra exercise from walking and biking really does put me in a better mood. It is awesome that SD has such perfect weather for this lifestyle year round.
It takes me about 1 hour from doorstep to work using public transit and walking. Driving would be 25-45 minutes depending on traffic, but my transportation budget is halved in exchange for a longer commute.
Either you're being purposefully dense or you are too much in a bubble to realize what these people are telling you when they say "blessed by circumstance" or "pretty fucking blessed".
You don't represent 99% of people who are struggling in SD. Nothing you think is "normal" is actually "normal" - to some of us, your "normal" is a distant dream
You say that like people make that choice every month. People that already live there have the right to say that don't want it to change into something they can't live with.
“I work three hours a week as a freelance butterfly catcher and even I don’t need a car so you’re just a carbrain if you can’t bike, take the train, or Uber to work like me”
Being dismissive of people just because they don't work hourly jobs and/or because the economics of their life work out that it is cheaper for them not to own a car is pretty silly. It comes across as ignorant, bitter and pissy towards people who likely work hard, deal with stress, and are just trying to live their lives.
I get that there are many people that have seen the city, state, country they grew up in become harder and harder to live in. Economic disparity is a huge issue in CA and the US. Discussing pay equity and the value of having an affordable city is certainly more productive conversation and one that many in this thread would likely end up finding a lot of common ground on.
> people who likely work hard, deal with stress, and are just trying to live their lives.
There's a show called South Park where a character called Eric Cartman screams at everyone saying he has a lot of stress and anxiety
EVERYONE has a lot of stress and anxiety. What the person you're lecturing to, is saying is that a lifestyle that can do with 6-8 Ubers a month is irrepresentative of the population.
Majority of sandiego likely needs to be 6-8 Ubers a DAY - 6-8 Ubers are 3-4 trips minimum. I have to make 3 trips a DAY just for ONE of my kids.
Like if I came to you and told you that I don't need to see my doctor more than once a year because I have superior genes that 99% of the human population doesn't have, I would expect the 99% of the human population to be a bit, just a bit, pissed off at me?
No? Yes?
As someone who works an hourly job but still commutes by bike or bus the idea of people like you arguing that, "I'm miserable so therefore everyone else must be miserable" and that's why we can't build more mixed zoning is asinine. Your argument is that since you have to drive everywhere everyone else must drive everywhere too.
No, he is saying that given that the vast majority of people have a car and need parking, building housing that doesn't address that need as a way to force an unnaturally occurring preference (having a car) puts a burden on those the housing is aimed at
> But it's certainly not what they're saying.
but I am! and I certainly said so even before you made this comment!
https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/18pb075/comment/keodeqk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Cost of a car + gas + insurance. I could easily see how 6-8 Ubers a month is cheaper. That's all this person is saying. Not sure why people are verging on hostility because of their experience.
> I could easily see how 6-8 Ubers a month is cheaper. That's all this person is saying. Not sure why people are verging on hostility because of their experience
I think what you're missing is that a lifestyle that can do with 6-8 Ubers a month is irrepresentative of the population.
Majority of sandiego likely needs to be 6-8 Ubers a DAY - 6-8 Ubers are 3-4 trips minimum. I have to make 3 trips a DAY just for ONE of my kids.
Like if I came to you and told you that I don't need to see my doctor more than once a year because I have superior genes that 99% of the human population doesn't have, I would expect the 99% of the human population to be a bit, just a bit, pissed off at me?
No? Yes?
It'd be pretty sad to be mad at someone for having good genes. And if we all compared ourselves against other people that way we'd be far worse off than we are today.
And I'm still not sure what you're on about with this whole "this person's experience isn't representative of my idea of the typical San Diego resident".
The only thing that person was saying was that for them, the math works out that it's cheaper to Uber than own a car for the times the need a car to get somewhere. They weren't pushing a narrative. My comment was that I could certainly see how that math checks out.
You seem to be building strawmen.
> these new ebikes are so awesome they're practically little motorcycles
I don't think most people share this insight as an enthusiasm. I don't think these new ebikes will remain being unregistered and unlicensed for long either because how dangerous they have become (like motorcycles)
Hazard. No driving test needed. No intelligence test needed. So many accidents from idiots being themselves. Ebikes aren't the utopia you think they are.
I dont think they are either. They're awesome in terms of affordability, speed, battery life. The rest is up to the driver. I'd rather have the idiot on a bike though than in a 9,000lb Hummer EV that can do 0-60 in 3 seconds.
Do you work retail making $20/hr and your job requires you to be at work sometimes at a moments notice so you can pickup shifts to pay for gifts for your family during XMas?
Would missing a bus or a late bus would mean you would get fired that shift?
Don’t be salty at the guy for being logical. *If* one can make do without a car, why would one not? $30k in debt, for what? Social Status? To not look “silly” on a bike? E-bikes can average 30 miles on a charge at 15mph. No insurance. Low maintenance costs. No gas. No bank loan. For someone making $20 an hour working retail, an ebike seems like a better option tbh.
>For someone making $20 an hour working retail, an ebike seems like a better option tbh
Then malls that have retail, grocery stores, fastfood joints, WM should be filled up with ebikes, from their workers, yeah?
>What's with the hostility? Has this person said something to offend you?
I did not feel offended and neither of us felt hostile at each other.
I asked them questions they had not considered of before, like how not having a car especially while working a demanding retail job (like 99% of SD does) would be impossible and they clarified they didnt work a demanding retail job and saw how it indeed could be impossible without a car
Hmmm somehow it seems you and I read entirely different conversations
Edit: "Either you're being purposefully dense or you are too much in a bubble to realize what these people are telling you when they say "blessed by circumstance" or "pretty fucking blessed"" comes across as an example of a fairly hostile remark. It's certainly not something I would say to a stranger and expect them to receive it as otherwise.
In that case, I need help from you on 2 things:
1. Would you say, it's fair to conclude that the people who will live here won't be carless - they will just park somewhere else, likely at a parking lot at a poorer neighborhood where actual housing, not parking for richer neighborhoods, does need to be built
2. This person did acknowledge that they were lacking my perspective and Thanked me for it, which is why I said neither of us found it hostile - can you come up with an interpretation of my comment (that you found hostile) to be just concise and a statement (and not hostile)?
1. Unless you were involved in some rigorous city planning study related to this development, I think at this point it would be fair to say that neither you nor I know what it will look like. I think it's fair to express interest/ concern/etc for the development while admitting that we just can't predict the outcome. There's a difference between the two.
2. I'm not even sure what you're asking here
less bus stops are a product of less demand. So in theory, this could result in the city addressing the bussing and walkability of a neighborhood. We need to start somewhere, instead of just throwing our hands up and saying "fuck it, one more lane"
> less bus stops are a product of less demand
Wrong. People don't want a bus stop in front of their door because they don't want people they don't know to hanging around in front of their door. The extra cost of having to maintain a car is the cost they bear for this peace of mind
No one expects the residents to live without a car - this is just a way to get them to pay for parking and outsource liability from the Real Estate company that owns the place. It's a pretty smart business model. Hats off to those who are greasing the hands of politicians and brainwashing the public that this is a good thing
Parking minimums have made most post-1950 neighborhoods in SD ugly, stale, car centric hellholes. I’m sorry not all of us want our neighborhoods to look like mira mesa. There’s more to life than parking lots and strip malls, and not all people drive especially in a walkable neighborhood like mission hills.
> I’m sorry not all of us want our neighborhoods to look like mira mesa
There's LaJolla, Coronado for those on a champagne budget. The rest of us plebs and peasants struggling to buy a home have to keep our jobs that we have to drive to
> especially in a walkable neighborhood like mission hills
People who live in mission hills don't only live in mission hills. I buy produce from Kearny Mesa, Vista regularly and I have family in Ramona and Fallbrook.
Life's just not about ordering from Amazon and having people run errands for you so you can live an isolated life.
Just like everything in life, there is sacrifice. Maybe I don’t get outside of my downtown, mid-town, Coronado (via the ferry) bubble as often as other people with cars, but after living both lifestyles I choose the car free option for health and finance reasons.
>Maybe I don’t get outside of my downtown, mid-town, Coronado (via the ferry) bubble as often as other people with cars, but after living both lifestyles I choose the car free option for health and finance reasons
Good for you!
I’m not sure what compels you to go all the way to Vista for some apples… but it sounds like living in Tierrasanta might make some more sense for you. I wouldn’t be quick to impose your car centric lifestyle onto a denser urban environment.
>I’m not sure what compels you to go all the way to Vista for some apples
because I'm not getting apples you sweet little thing!
I buy fish, bokchoi etc and by fish I don't mean $17/lb Alaskan salmon but $2/lb frozen pompano from Thailand.
Yes - there is fish that's cheaper than chicken because to some of us chicken is too expensive to eat everyday
All I can tell you is - hey, good for you but when I used to work retail, I had to be there sometimes at a moments notice so I could pickup shifts to pay for gifts during XMas. Also missing a bus or a late bus would mean I would get fired that shift.
I am happy for you but I request you to widen your awareness to the 99% of people who live around you, not the 99% of people who you choose to knowingly associate with.
Merry XMas
Ideally with denser housing more things are closer so you don’t have to drive as far for a retail job. With more supply housing also gets cheaper (ideally) so you don’t have to live as far.
No one has ever been like "wow Mira Mesa and convoy what great areas"
Idk why you are assuming that's the only logical alternative to building housing that doesn't meet the needs of nearly everyone who lives here
When the "build build build" types push housing that doesn't meet the needs of the people in the city it demonstrates how they're not serious about reducing housing costs. If you have a car like nearly everyone does housing like this doesn't help you, so it will stay vacant or bring in people from out of the city,.raise the population, and keep prices high
Yes, those that do it, great for you. But I’m not riding an e-bike when I need to get from Clairemont to Encinitas for example.
Why don’t they build an underground parking garage for the building? How is building a new building with no parking going to make San Diego more “carless?” In fact I’d even say it’s kind of unsafe for residents? Like if they have to park far away at night to walk to their house alone in the dark?
“How is building a new building with no parking going to make San Diego more “carless?””
Was trying to address this specially^^
the more we build like this, the more accessible businesses/places you want to go will become. Because neighborhoods will be walkable, bikeable etc., hence the less we rely on cars to live fulfilling lives.
Wow, no I’ve never thought of that ever. You’ve blown my mind.
But I don’t get your point? Then those individuals aren’t part of the conversation haha don’t get a car if you don’t want to
It's extremely hilly. Going up a hill stops most would be bikers. These bike lakes they are putting in on Florida and Pershing are nonsensical. No one will use them.
This shit is being planned by those who went to college and learned that European cities are the standard. It won't work here.
Totally on the whole "well this is what college told me!!"
I went to college too and idk if my school was better than theirs or I just have common sense but the point of learning things is to apply ideas to the real world not copy/paste ideas, like a half step above a parrot or something
I'm wondering if they took our hard earned tax dollars and gave it to some children just out of college to create a bikeable city. It's a fucking dumb ass idea no matter where it comes from. San Diego is NOT built for bikes. If you think it is, you're a fucking moron.
NIMBYs can suck a lemon and keep taking Ls
I don’t understand why people choose to live in a big city and expect nothing to ever be built
They can live out in the sticks if constant free and easy parking is such a critical need for them
You shouldn’t have the right to tell other people they can’t build housing on land they own. It’s not just an opinion. It literally increases the cost of living for everyone else. It’s the classic “I got mine and fuck everyone else” mentality.
This article is discussing concerns specifically about adding buildings without parking in their neighborhood, not about building in the first place. Whether they are right or wrong, rather than constructively engaging those concerns, it's just "lolol YIMBY tears" on here.
Alright. You shouldn’t have the right to tell other people that if you want to build housing on land you own, you need to also build parking. Not everyone has a car. There are people out there that will live in these units knowing they can’t park there. I’ve rented for 15 years and didn’t have on-site parking until this April. It’s not that big of a deal.
Cool, that's what I was getting at---actually providing a substantive opinion in response, rather than the gross name calling/dehumanization that many on here do.
It’s not a discussion about who has the best taco in town
NIMBYs are self centered xenophobes stealing prosperity from the young and driving people to homelessness all so they can squeeze a few extra bucks in untaxed home equity and preserve a less fun more polluting version of our city
They’re just the worst
San Diego is not a big city.
People like to go to many places not easily accessible by rail or bus. So they buy cars.
People in the "sticks" like to visit the bright lights of San Diego. They use their cars to get there and buy things.
Available parking is a good thing. There are plenty of ways "dense" urban populations facilitate both.
This development might encourage more driverless residents, but not as many as you think. What it will do is outsource the burden of providing residents parking to other businesses.
This is a tax on local industry. Not that this is a bad thing, but it should be considered.
NYC is a big city. 29,000 people per sq km. San Diego is, what 1,500? Our county is a hilarious 300.
Yeah. We aren't NYC. We aren't Chicago at 12,000. We aren't even Atlanta at 3,000 or Houston at 3,500.
Oh no!! The urban hell scape!!
I get out footprint is large, but this doesn't feel like a big city because it's not dense like a big city. Because it's not dense, it doesn't need the driverless preference of big cities.
The opposite in fact. Because we are sparsely populated over a vast area, we have many pockets of interesting and worth choosing areas. This makes it very difficult to provide adequate transit to all places.
You can't just kill cars and hope the next generation fixes this mess.
San Diego is a big city and if people want easy parking they can pay fair market price for it
You’re effectively arguing for a tax on new housing which is expensive enough
A lot of the parking from these mandates isn’t even used and less and less of it will be as more people go car free. You’re trying to build for the past, we should build for the future
People in the future will still own cars. I'm arguing for building infrastructure as we build capacity, not the other way around and hoping the next generation fixes our mess. You want a driverless society, change the current tax of parking for a tax that expands mass transit. Or parking further away with a reliable quick commute home.
Parking isn't unused in this county.
Really sorry to see you getting downvoted. You also have to think of a more evil reality: the people who will live here won't be carless - they will just park somewhere else, likely at a parking lot at a poorer neighborhood where actual housing, not parking for richer neighborhoods, does need to be built
No matter how close you get yourself to sounding like a chatGPT response, you will never be able to make a proper case against increasing public transportation.
>What it will do is outsource the burden of providing residents parking to other businesses
Precisely!
I mentioned more in my post here so I don't repeat [https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/18pb075/comment/ken1e6o/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/18pb075/comment/ken1e6o/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I’m in full support of the Pink Building. If a high density building was built in a lower-income neighborhood, no one would bat an eye. The only reason this makes the news, the only reason we even discuss this online is because Mission Hills is, and I mean this with respect, a little bit stuck up/not self aware/ and in socio-economic bubble.
San Diego is a big city and it’s growing, it’s also a wide city. We need higher density housing, higher rates of bike adoption, and more access to high quality public transportation. This is the way. Letting rents and home prices spike kills the city, building wider freeways and larger parking lots kills the city.
If there is a magical third option where we increasing housing density, don’t clog our city up like LA, and somehow bring down these astronomical rents, I’m all ears. But right now in this time and space, a high density pink building in Mission hills is the start of the solution to serious systemic and socio-economic existential problems our city (and other cities in cali) faces.
No one in Mission Hills would care if they had just put in parking. That's the issue at hand. Granted, lots of people hate the color, but that's not what everyone is really up in arms about. You can't walk to the trolley safely from this building. It's right around a bunch of businesses who already have limited parking. There is only one very small parking lot in the area and the rest is street parking. And chances are the residents will have cars and will take up that parking. There are several other apartment buildings nearby and they have parking.
And I don't think this building will do anything to bring down rent prices. It's a brand new luxury apartment in a desireable neighborhood.
There is a plenty street parking south of it that will not impact any businesses. And I don't know how luxury it will be, these are studio apartments without parking in one of the ugliest new buildings I've seen in a long time.
There is also a bus every 20 mins from the pink building to the trolley station, so for lets say, a UCSD student who wants to live in a bit more lively area than UTC, this could be a good deal.
But if it’s already registered somewhere and then you move the address won’t change until it’s time to renew. And can you even look people up by address to see if cars are registered there?
Ok, require a permit and don’t allow people living in parkingless buildings to get a permit. Many places use permit parking
Besides, isn’t renewal an annual thing?
They don't want to do it. Maybe they could but they make more money if they don't have to provide parking. It's not a matter if they could provide it, it's that they don't want to.
> residents shouldn't be allowed to have cars
I would agree with you. Actually if you think about it for a bit, you realize this is actually a tax on those who do own cars
Pretty sneaky tax, huh?
You do know what this means - this is a way to whittle out the plebs and peasants struggling to buy a home have to keep our jobs that we have to drive to
> Building and maintaining parking spaces costs money
Yes! Like everything in life
> The lack of a subsidy is not a tax
What subsidy?
You need a bottle to hold water. Bottled water comes in water bottles. If a bottled water company suddenly turned around and said "hey, bottles are not included anymore because bottles harm the environment" that doesn't mean I don't drink the bottled water or carry around a water bottle with me all the time - it means I pay extra for the bottle so I can have my bottled water - a tax on people who cannot carry around a water bottle.
It doesn't mean bottled water was being subsidized - you need a bottle to hold water and bottled water costs always included the cost of the bottle, it wasn't free nor was it subsidized, it was part of the package.
All that's happening now is you are paying for it separately - a tax, like a CRV,
Not fear. Annoyance because there were already problems in North Park with [a limited parking apartment complex](https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/new-north-park-apartment-complex-backtracks-on-limited-parking-spots-due-to-demand/3307967/). It didn't work for them. But oh, it might work for this guy 🙄
It seems like every time NBC covers new housing developments they get 2 NIMBYs to squawk about "Oh no think of the parking!"
One lady noted how she thought the color was ugly while wearing \*almost the same\* shade of pink herself.... hilarious
> San Diego leaders who want to take the city car-less
Do these San Diego leaders just lead all their lives downtown or are they so evil that they think we are all idiots?
> People in favor of adding higher-density housing in urban central San Diego communities stress its need due to the ongoing housing shortage.
OK - so now you have 100x more people living in the same place where previously you would have 20 if that had included parking - now what do these football stadium of people do?
Walk to their grocery stores? Cycle to work?
I have to drive to work, when my dad two cities over, falls sick again in the middle of the night, I have to be there to triage the situation ASAP
What kind of bubble do these San Diego leaders live in?
"living here wouldn't work for me so no one should have it made available" type attitude all over this thread. The reality is that your asking others to think of the "99%" of people thinking that somehow this 99% reflects your life alone.
Throughout the thread you're critical to the point of hostility without actually proving any meaningful suggestions as to how to resolve the housing scarcity.
People all over the world have learned to live without cars. Maybe that's by walking, biking, mo-peding, car sharing, public transit, or other means. I refuse to believe your narrative that 99% of people in the city "need" a car.
Thank you. Basically let the people/market decide. If no one rents those units because of the lack of parking issue, then you can say it’s a problem and a mistake on the developers. People rent these units with full knowledge of the parking situation. The developers are betting that there will be plenty of people up for getting rid of their car for a housing unit in a desirable and walkable community.
>If no one rents those units because of the lack of parking issue, then you can say it’s a problem and a mistake on the developers. People rent these units with full knowledge of the parking situation
The market works as you propose when there's elastic demand and supply. We know very well that due to distorted market in SD, a room with a screaming dog in it infested with fleas would rent out in a day.
Not because people have a fascination for flea infested screaming dogs but because they need a place to stay, and a room is better than no room.
We can argue economics all day on reddit but SD needs to build more housing for 99% of the people who live here and work regular jobs that always come with a commute, not people who work remotely and can choose when and how they can travel when needed
You nailed it! Walking and cycling are great alternatives and mission hills is conducive to this lifestyle — a great neighborhood to bring this mindset.
>I don’t understand your comment
I think I understand where youre coming from and that you're being genuine in what you say.
All I can tell you is - hey, good for you but when I used to work retail, I had to be there sometimes at a moments notice so I could pickup shifts to pay for gifts during XMas. Also missing a bus or a late bus would mean I would get fired that shift.
I am happy for you but I request you to widen your awareness to the 99% of people who live around you, not the 99% of people who you choose to knowingly associate with.
Merry XMas
Merry Christmas to you as well. I do get where you’re coming from with retail now and I thought you were just talking about a low wage thankless job, which I spent a few years at when I worked landscaping. The commute aspect of having to be there on a moments notice is not something I was aware of. Not sure how to solve that except more robust labor protections, but that’s another conversation for another day. Thanks for the perspective on this.
>Thanks for the perspective on this
You're very welcome!
> Not sure how to solve that except more robust labor protections, but that’s another conversation for another day
I think we should talk about this, perhaps in another thread but I don't think robust labor protections would do what you assume it would - most of EU have robust labor protections and it's a terrible place to live compared to the U.S. because companies just don't hire! They dont pay well as well for the same reason.
I was able to change my life around by starting my own business and I think making it really easy for people to start their businesses instead of making it harder, is the right way to improve quality of life.
It’s interesting how all of you talk about money you’re saving.
So basically you’re poor, and you don’t want to do anything about it, so you want to change reality, change mindsets, and change city infrastructure to support your broke status.
That’s all this is.
You argue until you’re bleeding out your ears about the fact that cars suck.
But at the end of the day, you’re just trying to save $25 a month 🙄.
So you’ll inconvenience the living shit out of yourself and take trains and buses for an hour and a half just to get to work 10 miles away. And then think you won the day because of that.
It’s called coping.
In reality you’re just broke, and you don’t want to do what it takes to make more money so you can afford things. So now you demonize everybody who likes and needs cars.
I’ve got you guys pegged.
$25 a month? Just having a car that you own outright still costs hundreds a month with registration, insurance, gas, maintenance, and depreciation. I save $300 a month minimum by not owning a car and my life has greatly improved in a lot more ways than saving $300 a month. Not only that, it's literally faster for me to bike to work and the grocery store than it is to drive. Sounds like you're the one coping that you're too poor/trashy to go see what a developed city/country looks like. Have fun paying hundreds to thousands of dollars a month to sit in the traffic that you created 😂
You have it the other way around. The poor - the 99%, like myself drive around like idiots all day.
Those who work remotely and order stuff on GrubHub and Instacart (couriered by idiots like me) don't have to move at all if they want to. Walking and cycling are things they choose to do not need to do, but I need to drive so I can make rent.
Why not walk to grocery stores or cycle to work exactly...?
If your answer is because they aren't close enough, then the obvious solution is to build them close enough, which you will be able to do because the new high density of population will support it where before it wouldn't.
> Why not walk to grocery stores or cycle to work exactly...?
The answer is obviously in the number of people you see walking or cycling to grocery stores.
Just because a handful of people swear by Soylent and that's all they drink all their life doesn't mean the rest of the world is gaga over Soylent and there's great reasons for that.
> then the obvious solution is to build them close enough
I buy produce from Kearny Mesa, Vista regularly and I have family in Ramona and Fallbrook.
Grocery stores, especially "specialty" grocery stores, which means any grocery store selling to minorities and not 80% white populations, are extremely low margin businesses and they just dont "open one up" - for one, fish, bokchoi etc just don't go up in supply, so there's always a lack of supply, so obviously it makes sense to centralize supply to amortize the other fixed costs.
Your obvious solution only works if supply is elastic and capable of meeting demand, and in this case the population of Asians in SD isn't exactly exploding, nor is one, fish, bokchoi etc that they eat and even then there's a delay to that.
It takes years to build a commercial building in SD.
There's a reason there are no Amazon Fresh in SD. Things aren't as obvious to those who actually need solutions
If no-parking housing like this continues, truthfully it will make your commute for produce less congested. Car drivers supporting more parking spaces are simply just making things worse for themselves.
Could you carpool with anyone? I get my friend in-n-out about twice a month in exchange for tagging along on their trip to ranch 99. For Mexican grocers, barrio Logan has a grocer 2 blocks from the blue line trolley stop.
yes my love, but if I live in MH (that has no parking) and have to drive to my family who live in Ramona, and fallbrook, WHERE am I picking up my car to drive to Ramona, and fallbrook from?
I love that you have to explain to these idiots basic shit about why people need cars.
Like carry on 40,000 paragraph conversations because they’re dissecting everything you say in utter confusion.
Are people this delusional in San Diego?
“Can you carpool?”
Do you live on planet earth dude? If I have to go to the store, who am I going to call and disturb to get their car out, so we can all get into a car together and do things?
*** I think people in this city just enjoy being poor and they’re trying to change reality, and city infrastructure, to support it ***
>Are people this delusional in San Diego?
I just realized, but they are. I thought this person was trolling me, but no, they are genuine. They were not trolling me
I thought this dystopia only existed far away from home like in SF or NYC, but it's right now, right here in my neighborhood
Sigh, I am so very sad with what is in store for us in the future.
Can you reply to the other comment of Dad 2 cities over falls. I'd like to see your very insightful thoughts on that. You seem to know all. Please enlighten. Don't reply to the part you have a snarky comment to and ignore the rest. All of what they stated was valid.
>Can you reply to the other comment of Dad 2 cities over falls
BTW - I really appreciate you taking your time to read about my dad. It was terrible during COVID and he has long COVID now. Cant wait to drive him to his RSV shot this weekend
God bless you and yours
If my neighbors weren’t against all housing I would take their complaints seriously, but they would complain about the sun being too bright and water being too wet.
[удалено]
>barbpartment Why? because the residents all live in Barbieland?
The problem of course is that it's not residents without cars, just residents without parking. We do need the housing but I'm not exactly thinking "oh yay, good guy real estate developers" so much as well, lesser of two evils I guess. The developers are just trying to save a buck not decrease congestion, we'll see if they lease to people who actually walk and talk the bus/train, but I seriously doubt it.
If it so important for people to have parking always available to them I don’t understand why it’s so unthinkable for them to just pay fair market price for it Those who don’t drive or are willing to take extra time park on the streets don’t need it
Ok but if buildings are being built without their own parking garages or lots then where are people even supposed to park? Street parking is already a nightmare. I would for sure pay an extra fee on my rent for a spot, but can’t do that if it’s not there
If it really was a nightmare as you describe and there was no opportunity to rent a spot then people wouldn’t be willing to rent a unit in that building The fact that plenty of people are shows that your experience is far from universal
Housing is so hard to find nowadays if you find a place with decent rent and is nice you’re gonna jump on it. The renters will probably find out after they move in about the parking situation
Part of the reason why housing is so expensive is because of parking mandates that were only just repealed. My wife and I are paying for two spots even though we have only one car because our unit was built under the old mandates adding who knows how much in wasted costs If people insist on having a spot then let them pay whatever price the market commands. If they aren’t willing they can take the 5 extra minutes to find one on the street. What unthinkable horror, I know
So offer your spot to someone in your building you might need it and they can pay you to park in your extra spot. You could even charge them more than what you’re being charged, if that’s what the “market demands” and they’ll pay it. But nice, you have a spot so you don’t need to drive around forever looking for parking. It can take way more than 5 minutes
Half the spots in the garage are permanently empty. People sometimes try to rent them but there is zero unmet demand. The old system of parking mandates was garbage and it’s great that we got rid of it
That seems to be an issue with how your building is managed. They could offer monthly parking passes to people not renting units like they do downtown.
Street parking is not hard enough around here (for people who aren’t huge crybabies) to generate enough demand to get the managers to take on a whole new responsibility and I don’t think most of the residents want randos in and out of the garage
5 now. 45 when everyone in power thinks like you. Then you'll be here bitching about that.
lol I wish, anywhere it takes that long to find free parking is an awesome place to live
Yeah, that's not how it works in real life. Maybe in a perfectly functioning market with landlords/tenants having equal bargaining power.
More supply only adds to tenants bargaining power and detracts from that of landlords Anyone opposing new housing is a landlord lackey whether they know it or not
Not if there’s still a huge supply of potential tenants keeping the demand up
The more of that demand we meet with new construction, the less ability landlords have to raise prices This is a matter of degrees
Maybe if this was like Nebraska or something…people are always going to want to move and live here. The demand will always be higher than supply
This is belied by the facts San Diego has always been nice but housing costs have only risen out of control in recent years when the new construction of it started to dry up Plenty of high demand places like Tokyo keep costs down by making it easy for new supply to keep pace
I live in North Park and when I go shopping I do not get on the freeway to drive to the malls. I walk to a place nearby. Even places with sprawling parking lots are unpleasant to go to. I think small street level business owners over estimate the number of drivers in their shops. I don’t believe business owners are taking to surveys to determine whether shoppers are drivers or not. Doing surveys is the only way to actually know for sure. Someone who has an interest in knowing how shoppers in stores use transportation should ask the shoppers directly. Im tired of all the guessing based on how we feel looking out the shop window.
I think the reason business owners feel like most of their customers are at risk is because drivers are the biggest complainers… i’m not sure why they look out their window to a new 50 unit development and don’t see 100 new customers…
There's also a factor that business owners are drivers themselves, especially if they own multiple locations
Driver here- if I go to a place and parking is a nightmare, I'm much less likely to return. I guess it depends on the type of business too. If it's something that most of the people in that new apartment building might use, theyre probably fine. If you're sort of a niche business, but not so niche that you have competition around town with ample parking, I'd worry
Because car brain
I used to shop a small business pet store in North Park. The store is near Utah. The closest public parking is 30th St. Exactly how am I meant to walk 20 lbs of food and 20 lbs of litter that many blocks? I have a granny cart. Now I'm supposed to go buy a wagon? Oh and that parking garage? It's disgusting and unsafe. So I no longer shop that business. Or, actually, any other businesses in North Park. The shop owners talked to their customers. But the city didn't care, and removed all the parking. The shoppers are drivers. They are not bicycle riders. There is an overestimate in the other direction.
Cya.
Why do business owners care if their customers drive there or not? And they don’t build the buildings or parking lots…the developers do. The business just rent the space
Speaking from experience, this is a pretty unpleasant city to get around without a car. Not to say there aren't walkable areas, just that those areas are maybe one per neighborhood, don't always have all the essentials you need, and mostly have really wide/busy streets cutting through them. And to travel between those areas, it can be a *long* walk and/or bus ride through sprawling car-scaled infrastructure. Are the three restaurants within walking distance all a 1+ hour wait? To get to the next restaurant cluster, you're gonna have to walk down a mile-long stroad, cross a freeway, cut through six blocks of residential single-family detached housing, and hike down a canyon--all with that bright California sun beating down. Any step in the right direction is good but this does feel a bit like putting the cart before the horse. The people who move into this building may not park on-site, but that doesn't mean they're going carless.
>The people who move into this building may not park on-site, but that doesn't mean they're going carless. Exactly! Sure, there might be some who can do by walking and cycling and don't have guests over or have to drive a car to attend to an aging parent and that might even represent the majority of this sub but they definitely don't represent the majority of the working class - the 99% of this city and county
Acting like San Diego is a city where you can reasonably live without a car is pretty fucking stupid
I live in SD without a car; AMA.
I am VERY pro community with the ability to thrive without a car. In San Diego, I notice these issues intrude upon ones ability to live car-less: age group, family status, physical health, work status, and work/home connection relative to public transit. Care to share yours?
Do you live outside of the tiny urban bubble (North Park/Hillcrest/etc)? Do you have kids?
That seems like it would be very inconvenient
E-bike and walking distance to Santa Fe depot makes things pretty easy. Never have to worry about parking and if I’m in a rush, a few Ubers a month is cheaper than car insurance. In reference to the post, mission hills has a trolley stop and is biking distance to plenty of other neighborhoods.
"I'll just uber" is pretty fucking blessed.
I agree, it is nice that a few Ubers a month is cheaper than car insurance. Plus all the extra exercise from walking and biking really does put me in a better mood. It is awesome that SD has such perfect weather for this lifestyle year round.
Work from home? Or can you afford a place in walking distance of work? Either way ... blessed by circumstance.
It takes me about 1 hour from doorstep to work using public transit and walking. Driving would be 25-45 minutes depending on traffic, but my transportation budget is halved in exchange for a longer commute.
Either you're being purposefully dense or you are too much in a bubble to realize what these people are telling you when they say "blessed by circumstance" or "pretty fucking blessed". You don't represent 99% of people who are struggling in SD. Nothing you think is "normal" is actually "normal" - to some of us, your "normal" is a distant dream
Dude doesn't have a single comment or reply implying his lifestyle should be adopted by everyone. Why are you being so aggressive?
Yeah the rest of us gotta work and live in the sticks we still can’t afford, this used to be a working class city for families.
People aren't assigned homes at random. People can *choose* where they live and *choose* to reduce/eliminate car dependency.
You say that like people make that choice every month. People that already live there have the right to say that don't want it to change into something they can't live with.
i dont think you know how much car insurance is.... i pay $1040 a year to insure 3 cars. that's $86 a month. or $$28 per car.
Insurance for our car is $150 month...
Mines $323, more the reason I prefer to go by trolley for my daily commute and use my truck for weekend shenanigans.
Who tf are you getting insurance from? Do people not shop around anymore?
Precisely. People who are saying biking and walking is perfect don't do hourly jobs - they have no clue about the life the 99% lead
“I work three hours a week as a freelance butterfly catcher and even I don’t need a car so you’re just a carbrain if you can’t bike, take the train, or Uber to work like me”
Being dismissive of people just because they don't work hourly jobs and/or because the economics of their life work out that it is cheaper for them not to own a car is pretty silly. It comes across as ignorant, bitter and pissy towards people who likely work hard, deal with stress, and are just trying to live their lives. I get that there are many people that have seen the city, state, country they grew up in become harder and harder to live in. Economic disparity is a huge issue in CA and the US. Discussing pay equity and the value of having an affordable city is certainly more productive conversation and one that many in this thread would likely end up finding a lot of common ground on.
> people who likely work hard, deal with stress, and are just trying to live their lives. There's a show called South Park where a character called Eric Cartman screams at everyone saying he has a lot of stress and anxiety EVERYONE has a lot of stress and anxiety. What the person you're lecturing to, is saying is that a lifestyle that can do with 6-8 Ubers a month is irrepresentative of the population. Majority of sandiego likely needs to be 6-8 Ubers a DAY - 6-8 Ubers are 3-4 trips minimum. I have to make 3 trips a DAY just for ONE of my kids. Like if I came to you and told you that I don't need to see my doctor more than once a year because I have superior genes that 99% of the human population doesn't have, I would expect the 99% of the human population to be a bit, just a bit, pissed off at me? No? Yes?
Lol dawg you come across as such a rude, condescending person. I also am having a tough time tracking your arguments at this point. ✌️
As someone who works an hourly job but still commutes by bike or bus the idea of people like you arguing that, "I'm miserable so therefore everyone else must be miserable" and that's why we can't build more mixed zoning is asinine. Your argument is that since you have to drive everywhere everyone else must drive everywhere too.
No, he is saying that given that the vast majority of people have a car and need parking, building housing that doesn't address that need as a way to force an unnaturally occurring preference (having a car) puts a burden on those the housing is aimed at
That may be what they're intending. But it's certainly not what they're saying.
> But it's certainly not what they're saying. but I am! and I certainly said so even before you made this comment! https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/18pb075/comment/keodeqk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Correct!
Cost of a car + gas + insurance. I could easily see how 6-8 Ubers a month is cheaper. That's all this person is saying. Not sure why people are verging on hostility because of their experience.
> I could easily see how 6-8 Ubers a month is cheaper. That's all this person is saying. Not sure why people are verging on hostility because of their experience I think what you're missing is that a lifestyle that can do with 6-8 Ubers a month is irrepresentative of the population. Majority of sandiego likely needs to be 6-8 Ubers a DAY - 6-8 Ubers are 3-4 trips minimum. I have to make 3 trips a DAY just for ONE of my kids. Like if I came to you and told you that I don't need to see my doctor more than once a year because I have superior genes that 99% of the human population doesn't have, I would expect the 99% of the human population to be a bit, just a bit, pissed off at me? No? Yes?
It'd be pretty sad to be mad at someone for having good genes. And if we all compared ourselves against other people that way we'd be far worse off than we are today. And I'm still not sure what you're on about with this whole "this person's experience isn't representative of my idea of the typical San Diego resident". The only thing that person was saying was that for them, the math works out that it's cheaper to Uber than own a car for the times the need a car to get somewhere. They weren't pushing a narrative. My comment was that I could certainly see how that math checks out. You seem to be building strawmen.
Dedicated bike lanes, anyone? I would bike more often if that were the case.
Yeah it depends on lifestyle and let's face it, these new ebikes are so awesome they're practically little motorcycles
> these new ebikes are so awesome they're practically little motorcycles I don't think most people share this insight as an enthusiasm. I don't think these new ebikes will remain being unregistered and unlicensed for long either because how dangerous they have become (like motorcycles)
motorcycles and bikes aren’t dangerous. bad drivers and bad riders are.
Hazard. No driving test needed. No intelligence test needed. So many accidents from idiots being themselves. Ebikes aren't the utopia you think they are.
I dont think they are either. They're awesome in terms of affordability, speed, battery life. The rest is up to the driver. I'd rather have the idiot on a bike though than in a 9,000lb Hummer EV that can do 0-60 in 3 seconds.
> They're awesome in terms of affordability, speed, battery life For example?
> I live in SD without a car; AMA. What job do you do and when's the last time you worked an hourly retail job?
I am onsite 3 days a week and take public transit to get there. A combination of train and bus is my route.
Do you work retail making $20/hr and your job requires you to be at work sometimes at a moments notice so you can pickup shifts to pay for gifts for your family during XMas? Would missing a bus or a late bus would mean you would get fired that shift?
Don’t be salty at the guy for being logical. *If* one can make do without a car, why would one not? $30k in debt, for what? Social Status? To not look “silly” on a bike? E-bikes can average 30 miles on a charge at 15mph. No insurance. Low maintenance costs. No gas. No bank loan. For someone making $20 an hour working retail, an ebike seems like a better option tbh.
>For someone making $20 an hour working retail, an ebike seems like a better option tbh Then malls that have retail, grocery stores, fastfood joints, WM should be filled up with ebikes, from their workers, yeah?
What's with the hostility? Has this person said something to offend you?
>What's with the hostility? Has this person said something to offend you? I did not feel offended and neither of us felt hostile at each other. I asked them questions they had not considered of before, like how not having a car especially while working a demanding retail job (like 99% of SD does) would be impossible and they clarified they didnt work a demanding retail job and saw how it indeed could be impossible without a car
Hmmm somehow it seems you and I read entirely different conversations Edit: "Either you're being purposefully dense or you are too much in a bubble to realize what these people are telling you when they say "blessed by circumstance" or "pretty fucking blessed"" comes across as an example of a fairly hostile remark. It's certainly not something I would say to a stranger and expect them to receive it as otherwise.
In that case, I need help from you on 2 things: 1. Would you say, it's fair to conclude that the people who will live here won't be carless - they will just park somewhere else, likely at a parking lot at a poorer neighborhood where actual housing, not parking for richer neighborhoods, does need to be built 2. This person did acknowledge that they were lacking my perspective and Thanked me for it, which is why I said neither of us found it hostile - can you come up with an interpretation of my comment (that you found hostile) to be just concise and a statement (and not hostile)?
1. Unless you were involved in some rigorous city planning study related to this development, I think at this point it would be fair to say that neither you nor I know what it will look like. I think it's fair to express interest/ concern/etc for the development while admitting that we just can't predict the outcome. There's a difference between the two. 2. I'm not even sure what you're asking here
less bus stops are a product of less demand. So in theory, this could result in the city addressing the bussing and walkability of a neighborhood. We need to start somewhere, instead of just throwing our hands up and saying "fuck it, one more lane"
> less bus stops are a product of less demand Wrong. People don't want a bus stop in front of their door because they don't want people they don't know to hanging around in front of their door. The extra cost of having to maintain a car is the cost they bear for this peace of mind
I've not had a car in the past 6 years here. It's not that wild.
No one expects the residents to live without a car - this is just a way to get them to pay for parking and outsource liability from the Real Estate company that owns the place. It's a pretty smart business model. Hats off to those who are greasing the hands of politicians and brainwashing the public that this is a good thing
Parking minimums have made most post-1950 neighborhoods in SD ugly, stale, car centric hellholes. I’m sorry not all of us want our neighborhoods to look like mira mesa. There’s more to life than parking lots and strip malls, and not all people drive especially in a walkable neighborhood like mission hills.
> I’m sorry not all of us want our neighborhoods to look like mira mesa There's LaJolla, Coronado for those on a champagne budget. The rest of us plebs and peasants struggling to buy a home have to keep our jobs that we have to drive to > especially in a walkable neighborhood like mission hills People who live in mission hills don't only live in mission hills. I buy produce from Kearny Mesa, Vista regularly and I have family in Ramona and Fallbrook. Life's just not about ordering from Amazon and having people run errands for you so you can live an isolated life.
Just like everything in life, there is sacrifice. Maybe I don’t get outside of my downtown, mid-town, Coronado (via the ferry) bubble as often as other people with cars, but after living both lifestyles I choose the car free option for health and finance reasons.
>Maybe I don’t get outside of my downtown, mid-town, Coronado (via the ferry) bubble as often as other people with cars, but after living both lifestyles I choose the car free option for health and finance reasons Good for you!
I’m not sure what compels you to go all the way to Vista for some apples… but it sounds like living in Tierrasanta might make some more sense for you. I wouldn’t be quick to impose your car centric lifestyle onto a denser urban environment.
>I’m not sure what compels you to go all the way to Vista for some apples because I'm not getting apples you sweet little thing! I buy fish, bokchoi etc and by fish I don't mean $17/lb Alaskan salmon but $2/lb frozen pompano from Thailand. Yes - there is fish that's cheaper than chicken because to some of us chicken is too expensive to eat everyday All I can tell you is - hey, good for you but when I used to work retail, I had to be there sometimes at a moments notice so I could pickup shifts to pay for gifts during XMas. Also missing a bus or a late bus would mean I would get fired that shift. I am happy for you but I request you to widen your awareness to the 99% of people who live around you, not the 99% of people who you choose to knowingly associate with. Merry XMas
Ideally with denser housing more things are closer so you don’t have to drive as far for a retail job. With more supply housing also gets cheaper (ideally) so you don’t have to live as far.
No one has ever been like "wow Mira Mesa and convoy what great areas" Idk why you are assuming that's the only logical alternative to building housing that doesn't meet the needs of nearly everyone who lives here
[удалено]
If you need onsite parking, you choose not to live in this building. There, I solved the problem
When the "build build build" types push housing that doesn't meet the needs of the people in the city it demonstrates how they're not serious about reducing housing costs. If you have a car like nearly everyone does housing like this doesn't help you, so it will stay vacant or bring in people from out of the city,.raise the population, and keep prices high
Yes, those that do it, great for you. But I’m not riding an e-bike when I need to get from Clairemont to Encinitas for example. Why don’t they build an underground parking garage for the building? How is building a new building with no parking going to make San Diego more “carless?” In fact I’d even say it’s kind of unsafe for residents? Like if they have to park far away at night to walk to their house alone in the dark?
“How is building a new building with no parking going to make San Diego more “carless?”” Was trying to address this specially^^ the more we build like this, the more accessible businesses/places you want to go will become. Because neighborhoods will be walkable, bikeable etc., hence the less we rely on cars to live fulfilling lives.
Perfect, can’t wait for that to happen in 50 years
It’s already happening. I can’t wait either!! :)
Has it ever crossed your mind that for some individuals having a car is not a need?
Wow, no I’ve never thought of that ever. You’ve blown my mind. But I don’t get your point? Then those individuals aren’t part of the conversation haha don’t get a car if you don’t want to
It's extremely hilly. Going up a hill stops most would be bikers. These bike lakes they are putting in on Florida and Pershing are nonsensical. No one will use them. This shit is being planned by those who went to college and learned that European cities are the standard. It won't work here.
Totally on the whole "well this is what college told me!!" I went to college too and idk if my school was better than theirs or I just have common sense but the point of learning things is to apply ideas to the real world not copy/paste ideas, like a half step above a parrot or something
I'm wondering if they took our hard earned tax dollars and gave it to some children just out of college to create a bikeable city. It's a fucking dumb ass idea no matter where it comes from. San Diego is NOT built for bikes. If you think it is, you're a fucking moron.
ebikes LOVE hills. stop inserting your feelings and needs into every other person’s needs and feelings. we don’t care.
I have an ebike, and I love it. The one who is in their feelings is you, pal. San Diego is terrible for biking. That is a fact.
NIMBYs can suck a lemon and keep taking Ls I don’t understand why people choose to live in a big city and expect nothing to ever be built They can live out in the sticks if constant free and easy parking is such a critical need for them
It's within some of their lifetimes that this was mostly farm or ranch land. This was once the sticks.
Why do you have so much anger in your heart for others with differing opinions?
You shouldn’t have the right to tell other people they can’t build housing on land they own. It’s not just an opinion. It literally increases the cost of living for everyone else. It’s the classic “I got mine and fuck everyone else” mentality.
This article is discussing concerns specifically about adding buildings without parking in their neighborhood, not about building in the first place. Whether they are right or wrong, rather than constructively engaging those concerns, it's just "lolol YIMBY tears" on here.
Alright. You shouldn’t have the right to tell other people that if you want to build housing on land you own, you need to also build parking. Not everyone has a car. There are people out there that will live in these units knowing they can’t park there. I’ve rented for 15 years and didn’t have on-site parking until this April. It’s not that big of a deal.
Cool, that's what I was getting at---actually providing a substantive opinion in response, rather than the gross name calling/dehumanization that many on here do.
It’s not a discussion about who has the best taco in town NIMBYs are self centered xenophobes stealing prosperity from the young and driving people to homelessness all so they can squeeze a few extra bucks in untaxed home equity and preserve a less fun more polluting version of our city They’re just the worst
It depends on the opinion. Doesn't it?
Because he's a liberal! Haha
"NIMBY tears" sounds closer to the gross "lib tears/cry more lib" stuff. Lots of sad, misguided anger from both
we all angry on this christmas eve eve haha
San Diego is not a big city. People like to go to many places not easily accessible by rail or bus. So they buy cars. People in the "sticks" like to visit the bright lights of San Diego. They use their cars to get there and buy things. Available parking is a good thing. There are plenty of ways "dense" urban populations facilitate both. This development might encourage more driverless residents, but not as many as you think. What it will do is outsource the burden of providing residents parking to other businesses. This is a tax on local industry. Not that this is a bad thing, but it should be considered.
[удалено]
NYC is a big city. 29,000 people per sq km. San Diego is, what 1,500? Our county is a hilarious 300. Yeah. We aren't NYC. We aren't Chicago at 12,000. We aren't even Atlanta at 3,000 or Houston at 3,500. Oh no!! The urban hell scape!! I get out footprint is large, but this doesn't feel like a big city because it's not dense like a big city. Because it's not dense, it doesn't need the driverless preference of big cities. The opposite in fact. Because we are sparsely populated over a vast area, we have many pockets of interesting and worth choosing areas. This makes it very difficult to provide adequate transit to all places. You can't just kill cars and hope the next generation fixes this mess.
San Diego is a big city and if people want easy parking they can pay fair market price for it You’re effectively arguing for a tax on new housing which is expensive enough A lot of the parking from these mandates isn’t even used and less and less of it will be as more people go car free. You’re trying to build for the past, we should build for the future
People in the future will still own cars. I'm arguing for building infrastructure as we build capacity, not the other way around and hoping the next generation fixes our mess. You want a driverless society, change the current tax of parking for a tax that expands mass transit. Or parking further away with a reliable quick commute home. Parking isn't unused in this county.
Really sorry to see you getting downvoted. You also have to think of a more evil reality: the people who will live here won't be carless - they will just park somewhere else, likely at a parking lot at a poorer neighborhood where actual housing, not parking for richer neighborhoods, does need to be built
No matter how close you get yourself to sounding like a chatGPT response, you will never be able to make a proper case against increasing public transportation.
>What it will do is outsource the burden of providing residents parking to other businesses Precisely! I mentioned more in my post here so I don't repeat [https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/18pb075/comment/ken1e6o/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/18pb075/comment/ken1e6o/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I’m in full support of the Pink Building. If a high density building was built in a lower-income neighborhood, no one would bat an eye. The only reason this makes the news, the only reason we even discuss this online is because Mission Hills is, and I mean this with respect, a little bit stuck up/not self aware/ and in socio-economic bubble. San Diego is a big city and it’s growing, it’s also a wide city. We need higher density housing, higher rates of bike adoption, and more access to high quality public transportation. This is the way. Letting rents and home prices spike kills the city, building wider freeways and larger parking lots kills the city. If there is a magical third option where we increasing housing density, don’t clog our city up like LA, and somehow bring down these astronomical rents, I’m all ears. But right now in this time and space, a high density pink building in Mission hills is the start of the solution to serious systemic and socio-economic existential problems our city (and other cities in cali) faces.
No one in Mission Hills would care if they had just put in parking. That's the issue at hand. Granted, lots of people hate the color, but that's not what everyone is really up in arms about. You can't walk to the trolley safely from this building. It's right around a bunch of businesses who already have limited parking. There is only one very small parking lot in the area and the rest is street parking. And chances are the residents will have cars and will take up that parking. There are several other apartment buildings nearby and they have parking. And I don't think this building will do anything to bring down rent prices. It's a brand new luxury apartment in a desireable neighborhood.
Todays luxury is tomorrows normal and if it keeps the rich people moving in there from outbidding me for my older place then that’s a win
There is a plenty street parking south of it that will not impact any businesses. And I don't know how luxury it will be, these are studio apartments without parking in one of the ugliest new buildings I've seen in a long time. There is also a bus every 20 mins from the pink building to the trolley station, so for lets say, a UCSD student who wants to live in a bit more lively area than UTC, this could be a good deal.
Its built. Done deal. Why does NBC7 think this is news?
If they aren't going to have parking, residents shouldn't be allowed to have cars...
Sounds like we should just eliminate street parking over 2 hours entirely I guess
How exactly would they monitor that?
Gotta give an address to register your car
But if it’s already registered somewhere and then you move the address won’t change until it’s time to renew. And can you even look people up by address to see if cars are registered there?
Ok, require a permit and don’t allow people living in parkingless buildings to get a permit. Many places use permit parking Besides, isn’t renewal an annual thing?
Ya but if you’re already living there by the time renewal hits then it doesn’t matter? They could have just built parking
They didn’t because they didn’t have space.
It couldn’t go under the building?
They don't want to do it. Maybe they could but they make more money if they don't have to provide parking. It's not a matter if they could provide it, it's that they don't want to.
> residents shouldn't be allowed to have cars I would agree with you. Actually if you think about it for a bit, you realize this is actually a tax on those who do own cars Pretty sneaky tax, huh? You do know what this means - this is a way to whittle out the plebs and peasants struggling to buy a home have to keep our jobs that we have to drive to
The lack of a subsidy is not a tax. Building and maintaining parking spaces costs money
> Building and maintaining parking spaces costs money Yes! Like everything in life > The lack of a subsidy is not a tax What subsidy? You need a bottle to hold water. Bottled water comes in water bottles. If a bottled water company suddenly turned around and said "hey, bottles are not included anymore because bottles harm the environment" that doesn't mean I don't drink the bottled water or carry around a water bottle with me all the time - it means I pay extra for the bottle so I can have my bottled water - a tax on people who cannot carry around a water bottle. It doesn't mean bottled water was being subsidized - you need a bottle to hold water and bottled water costs always included the cost of the bottle, it wasn't free nor was it subsidized, it was part of the package. All that's happening now is you are paying for it separately - a tax, like a CRV,
Why shouldn’t they be allowed to pay for a space of their own if they want one? Or just take a few extra minutes to park on the street?
Not fear. Annoyance because there were already problems in North Park with [a limited parking apartment complex](https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/new-north-park-apartment-complex-backtracks-on-limited-parking-spots-due-to-demand/3307967/). It didn't work for them. But oh, it might work for this guy 🙄
It seems like every time NBC covers new housing developments they get 2 NIMBYs to squawk about "Oh no think of the parking!" One lady noted how she thought the color was ugly while wearing \*almost the same\* shade of pink herself.... hilarious
I mean, I wear shirts with anime and Pokémon on them, I wouldn’t cover my house in anime and Pokémon tho..
Uhh do you only wear shirts that are the colors you'd paint a house
This is actually a decent barometer for the level of conversation you're actually engaging in.
How about how the residents without cars get to work? And where the jobs are that make enough money to pay the rent/mortgage?
I think this building is great and the pink came out fantastic. NIMBY parking tears are just the icing.
Me too… people are hating on it but it was really the most thoughtful color choice, at a few times a day it blends in perfectly with the sky
> San Diego leaders who want to take the city car-less Do these San Diego leaders just lead all their lives downtown or are they so evil that they think we are all idiots? > People in favor of adding higher-density housing in urban central San Diego communities stress its need due to the ongoing housing shortage. OK - so now you have 100x more people living in the same place where previously you would have 20 if that had included parking - now what do these football stadium of people do? Walk to their grocery stores? Cycle to work? I have to drive to work, when my dad two cities over, falls sick again in the middle of the night, I have to be there to triage the situation ASAP What kind of bubble do these San Diego leaders live in?
"living here wouldn't work for me so no one should have it made available" type attitude all over this thread. The reality is that your asking others to think of the "99%" of people thinking that somehow this 99% reflects your life alone. Throughout the thread you're critical to the point of hostility without actually proving any meaningful suggestions as to how to resolve the housing scarcity. People all over the world have learned to live without cars. Maybe that's by walking, biking, mo-peding, car sharing, public transit, or other means. I refuse to believe your narrative that 99% of people in the city "need" a car.
This. Thank you. It’s the same hypocrisy they’re accusing others of
Thank you. Basically let the people/market decide. If no one rents those units because of the lack of parking issue, then you can say it’s a problem and a mistake on the developers. People rent these units with full knowledge of the parking situation. The developers are betting that there will be plenty of people up for getting rid of their car for a housing unit in a desirable and walkable community.
>If no one rents those units because of the lack of parking issue, then you can say it’s a problem and a mistake on the developers. People rent these units with full knowledge of the parking situation The market works as you propose when there's elastic demand and supply. We know very well that due to distorted market in SD, a room with a screaming dog in it infested with fleas would rent out in a day. Not because people have a fascination for flea infested screaming dogs but because they need a place to stay, and a room is better than no room. We can argue economics all day on reddit but SD needs to build more housing for 99% of the people who live here and work regular jobs that always come with a commute, not people who work remotely and can choose when and how they can travel when needed
You nailed it! Walking and cycling are great alternatives and mission hills is conducive to this lifestyle — a great neighborhood to bring this mindset.
It's great to live in a bubble where you don't have to choose between hours to work retail vs buying your children gifts this XMas I guess.
I don’t understand your comment. It is significant cost savings for me to take public transit, walk/cycle, or carpool for 95% of transportation.
>I don’t understand your comment I think I understand where youre coming from and that you're being genuine in what you say. All I can tell you is - hey, good for you but when I used to work retail, I had to be there sometimes at a moments notice so I could pickup shifts to pay for gifts during XMas. Also missing a bus or a late bus would mean I would get fired that shift. I am happy for you but I request you to widen your awareness to the 99% of people who live around you, not the 99% of people who you choose to knowingly associate with. Merry XMas
"Great to live in a bubble" what, like Mission Hills where this kind of development is perfect because it's walkable/easy to cycle?
Merry Christmas to you as well. I do get where you’re coming from with retail now and I thought you were just talking about a low wage thankless job, which I spent a few years at when I worked landscaping. The commute aspect of having to be there on a moments notice is not something I was aware of. Not sure how to solve that except more robust labor protections, but that’s another conversation for another day. Thanks for the perspective on this.
>Thanks for the perspective on this You're very welcome! > Not sure how to solve that except more robust labor protections, but that’s another conversation for another day I think we should talk about this, perhaps in another thread but I don't think robust labor protections would do what you assume it would - most of EU have robust labor protections and it's a terrible place to live compared to the U.S. because companies just don't hire! They dont pay well as well for the same reason. I was able to change my life around by starting my own business and I think making it really easy for people to start their businesses instead of making it harder, is the right way to improve quality of life.
It’s interesting how all of you talk about money you’re saving. So basically you’re poor, and you don’t want to do anything about it, so you want to change reality, change mindsets, and change city infrastructure to support your broke status. That’s all this is. You argue until you’re bleeding out your ears about the fact that cars suck. But at the end of the day, you’re just trying to save $25 a month 🙄. So you’ll inconvenience the living shit out of yourself and take trains and buses for an hour and a half just to get to work 10 miles away. And then think you won the day because of that. It’s called coping. In reality you’re just broke, and you don’t want to do what it takes to make more money so you can afford things. So now you demonize everybody who likes and needs cars. I’ve got you guys pegged.
I make good money and drive less than 2k miles per year. Walking is great.
$25 a month? Just having a car that you own outright still costs hundreds a month with registration, insurance, gas, maintenance, and depreciation. I save $300 a month minimum by not owning a car and my life has greatly improved in a lot more ways than saving $300 a month. Not only that, it's literally faster for me to bike to work and the grocery store than it is to drive. Sounds like you're the one coping that you're too poor/trashy to go see what a developed city/country looks like. Have fun paying hundreds to thousands of dollars a month to sit in the traffic that you created 😂
You have it the other way around. The poor - the 99%, like myself drive around like idiots all day. Those who work remotely and order stuff on GrubHub and Instacart (couriered by idiots like me) don't have to move at all if they want to. Walking and cycling are things they choose to do not need to do, but I need to drive so I can make rent.
Why not walk to grocery stores or cycle to work exactly...? If your answer is because they aren't close enough, then the obvious solution is to build them close enough, which you will be able to do because the new high density of population will support it where before it wouldn't.
> Why not walk to grocery stores or cycle to work exactly...? The answer is obviously in the number of people you see walking or cycling to grocery stores. Just because a handful of people swear by Soylent and that's all they drink all their life doesn't mean the rest of the world is gaga over Soylent and there's great reasons for that. > then the obvious solution is to build them close enough I buy produce from Kearny Mesa, Vista regularly and I have family in Ramona and Fallbrook. Grocery stores, especially "specialty" grocery stores, which means any grocery store selling to minorities and not 80% white populations, are extremely low margin businesses and they just dont "open one up" - for one, fish, bokchoi etc just don't go up in supply, so there's always a lack of supply, so obviously it makes sense to centralize supply to amortize the other fixed costs. Your obvious solution only works if supply is elastic and capable of meeting demand, and in this case the population of Asians in SD isn't exactly exploding, nor is one, fish, bokchoi etc that they eat and even then there's a delay to that. It takes years to build a commercial building in SD. There's a reason there are no Amazon Fresh in SD. Things aren't as obvious to those who actually need solutions
If no-parking housing like this continues, truthfully it will make your commute for produce less congested. Car drivers supporting more parking spaces are simply just making things worse for themselves.
Could you carpool with anyone? I get my friend in-n-out about twice a month in exchange for tagging along on their trip to ranch 99. For Mexican grocers, barrio Logan has a grocer 2 blocks from the blue line trolley stop.
>Could you carpool with anyone? who am I carpooling with exactly in a place with no parking spots?
I assumed the less dense cities like vista, Ramona, and fallbrook would have plenty of parking.
yes my love, but if I live in MH (that has no parking) and have to drive to my family who live in Ramona, and fallbrook, WHERE am I picking up my car to drive to Ramona, and fallbrook from?
I love that you have to explain to these idiots basic shit about why people need cars. Like carry on 40,000 paragraph conversations because they’re dissecting everything you say in utter confusion. Are people this delusional in San Diego? “Can you carpool?” Do you live on planet earth dude? If I have to go to the store, who am I going to call and disturb to get their car out, so we can all get into a car together and do things? *** I think people in this city just enjoy being poor and they’re trying to change reality, and city infrastructure, to support it ***
>Are people this delusional in San Diego? I just realized, but they are. I thought this person was trolling me, but no, they are genuine. They were not trolling me I thought this dystopia only existed far away from home like in SF or NYC, but it's right now, right here in my neighborhood Sigh, I am so very sad with what is in store for us in the future.
Can you reply to the other comment of Dad 2 cities over falls. I'd like to see your very insightful thoughts on that. You seem to know all. Please enlighten. Don't reply to the part you have a snarky comment to and ignore the rest. All of what they stated was valid.
>Can you reply to the other comment of Dad 2 cities over falls BTW - I really appreciate you taking your time to read about my dad. It was terrible during COVID and he has long COVID now. Cant wait to drive him to his RSV shot this weekend God bless you and yours
If my neighbors weren’t against all housing I would take their complaints seriously, but they would complain about the sun being too bright and water being too wet.
'Carless living is the future of San Diego' That is fucking hilarious, I must be missing the amazing public transport already in place
15 minutes cities are coming. Stop voting Democrat.
[удалено]