Post

Conversation

Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
I have been SHOCKED at how many roof decks there are in NYC compared to SF, despite SF’s milder weather. The reason: regulation. I tried adding a deck to my place in SF and found multiple layers of well-meaning regulation that would turn a simple project into a bureacratic obstacle course, so I didn’t proceed. 1) Because the building is over 50 years old, I need a historical review. That means hiring a consultant to produce a Historic Resource Evaluation, assessing architectural style, historical significance, and more. The Planning Department then has to sign off. 2) Next comes neighbor notification- I have to alert nearby properties, and even people who can’t see the deck can request a discretionary review that delays or blocks the project. 3) And the deck must be invisible from the street to avoid “disrupting neighborhood character,” which severely limits size, layout, and usability. In NYC? You need a permit but if you aren’t changing use of the building there is no review. In SF, we treat our entire city like it’s an artifact in a museum of imagined history. You’d think a city obsessed with outdoor space and climate action might allow more use of its sunniest real estate. But the bias is toward inaction, preservation, and process over outcome… So we have stagnation (and a little less fun)
Image
255.1K
Views
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
A lot of people are saying the regulations aren't well-meaning. They're wrong. These are well-intentioned rules that did achieve their goals, but I think they’ve gone too far. Take historical review: it's rooted in a desire to preserve San Francisco’s character. And to be fair,
9.9K
Alex Miller
@alexlmiller
None of those reasons really seem “well meaning”. Especially since residential roof decks are among the most natural and people focused amenities a place could have
3.5K
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Quote
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Replying to @pitdesi
A lot of people are saying the regulations aren't well-meaning. They're wrong. These are well-intentioned rules that did achieve their goals, but I think they’ve gone too far. Take historical review: it's rooted in a desire to preserve San Francisco’s character. And to be fair,
Show more
1.7K
Jimmy Gandhi
@jimmygandhi
RE NYC: this is not true. Roof decks require permits. And in most commercial spaces and apartment buildings, you need to provide elevator access to the roof which effectively kills the project.
4.3K
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Think I mentioned that- the difference is no historical review or neighbor approval and it can be visible from the street. A friend got an alt-2 approval in nyc in 2 weeks, just had to submit paperwork online. In San Francisco you have to go in person and it takes a year
3.7K
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
weather is part of it for sure but any day that dolores park is packed would be a great day for a roof deck and there are a lot of those days! I I'm speaking from my personal experience in the mission where it's sunny - I want a roof deck on my place!
6.4K
Brian Martinez
@beugmartin
Sheel, curious why you moved to NYC? BTV/The Mint being one for the best early-stage fintech investors, makes sense to be in NYC. But curious!
4K
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
NYC is a great place for fintech, so I came out here for a few months for The Mint. I will be back in SF in June but always spend a decent amount of time in New York.
3.4K
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Quote
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Replying to @pitdesi
A lot of people are saying the regulations aren't well-meaning. They're wrong. These are well-intentioned rules that did achieve their goals, but I think they’ve gone too far. Take historical review: it's rooted in a desire to preserve San Francisco’s character. And to be fair,
Show more
460
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Quote
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Replying to @pitdesi
A lot of people are saying the regulations aren't well-meaning. They're wrong. These are well-intentioned rules that did achieve their goals, but I think they’ve gone too far. Take historical review: it's rooted in a desire to preserve San Francisco’s character. And to be fair,
Show more
403
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
I mean he’s been in office for 4 months. I don’t think this should top his list of priorities but the supervisors are making progress on similar legislation, like not requiring windows to be in the style of the original building
Image
1.9K
Moose
@mmoooose
Why do you say the regulations are "well meaning"? Do you have any evidence that they are well meaning?
181
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Quote
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Replying to @pitdesi
A lot of people are saying the regulations aren't well-meaning. They're wrong. These are well-intentioned rules that did achieve their goals, but I think they’ve gone too far. Take historical review: it's rooted in a desire to preserve San Francisco’s character. And to be fair,
Show more
168
butnotthearmadillo
@armadillolov
Why do you assume these measures are “well-meaning” when many seem designed specifically so the city can act as an HOA while claiming it is for some moral virtue but really they want to be able to control what people can do and know how to game the system?
133
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Quote
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Replying to @pitdesi
A lot of people are saying the regulations aren't well-meaning. They're wrong. These are well-intentioned rules that did achieve their goals, but I think they’ve gone too far. Take historical review: it's rooted in a desire to preserve San Francisco’s character. And to be fair,
Show more
141
A.M.
@andrewmoti
Have there been any incremental positive related changes with the new Board of Supervisors?
18
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Quote
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Replying to @pitdesi
A lot of people are saying the regulations aren't well-meaning. They're wrong. These are well-intentioned rules that did achieve their goals, but I think they’ve gone too far. Take historical review: it's rooted in a desire to preserve San Francisco’s character. And to be fair,
Show more
135
Iñaki Longa
@InakiLonga
This thread showed to me right below yours:
Quote
Lee Fang
@lhfang
Seven years ago, San Francisco's 24 Calle, a neighborhood group sanctioned by the city with de facto control over part of the Mission, protested and successfully blocked Cinderella Bakery -- founded by a Russian Jewish immigrant -- because the bakery didn't fit the correct Latino
Show more
51
Moses Kagan
@moseskagan
Buildings in NYC usually have steal frames and serious foundations, and are sitting on bedrock SF buildings are mostly wood frame, which can't handle the additional load, particularly in a seismically active area
751
Josh Constine 📶🔥
@JoshConstine
It all stems from well-meaning attempts to prevent the wholesale destruction of parks and actually historic places back when they wanted to pave Golden Gate Park and the Sierra Club adjacent folks stopped them, but they’ve metastasized into civic torpor
638
dick costolo
@dickc
i would argue with "well-meaning" ...the regulatory burden on doing anything in california is extraordinary and rarely prevents great harm. New york has its own versions of this; the roofdecks are just something the NY politicians havent yet figured out how to grift. dont give
526
Andrew Jeffery
@credealjunkie
Dead right on the reason - my experience though is despite the allure, roof decks in SF are the most underused building amenity (other than Fleet Week!). Still not sure why though - they’re the best!
760
Aaron VanDevender🔬
@APVanDevender
The SF planning regulations are horrendous and the planning culture is regressive, but also it's easier to add a deck to a brick building than a wood frame. The foundation can support the weight. SF is mostly wood, whereas NY is more brick and masonry.
57
👨‍💻 James Augeri, PhD
@DotDotJames
NYC great in this regard skyline setbacks in Baltimore's inner harbor another inspo if looking to fix SF's zoning laws on roof decks, patios, etc. and true over time in Balti on their new and old buildings
104
Zach Tratar
@zachtratar
@DanielLurie
this is obviously med-low priority, but roof decks would be a major upgrade for SF — they compound the natural beauty, encourage community, boost home values, and unlock new spend on the city. And 2, this could be one example of a T shaped regulation invention.
87
Normal Guy
@juststopact
In SF I got an info packet from the gov of maybe like 30 pages asking for my input because my neighbor wanted to put a roof deck on their building. The system is designed to throw a wrench in any building project you have in the city, big or small.
169
melody kim
@melodyskim
i think the real reason is that it’s actually too cold/windy most days of the year (strongly correlated with the fact that you can rarely wear shorts in sf)
96
fnnch
@fnnch
The city made us put a super expensive and annoying roof hatch instead of a sensible exterior staircase. The rule is no exterior staircase more than 40’ from grade. Ours wasn’t, but it was to the front of the property line, and they were unmovable.
425
Jerry T
@JerryTurin
Probably true. Might also be other factors like legacy buildings in NY from the time of less air conditioning, hot humid summers, desperate need for residents to have some outdoor relief. So it became part of the culture and design. Unlike SF with mild summers and cool evening
20
Jori Lallo
@jorilallo
NYC will also require more steps if the building is in landmarked district; on top of building permits you’ll need landsmarks to clear and any additions can’t be visible from streets. Still easier; no neighbour notification or hearings, and no historic review, just landmarks
674
Adam Bossy-Mendoza
@abossy
I own a 160-year-old building in NYC and LOVE old character and what we’ve preserved in our cities but am also disappointed by our fetishization of it. The bones of my neighborhood are amazing and sell at a massive premium in the housing market - and sadly, are illegal to
60
Jason Hess
@JasonH3ss
NYC has landmarked districts that would require review. A lot of brownstone Brooklyn is landmarked. Did hear about the above ground pool that was on a roof in Williamsburg? Some regs are there for a reason.
27
Falsifier 🙃
@PrefFalsifier
Our neighbor had to do foundation work during covid when I was stuck at home all day. Constant noise. Now I am against all new construction projects. I’m full NIMBY boomer
167
🐝 Carol Walsh ^Monterey Bay^
@CarolWalshReal1
Look I love historic preservation it's my jam but this is the kind of bs that just makes people hate it. You have a building that might be 50 years or older that doesn't mean it's special. And SF come on you telling me you can't just look up on the list of buildings which
299
Kent Lindstrom
@kentlind
We have a roof deck in the Mission -- I can stand on it and look around and see very few roof decks. One theory -- lots of rental buildings, and landlords do not want a roof deck on a rental building. However 2 new buildings have gone up recently, both with yuge roof decks.
606
Iñaki Longa
@InakiLonga
I’m hesitant to call the regulations “well-intended.” Maybe the original intent was good decades ago—but today, the consequences are disastrous. Prolonged inaction by omission isn’t “well-intended.” It’s neglect. In particular anything that is 'discretionary' (aka corruptible).
25
Varun Arora
@itsvarora
This kind of regulatory gridlock is such a recurring problem in SF. But I wonder — has (1) actually gotten easier now thanks to LLMs? My understanding of "Historic Resource Evaluations" is that they're just formulaic documents dressed up in consultant-speak. If they're mostly
50
FutureUnion
@_futureunion_
@pitdesi
you just be in the “sunny” part of the city (brrr the coming “summer” :). One reason is as nice as SF is, warm is one what I’d equate with say a proper summer of a more normal city. Not an indictment on the rationale as I’d want a roofdeck too but if it was 80 and sunny
24
rolo - eu/acc
@rolottr
First time in SF this week. The city is in ruins and can't believe how bad maintained every building is. I imagine just fixing the street facades are a nightmare in bureaucracy
11
Rajiv
@LawTeck
> "I found multiple layers of well-meaning regulation" It's not well-meaning, or even the product of good intentions.
231
Martin Lavin
@Real_SF
I think if you look at the detail in the pdf Residential Deck Guidelines from planning, you will see you can get around most of these issues. Maybe not the exact deck you want. Also, scout around for an advisor who works with SF planning. Good luck
3
David Ellis
@So_Dellisious
It shouldn't be a huge surprise that historic designations, discretionary review, and to a lesser extent street-view are the main tools of the city's parasitic non-profit complex that tries to stop new housing/amenities unless they get bribed.
70
hereforthecomments
@hereforthecom19
nobody ever sits on the decks. and SF is not mild weather. it's cold., low humidity. turns out it's windy on the decks. people say they want them - look up / look down on decks in nyc - no one EVER on them.
86
Zachary Kimball
@zacharykimball
Wow. Over 50 years needs a historic resource evaluation! 😂😳🙄 Only a city primarily built in the last 100 years would ever consider that historic. Pretty sure NYC (and all of Europe!) would laugh at us.
55
Deepak
@deciblast
Oakland should have a lot of roof decks. We have the best weather in the country. When I visited Seattle, most new build town homes and multi family had roof decks.
114
Thomas L M
@MorganSeaport
I’m Boston we have tons of roof decks. They are everywhere. If you want to add one it could run into some roadblocks (neighbors, easier if it is for 1 unit as opposed to an entire building)
50
Reid Greer
@jreidgreer
"over 50 years old" We are such a non-serious city. Oh goodness no please don't change the character of a building from 1975.
70
Bort M
@bort17
Maybe residents in SF value the character of their city over frivolous roof decks? Nothing wrong with a little red tape since roof decks aren't a necessity. Developers put them everywhere in other cities and people barely use them. It's not hard to get them elswhere if you want
5
Benjamin Lindstrom
@BlackbeardBen
That looks amazing. One thing I really appreciate is European cities which seamlessly integrate historical districts with changing architecture and needs. Allowing historic buildings to be updated with modern features, and when needed, replaced by modern buildings, is key.
60
🅾️5️⃣©️🅰️®️
@oscarjr
maybe it's neighborhood-specific, because have you been to any of the rooftop bars in SF? are we forgetting how fucking cold and foggy and windy it is up on the rooftops? 🌬🥶 I'm looking at you, ElTecho; Charmaines; Kaiyo; Shelby's.
24
Richard Haimann 💙🌼✳️ ℹ️ 💦🚰🌊🫧
@ecoengr
The 50-yr rule might have made some sense in 1975, but now 1975 is 50 years ago. So, we want to preserve the age of boxed functional no-facade architecture and formica?
6
Raw Phood Podcast🇺🇸
@rawphood
All of these regulations and none of them involve ensuring you’re building a roof deck that can withstand seismic activity. smh. That’s like the one part that should be regulated.
7
david
@sanbrunamo
it needs a historic review if it’s built in 1975? that’s beyond stupid. San Francisco housing is only for the rich and fixing something in your house is only for the really, really rich.
19
Olga
@olgaMosSfo
Having gone through this entire process I have to say roof decks in SF are overrated- just too cold and windy. We are barely using ours. Try doing historic resource evaluation report yourself- I discovered a lot on the way and enjoyed the process
8