Worldwide opposition is developing to construction that blocks scenic views. In such places as Tokyo, New York, San Francisco, and Hollywood—not to mention Danville, and Orinda, CA— local residents are rising up to block central planners’ dreams of building structures that will prevent people from seeing their surroundings.
Locally, movements to protect viewing rights are taking place in Danville, Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, and Livermore. In Tokyo, protestors are trying to stop the construction of buildings that will prevent local residents from seeing Mount Fuji.
In the Washington Heights section of Manhattan, residents want to prevent high-rise buildings from being constructed. Washington Heights is that area of Manhattan where one end of the George Washington Bridge touches Manhattan.
Residents of San Francisco are suing developers who want to construct a high-rise structure near the Ferry Building — a structure that will prevent nearby residents from seeing San Francisco Bay.
In Hollywood, residents are complaining about the planned construction of tall buildings that will block views of the Hollywood Hills and the iconic Hollywood sign.
For several months, residents of Danville have been showing up in droves to object to plans to impose so-called stack and pack housing on the East Bay town. Angry residents have been appearing at meetings of Danville’s planning commission and the city council.
Citizen-based movements are springing up in Lafayette, Orinda and Moraga to protest plans to create stack and pack housing in downtown areas.
On February 9, the Contra Costa Times reported that residents of Livermore have convinced a real estate developer to scrap plans to construct, in their city, apartments and town houses.
On February 1, the online version of the Contra Costa Times reported that a Moraga city council member favors a moratorium on real estate development in that town.
The February 8 issue of The Wall Street Journal featured an article on what a home with a view is worth. The Journal reported that a home with a view can be worth 94 percent to 133 percent more than a home without a view. In some cases, according to the Journal, a view can add about 300 percent to the value of a home.
In the Bay Area, unelected bureaucracies such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) have been dictating housing plans to local communities. These bureaucracies are threatening to cut off funds for local road-repair efforts unless local communities comply with the housing demands set by the bureaucracies.
Bill Gram-Reefer is Editor & Publisher of Halfway To Concord, founded in 2004. Halfway To Concord is the leading online source for community-driven political news, events, and opinion for Contra Costa County and the San Francisco East Bay.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Palo Alto fights state mandate for more housing
This is cross-posted on the Sustainable Development article from a few days ago. It’s worth repeating because this article explains the impacts of “smart growth” on California residents.
———————————————————
As if California needed any more nails hammered into its economic coffin: This OC Register article by Joel Kotkin explains why the “smart growth” movement — isn’t. Particularly for California.
Read. It. All.
See: http://bit.ly/Z2JiBX
Here’s an excerpt:
“If California is not willing to meet the needs of its own emerging middle class, there’s no doubt that other states, from Arizona and Texas to Tennessee – although not as fundamentally alluring – will be, and are already, more than happy to oblige.
“. . . Some of the urban-centric residential construction now being put up will, as occurred in the housing bust, may be fashionable but, in some cases, not so profitable over time . . .
“The planners now dominating the Bay Area want only highly dense bus-stop- or train-oriented development in the valley. Yet, notes real estate consultant John Burns, this does not reflect market realities marked by what they describe ‘as a resilient and ongoing preference for single-family homes.’
“Forced densification, by denying single-family alternatives, is likely, and in some places, already is, spiking prices, which are up $85,000 in Silicon Valley in a year. This, over time, will force millennials, as they age, to look for other locales to meet their longtime aspirations . . . . more than twice as many millennials prefer suburbs over dense cities as their ‘ideal place to live.’
“Rather than seeking to destroy our suburbs, California leaders should expend their energy figuring out how to make them better. Rather than some retro-1900s urbanist vision, they need to embrace the multipolarity of our urban agglomerations . . .
“Instead of attempting to force employment into the center city, it would make more sense to expand home-based and dispersed work in order to cut down or eliminate commuting times. These moves would create both healthier suburbs and reduce carbon emissions without devastating the natural aspirations of most California families.”